Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, and his officials to the House and wish the Minister of State every success in his Ministry.

Before we commence, I remind Members that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of the amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded. Amendment No. 1, in the names of Senators Walsh and Mooney, arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I object to discussing the amendments together.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The matter has been examined by the officials and this is their recommendation.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What if the proposers of the amendments object? I will be honest in stating the reason for my objection is that I do not have a seconder at the moment and taking the amendments individually would allow me to get a seconder.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take the amendments individually if that is the Senator's wish.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is my wish.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is agreed.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
" "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, and "stillbirth" shall be construed accordingly. These also include an unborn child who dies in the womb of the mother due to death of the mother but otherwise meets the weight or age criteria herein;”.

It is for that reason that I am making this case to the Minister of State. From our discussions on the last occasion and our discussions in the Minister of State's office, I think that he is sympathetic to the arguments being made.

I know that in all such situations, there are always concerns about the consequences if we do this. However, the amendment is very clear. First of all, it recognises that the mother has died so it is a situation where the mother has died and where having been removed from the mother, that baby meets the same criteria as currently exists for stillborn babies - either the weight or age of gestation at least matches the minimum in current legislation. I have to say that I find it difficult to envisage circumstances where there would be other ramifications because it is very specific. The mother must have died for whatever reason and the baby in the womb, which obviously is dead otherwise this issue would not arise, meets either a weight or a gestational period criterion which already exists in our legislation. I make a strong appeal to the Minister of State to accept this particular amendment, which may be the easier of the amendments to accept. It is very clear and possibly brings about the least amount of change to existing legislation. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment. We had an exhaustive debate on this with the Minister of State and I know that Senator Walsh has said that the Minister of State met with him subsequent to the debate and discussed this. Subsequent to the previous debate, I was reminded of just how emotive this issue is for parents and grandparents. I was reminded that my first cousin had a late miscarriage some years ago which I had forgotten about. The miscarriage coincided with the death of her father so they may have been related. What I particularly remember about the funeral is that the unborn baby was placed in the coffin alongside her grandfather and the unborn baby was named and treated as a living entity by the parents - as a real person. It occurred to me that if that particular event was experienced by that family, how many other families across the country feel the same, have adopted the same course of action and hold and treasure the memory of what they accept as a living being.

I appreciate that the circumstances and context for Senator Walsh's amendment are somewhat different but all of this has the same emotional impact on those involved. As Senator Walsh has outlined, I hope that there would be some legal framework that would accommodate Senator Walsh's amendment, prevent the sadness and discomfort that has surrounded this particular case and many cases like it and bring closure of some sort - at least the closure of a chapter for the surviving grandparents.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to the content of amendment No. 4. I agree with much of what Senator Walsh said but I cannot support amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I do not think they are nuanced enough in the first instance and I would also be reluctant to get into a debate about the definition of the unborn child as well in the context of this Bill. I know the Minister has been lobbied and we certainly have been lobbied by the grandfather whose daughter died. Obviously, his granddaughter died as well. The daughter was seven months pregnant and was killed in a car accident. I know it would have meant an awful lot for that family to be able to register the granddaughter and I think that is a reasonable request.

Our amendment basically gives the family a choice. If the family wants to register the child in any instance, it will be given the opportunity to do so. I do know that for some families that may not be a choice they would want. It might add to the grief but for those who do, I genuinely believe they should have the option. I will not delay the Minister of State. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. The Minister of State has rehearsed this on Second and Committee Stages but we feel amendment No. 4 is worded better than amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and we think it is a better fix or fit.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone else wish to speak on these amendments? Otherwise they cannot speak after the Minister of State responds.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am disappointed that the amendment is not being accepted. I appreciate the dilemma raised by him, which we briefly touched on yesterday. In the short time we have had it has been difficult for him to obtain legal advice and examine any unintended consequences that may occur and that we cannot identify at this stage. The case for doing this is compelling. As the Minister of State correctly pointed out, the registration of stillbirths was introduced to recognise the distress and trauma of parents and to provide some comfort to them by registering the birth of stillborn babies.

A criterion of a weight of 500 grams was included to define such a baby. Molly Enright weighed approximately 2,200 grams. A gestational period of 24 weeks was also provided for, and Molly Enright had a gestational period of 29 weeks. She therefore meets both criteria. Her mother, Mary, was unfortunately killed in a tragic traffic accident which involved a suicide, and the baby was lost. There are other circumstances in which this can occur, but this circumstance occurs from time to time. The same response from the point of view of comfort for the parents of stillborn babies applies in this circumstance. She left behind a father and a grandfather who, in particular, have taken up the cudgels on this and who have been in touch with many politicians, including the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. The case was taken up with the Minister for Justice and Equality at the coroners' conference last weekend. Most politicians - the Minister of State has epitomised this well - are sympathetic to this compelling argument.

