Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

The suggestion is made in amendment No. 17 that we replace the term "refuses to" with "does not". There are further consequent and related amendments. In my view, it is almost impossible to change the language of a Bill without, as Senator Bacik suggested, changing its meaning. If we use the term "refuses to" in one section and "does not" in another, inevitably that contrast will be pointed out by lawyers and it will be assumed the Oireachtas meant one thing in one section and something else in another section.

While I am sympathetic to the concept, I believe there is an absolute obligation on us to underline the seriousness of the refusal or failure - whatever the phrase one chooses to use - of a mother to provide the name of the father, if at all possible. We must remember this is a child centred policy from which so much flows. A child has a right to know his or her father. We must underline that seriousness by the inclusion of these words. They are not meant as an admonition but are used to underline the seriousness of this issue. As Senator Bacik stated, there may be many reasons this has come to pass. While some people may be offended by these words others might be encouraged by them to reveal the father's name or identity, which is in the child's interest.

While I accept the motivation of the amendment, to safeguard children's human rights the wording used must remain.