Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I agree with the Minister that provision is made in sections 26 and 27. However, to give effect to that, section 13(1)(b) must be amended to include the same wording as section 13(1)(a), namely after "State" to insert "or to which section 26 or 27 applies". If this amendment is not accepted, the anomaly is quite obvious. The Bill in itself becomes contradictory which, to say the least, is bad law. The implication in the two sections would be that stillbirths could only be registered in the State as opposed to the system of foreign registration or registration of foreign stillbirths. More significant confusion could arise as to which register of foreign stillbirths registrations should be entered on. There are separate births and stillbirths registers and under section 13 the stillbirths register is confined to the State. It might be argued that a foreign stillbirth should be registered on the births register.

If the wording in this amendment is not accepted, it will make a nonsense of section 13(1)(a). The sole intention of this amendment is to improve the Bill from that viewpoint. As the Minister has quite correctly said, the provision exists in sections 26 and 27 but if the wording is not included in section 13(1)(b), it contradicts the wording of section 13(1)(a), thus leading to bad law. The contrast is there for all to see.

Section 13 refers to sections 26 and 27 but the wording is not there with respect to this issue. It is inherently contradictory and I believe it will lead to a degree of confusion as to the correct register to be used. The Minister needs to accept this amendment. Initially the Bill did not provide for this but as the amendment was accepted in the Lower House, such provision exists. In order to give full effect to it, technically speaking, section 13(1)(b) will require to be amended accordingly.