The Minister of State is dealing with the first Bill he has introduced in either House, and I understand he must be cautious in this regard. I am also conscious that the leader of Sinn Féin in the House stated that he would not support the amendments. I am caught in a dilemma as to whether I should press them. There is a practical issue in that if I do not have Sinn Féin support, there is not much hope of getting them through anyway. In withdrawing them, I am depending on the Minister of State's bona fides, and when the legislation is taken in the Dáil, I ask him to table a Government amendment, which will be automatically passed. The fact that he has offered the opportunity to me and perhaps members of the family to meet and discuss the issue with him before we get to that stage gives me hope. Knowing him as I do, I am confident that we will have a positive outcome. I hope we will.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 37, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“Amendment of Adoption Act 2010
36.Section 89 of the Adoption Act 2010 is amended in subsection (2) to now read "A certificate referred to in subsection (1) must disclose that the person to whom the certificate relates is an adopted person.".".

Article 8 further states, "Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity." The difficulty in my view is that in an ideal scenario the fact that a child is adopted should never be an issue. A child should never not know that he or she is adopted. In most cases the child does not remember the moment he or she was told this fact because it was never a secret. I do not regard that being adopted is a stigma in the Ireland of today. However, there are some parents - I know such people and I know from cases I deal with - who will conceal the fact that the child is adopted. The State cannot collude with that concealment. For example, a parent applying for an adopted child's birth certificate will be asked if he or she wishes this fact to be stated on the birth certificate. Such a parent can say that he or she wants no trace of that fact on the birth certificate. Therefore, the birth certificate will be, so to speak, clean. The parents will obtain a passport for the child and any renewal only requires the expired passport so there is no need to present the birth certificate.
Only when an adult undergoes a significant life event such as getting married, purchasing property, going to university, will he or she be required to produce a birth certificate. It may be that the parents will have handed on the original certificate which gives no indication that the person is adopted. I understand that it is not anyone else's business to know if a person is adopted. However, I think we are adding to the stigma. For me it is a fact; a stigma means marking out or describing something as bad. One can safely describe the current situation as the stigmatisation by omission of adoption, whereby the considered effort to disguise or hide the matter of fact infers that there is something shameful or inherently wrong with the practice. This is not the message about adoption that we should be espousing.
Why is the case being made for this cover-up? We have a shameful past with regard to adoption and we have a long way to go in dealing with that past. A child being adopted in Ireland today is still denied the right to his or her identity because Ireland is one of the few European countries operating a closed adoption system. Therefore, the situation for Philomena Lee and many others like her, is still in place and we still cover up. An adopted child has no right to ever know the identity of his or her natural parents. At the very least we should give them a signal in the civil registration legislation that an adopted child has the right to know that he or she is adopted.
There are many reasons to need to know why one is adopted such as genetic medical conditions, for example. However, need to know identity is very strong and very powerful. I am fortunate in that I am not adopted and nobody in my family is adopted so I do not understand that need. I come from an average Irish family with a keen interest in genealogy and I have found great strength in knowing about my past and my roots and understanding where I came from; I cannot imagine if information about one or both sides of my family was cut off. I accept the good intentions of the original provision in the 2010 Act but the unintended consequences were overlooked. It is important that the adopted person knows for sure if he or she is adopted. There must be a way in which the fact can be stated while I assert that there is no stigma attached to being adopted.
I referred to our shameful past. The most recent revelations following the discovery of a mass grave at Tuam by historian, Catherine Corless, made all Members hang our heads in shame. This discovery led to the establishment of the inquiry into mother and baby homes. I look forward to the opportunity to review the terms of reference of the inquiry. I hope the issue of legality of adoptions prior to the Adoption Act 1952 will be addressed by this inquiry.
I refer to the definition of an illegal adoption. It is not a de factoadoption through the Adoption Authority. An illegal adoption is where the child was registered as the natural child of the adoptive parents. However, in my opinion what we are doing with the birth certificates is very similar to what happened in the past. Parents are given a certificate to certify that this is their child over whom they have ownership and the State will not indicate that this child is adopted.
I am arguing my case from the perspective of children's rights. I have strong views about the integrity of State documents which should be beyond question. If the State starts to conceal actual facts in official documents, it is a fine line and there is a question of where this practice will lead. I have heard the argument that individuals do not wish others to know their private business but there are very few occasions in life when a birth certificate is required. I have been told that one of the reasons is that no parent wants his or her child to be regarded as different from other children. This reasoning could also be applied to where the father's name does not appear on the birth certificate. Is it right to add the father's name to avoid the child being stigmatised? Where is the line to be drawn? A birth certificate is an official document in which the State should clearly mark the facts.
The most popular male first and last name combination is Jack Murphy. I wonder if the State will put that name on every birth certificate where a blank occurs. A State document is a document of fact. If a birth certificate records the names of the mother and father I should assume that they are the natural parents of that child and the child should also naturally assume it. However, when the child becomes an adult and is getting married, he or she will apply for his or her birth certificate. Is this when the State wants that person to find out that he or she is adopted? By means of the birth certificate the State will have partaken in not telling the person the fact that he or she has been adopted. The State should not conceal the truth. I wonder if in years to come an adopted child could argue that the State colluded with his or her parents in concealing that truth.
I am very passionate on this issue. I have been in this Chamber when we have talked about our shameful past but this issue is about our current legislation which legislates for a birth certificate issued last week, this week or next week. The legislation was enacted in 2010 and I agree it had very good intentions but the unintended consequences were not foreseen. Those consequences are now known and it is time to make the change to rectify this situation. I do not want to be part of any future legacies. I want to be able to say that I was willing to stand up and identify it. It is important that we take action in this regard. No doubt I will be told that there will be an information and tracing Bill which will be a more appropriate vehicle. When will we have that Bill before the House? Birth certificates are being issued every day which do not clearly indicate that the child is adopted. I ask that something should be on the birth certificate to indicate that the parents listed are the adoptive parents. I am not asking for floodlights. Prior to 2010 the information was noted as coming from the register of adopted children. I ask for a statement of fact that the parents listed are the adoptive parents.
The Department of Children and Youth Affairs will need more resources if these Bills are coming forward. I plead with the Minister of State to accept this amendment. It is not right that we do not state the facts on a State document. It is a birth certificate and there must be integrity in State documents. More important from my perspective are the rights of children. We have come a long way in recent years in Ireland to strengthen and uphold the rights of children but we cannot let any law stand if it goes against those rights.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Senator Cullinane reserving his right to speak?

