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

I thank all of the Senators for their contributions, particularly Senator McDowell. I have reflected on the points from last week and I appreciate the spirit of co-operation there has been. Senator McDowell's amendment has not been put forward to change policy or the context but to change the form. I know there are merits to this approach and it is not that we just go with what the norm is because that is the way it has always been done and therefore that is the way it should be done in the future. There are a number of disadvantages in this instance, however, to changing the format.

As Senator Seery Kearney has outlined, we are dealing with the section that should be known by those who are mostly affected by it. The changes we are talking about are in reference to the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Birmingham. The approach we have adopted on Committee Stage clearly shows what changes are being made to section 252. That is what people want to know. They want to know how we will restore the law to what people thought it was before the last ruling. Our amendment is clear. People can look at it and know that what we are amending will bring about the changes we have set out, namely that parents can name their children and that anybody who is now an adult who wishes to name himself or herself, having gone through a process as a child, can do so. This also applies retrospectively.

I mention the fact that Senator McDowell's amendments renumber key subsections so that there is no correlation between them. That will make it more difficult for previous judgments, academic texts and commentary to follow those subsections. For example, subsection 2 would become subsection 5. It is important that we keep that correlation in place. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel is responsible for drafting the legislation and ensuring consistency. It is important that where possible and where it is the best approach to do so, we keep that consistency. As I have said, it should not be the case that because we have always done something a particular way that this is the way it needs to be done in the future. However, for the reasons I have outlined, in this instance it is appropriate to follow that route.

It has been mentioned that the Law Reform Commission prepares a consolidated version of Acts, and will do so for this Act. Once this Act is hopefully passed in short order, that will bring all of this together and it will be clear and understandable in that format. This consolidated text will be available to everybody, including to journalists in particular, in due course.

Subsection 2A, which is amending subsection (2), is being inserted to ensure a court will not dispense with the requirements of subsection (1) without considering the interests of the other child who perhaps is a witness. For the example Senator McDowell has outlined, when a child is in a bedroom with another child who is murdered, it does not apply. Subsection 2A does not apply where there is only one child and where that child is deceased. However, if there is another child present, the court has to look at the possible negative impacts or consequences it might have. It does not restrict the court and there is flexibility to be able to name one child and not another. That is how it is set out in subsection 2A. It will not apply if the only child involved is deceased or if there is only one living child involved it will only apply when two or more children are involved. If the application is made to dispense with the application of subsection (1) with respect to one child, the court has to consider how this will impact on the other child but it has the flexibility to do so. I reassure the Senator and the House that this flexibility is there and that it is not just the best interests of the child that have to be taken into account but other circumstances as well.I hope that clarifies matters.