Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge Senator Walsh and thank him for the engagement that took place during the week. We tried to work in a co-operative manner to move things forward. I would like to address amendments Nos. 1 and 3 in the first instance. The registration of stillbirth was first provided for in the Stillbirths Registration Act 1994. The definition of stillbirth contained in that Act was carried forward to the Civil Registration Act 2004. The registration of stillbirth is provided for in section 28 of the 2004 Act.

When the Act was introduced in 1994, it was primarily to afford comfort to bereaved parents. For this reason, it was felt that the definition of stillbirth would be as wide as possible consistent with accepted medical norms. During the passage of the Act, detailed consideration was given by the Oireachtas as to what the most appropriate definition of stillbirth should be. The definition of a stillborn child is contained in section 2(1) of the 2004 Act and provides that a stillborn child means a child who, at birth, weighs not less than 500 grammes or has a gestational age of not less than 24 weeks and shows no sign of life as the Senator has outlined. The position varies from country to country and some countries use gestational age while others use weight or a combination of both. For international comparative purposes, the WHO recommends that a stillbirth be defined as the birth of a baby that shows no sign of life at or after 20 weeks.

We have had those discussions and I have listened to the Senator very carefully.

It is in light of the issues raised by Senator Walsh regarding the scenario where the death of the mother results in the death of the child in uteroand where the child satisfies the stillbirth criteria in respect of age or weight that consideration is being given to an amendment which may be tabled on Committee Stage in the Dáil in respect of the definition of a stillbirth under the 2004 Act. However, in the short time available since the Senator's amendment was tabled, we have not been able to fully scope the unforeseen or unintended consequences of changing the definition or whether such a change is required. As the matter is complex and will require detailed legal advice, I do not propose to accept the amendments.
I recognise the good intentions of the Senator in trying to bring forward a solution to this problem, but we need to take time. It is a complex matter which requires detailed legal advice. Before I came to the House I told the Senator I would be happy to discuss this further with him as the advice comes along. The amendments have been tabled at short notice. That is a result of the procedures of the House and I do not intend that comment as a sign of blame. However, we will work on this over the coming weeks.
I refer to the amendment with regard to the registration by a superintendent or registrar of a death in the circumstances outlined. Procedures for the registration of deaths are provided for under Part 5 of the Civil Registration Act 2004. Under section 41, where a death is referred to a coroner, the death is registered by a registrar on foot of a certificate provided by the coroner containing the required particulars of the death. Under section 42, when a death occurs, it is registered on foot of a certificate of cause of death supplied by a registered medical practitioner who attended the deceased. These are the only circumstances in which a death can be registered by the registrar. We must be clear and precise because we must uphold the integrity of the register. There cannot be a grey area in which a registrar can register a death outside these procedures in the absence of a certificate of death provided by either a medical practitioner or a coroner in cases in which the family requests that the death be registered. The maintenance of the integrity of the register is of the utmost importance. We need either the coroner or a doctor to certify the death. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.