Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will address three points. The first is Senator McDowell's amendment. I am not suggesting the amendment will change the substance of the policy or content of the Bill, it is simply a sense that replacing the sections and changing subsection numbers might create a difficulty. It is important that every Member is clear about what has changed, to try to avoid any confusion with references to subsections. Report Stage is scheduled for next Friday and I am happy that we can re-examine that or look at the Interpretation Act 2005 and consider it before then. We can discuss it further by Friday. This is just to avoid any confusion between subsections and references. The advice I have is that this is the best approach and practice in that regard.

With regard to protections in the context of identifying accused children, I believe they are strong in the Bill. Section 93 applies beyond the proceedings. That is not to say that an application cannot be made at a later date to dispense with any protections in a case where there is a deceased child. Obviously, a court will have to decide on that. The Bill does not prevent that from happening at all. I should add with regard to the dispensing provision to allow the deceased child to be named that the court would have an inherent jurisdiction to make a specific order in such a situation. The language itself, in referencing the Senator's amendments and subsection (3) in Senator McDowell's Bill, would widen the basis on which protections would be dispensed with generally, not just with regard to the deceased child. Where the court is dispensing with provisions generally, the best interests of the child standard is more appropriate, which allows for balancing the various interests that are being discussed.

We are not seeking to change the purpose of section 252. It should be to continue to protect the interests of the child or the children who are involved. The best interests principle is not necessarily going to usurp all other interests in a particular case.As has been mentioned, in a particular case there may be other competing interests at stake, such as children, parents or indeed the public interest. However, the public interest may not always be the appropriate standard, and it can be difficult to reconcile it with the best interests of the child. I have taken on board Senator McDowell's comments. Perhaps we can see if there is some flexibility that can be provided to allow for such nuances. It is most important. I accept the point that by naming a child who is a victim where their sibling is deceased, it may not necessarily harm that child, but the court needs to be able to take that scenario into account and to allow for these types of nuanced situations. Between now and Friday, I am happy to look into whether there is some flexibility in language that can be used to try and deal with such nuances. However, in relation to section 93, the legislation is strong in that regard. I will seek to get some case law to point to the fact that it also applies after proceedings. I am assured that that is the case and it has been the case. I can come back to the Senator on that point in particular.