Phil Prendergast (Labour)

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 36, line 41, after "oath" to insert "or affirmation".

The Interpretation Act 2005 does not state that the oath includes affirmation. However, it contains the rider that it includes affirmation only for those entitled to affirm. The law should be clarified in this regard and that is why we have tabled amendment No. 57.

On amendment No. 58, the relevant subsection in the Bill is ambiguous. If a question of custody falls to be decided, it must be decided under the general law of custody set out in the Guardianship Act. While section 3 of that Act sets out the principle that the welfare of a child is a first and paramount consideration, it is apparent that this is not the only consideration. In particular, custody cannot be awarded to someone who is not entitled to it. This is a confusing ambiguity to introduce into the Bill because it disingenuously suggests that even if an adoption order were declared invalid, custody could remain with the adopting parents rather than the natural parents by virtue of the welfare principle. The latter is inappropriate and misleading.