Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

We have had significant discussions about the definitions used in terms of what we all know, recognise and speak of as illegal birth registrations - there was illegality involved in many such adoptions - and the use of the word "incorrect" in the legislation. I made the point that in my communications and those of the Government, in which we have engaged extensively with groups of people who have been subject to illegal birth registrations, we have always used that language of "illegal birth registrations". I also made the point that we want to ensure people who were subject to illegal birth registrations can use this legislation and that they are defined within the category of those to whom it applies. We want to make sure people who believe they were subject to illegal birth registration are included. Tusla identified 141 such persons from St. Patrick's Guild but we know there are others who have very good reasons to believe they also were subject to an illegal birth registration. We want to ensure as many people as possible can fit within the criteria and definitions of people who can use the provisions of the Bill, including both the existing provisions and some new ones I am introducing via Committee Stage amendment today, particularly the tracing amendment to which Deputy Bacik referred.

As we have said throughout this debate, the concern is that putting the phrase "illegal birth registrations" in the legislation creates a very high bar to reach. It would require someone to demonstrate that he or she was the subject of such an illegal registration. That is why we use the word "incorrect", which is a broader term. I know this has caused concern and, in my communications on it, I always have tried to show that the sole reason for this is to ensure the definition is wide in order that as many people as possible can fall within the provisions of the Bill and be able potentially to use them to identify finally and conclusively whether they were the subject of an illegal birth registration. One of the provisions we are bringing in today, as referenced by the Deputy, will strengthen the ability of an individual to look back and see whether he or she was subject to an illegal birth registration and also will enable the Minister to direct Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland to undertake such a trace-back. That is really important and it is a significant change both for individuals and for the Minister.

Deputy Funchion spoke about amendment No. 2. The amendment does not change a specific definition, to be upfront on that, but by bringing in this very substantial change to the Succession Act 1965, there is, I hope, a further demonstration by the Government of our recognition of what was done to people who were subject to illegal birth registration and of the need to make extensive and novel legal changes to address their very difficult situation. It goes beyond the absolutely traumatic emotional impact of the revelation to which they have been subject, encompassing the very difficult legal situation in which people subject to illegal birth registration have been put.

On Committee Stage, recognising there was concern about the use solely of the word "incorrect", which might somehow be seen as a diminution or a glossing over of what happened in terms of illegal birth registrations, we brought forward an amendment, which was similar enough to an amendment brought forward by Deputy Bacik and others. The proposed section 54, as per our amendment No. 77, provides that the 1965 Act will be amended to state that, "[for] the purposes of this Act, a person is an affected person" where there has been the "giving of information that was false or misleading" in respect of the naming of the mother. We have added the term "false or misleading" to the definition of the people who are affected, thereby recognising that there was falsity and, in many cases, a deliberate effort to misrepresent the relationships involved.

We looked at the issue again since Committee Stage and I asked my officials to examine whether any of the changes Deputies are bringing forward today could be made. The response from the Office of the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel was that the proposals put forward would act to undermine the clarity and inclusivity of the Bill. Much as I would like to take these amendments, we believe they would undermine the clarity and inclusivity of the Bill. I want the Bill to be accessible to as many people as possible who have questions on their identity. We want the wrongness of what happened to people to be recognised. I believe we have gone a significant way to do that in the amendments I brought forward on Committee Stage. I accept that some people who have been subject to this treatment do not agree, but I have looked at this and have gone as far as I believe can go to address the language used while, at the same time, in every thing I have said and everything the Government has done, we have recognised the illegality of what happened.

See this speech in context