Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

- "the Bill be read a second time this day 9 months to allow for comprehensive consideration of the implications of the Bill."

I note the comments of Senator Boyhan. In fairness, this amendment is not about opposing the Bill. Rather, it is about ensuring it is given full consideration, as is expected of us. As Senator O'Loughlin said, it is important to acknowledge the work that has been done here previously by others. I was not a Member of this House when Terry Leyden was a Member. He had an excellent reputation as a Senator. It is important for him that we follow through on the discussion on this Bill. I acknowledge Senator Boyhan in bringing this Bill forward and the passion with which he delivered it. There are an awful lot of people in this House who share his views on the complications that can arise in relation to wills. I come from a farming family. We have some land that has been handed down within the family over six or seven generations.One is only a custodian of land for a period and then it is passed on. We all know of situations where what has been expected to happen has not actually happened and families have been left in a very difficult situation. We all know of families or people in communities who have experienced difficulties so it is extremely important for people with land to make a clear and definite last will.

When the Bill was first proposed in 2005 it gave rise to two issues. First, which Department would take responsibility for it and, second, the validity of the voluntary scheme for registering wills as proposed. The Law Society of Ireland was asked for its view in 2005, as Senator O'Loughlin said. It was asked for proposals on the basis that no scheme could succeed without the support of solicitors. The society strongly opposed the Bill on a number of grounds. The society pointed out that as the proposed registration is to be voluntary, it would have limited effect in remedying some existing deficiencies. The society also observed that registration does not guarantee that the registered will is the last will, which is a key point. The most the proposed registration system could achieve would be to confirm that a particular will was registered on a particular day. Furthermore, registration is not proof of validity; to be valid, a will must comply with statutory requirements.

In general, the Law Society opposed the Bill both in terms of day-to-day practicality and the infringement of certain legal principles. The only significance between the 2005 Bill, subsequent Bills in 2011 and 2016, and this Bill in 2021 was the insertion of a new section which provided that the registration or non-registration of wills could not be evidence or provide any presumption of the existence of a will or the evidence of any particulars entered in the registered will. The new section attempts to address the deficiencies brought to people's attention during the debate on the 2005 Bill in the Seanad. The amendments did not address the deficiencies in any substantial manner and left the Bill in a weaker position with those bodies that operate to an evidentiary standard with respect to official records. That is the key reason we have brought forward the amendment today. It is to give a timeframe to discuss the complexities of this matter. I know what the Minister has said about the timeframe but nine months is not a long time. This Bill is very important and I hope that the Minister can give it her support. As far as I am aware, most of the parties here are not going to oppose this Bill. Everyone supports the topic being raised and supports discussing it further. However, it is important to have the right legislation and that is why there is a request for more time.

I welcome the opportunity that I have been given to speak about this legislation. I also acknowledge the contribution and work done by Senators. I look forward to listening to the rest of the contributions.