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I admire Senator Jillian van Turnhout for the passion she brings to this issue. I also admire her for her extraordinary work as the former CEO of the Children's Rights Alliance and her consistency in raising issues of this nature, where children's rights are involved, in the House.

The nub of the issue is that her entire contribution emphasised the right of the child. She referred to the birth certificate being handed to the parents of the adopted child who are told that they now own the child. I do not own my children.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not intend it that way.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the inference.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said in some small number of cases.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All I kept waiting for was the parents' rights in all of this. Children go through developmental phases and there are times in the development of the child when parents take it upon themselves to inform the children of certain facts to educate them. I have no idea whether parents of adopted children in this country have deliberately concealed that fact. I am aware of a significant number of adopted children who know they are adopted because the parents, at a particular time in the children's development, informed them of that fact. What struck me is that parents may be waiting for the right time to inform their children that they were adopted. If the amendment is carried, in advance of that decision by parents, children can go to the birth registration office, get the birth certificate and discover, without the parents having told them, that they are adopted. I refer to the impact of this on the relationship between the adopted child and the parents.

I am pointing out that there is complexity and it is not as simple as Senator van Turnhout has outlined, passionate and coherent as her contribution was. There was never any recognition of the parents' role in all of this. It was about the parents concealing or conspiring and not telling the adopted child about adoption right up until marriage. The child found out at 21 years of age. I am not necessarily against what the Senator is saying in principle but I have an understanding of why the 2010 law took the course it did. It is a real issue.

I am trying to apply it to myself as a parent. If I had an adopted child and if I was aware from the beginning that it was on the birth certificate, I would be dreading the day the child would come to me and say that I had never told him or her about the adoption. It could happen at school. These things get out and Senator van Turnhout made reference to a slagging match going on. It usually comes from the parent of another child. We can apply it across a range of issues in the schoolyard where things are thrown at children. Children are very cruel to one another and it usually comes from the home, when someone has found out, the neighbours have found out or the parents have confided in a neighbour or friend. At some point, the neighbour or friend tells another child that someone is adopted. Then, the slagging starts in the schoolyard. It is not directly relevant to adoption but I subjected to it in the schoolyard because of an operation I had to have when I was ten years old. It was thrown at me because word got out somehow. I do not know how it happened but it brought it home to me. I have seen many instances of it since. I am talking about how parental rights do not seem to be part of this proposed amendment.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an important issue and we should first acknowledge that parents who adopt children play a tremendous role in society. Many adoptees sing the praises of their adoptive parents, who gave them opportunities in life they would never have had otherwise. That is why adoption is such a sensitive issue and should be based, in so far as possible, on an unapologetic, clear and positive bias in favour of giving a child a father and a mother. Children need that and are entitled to it for the ideal development opportunity.

Senator Mooney put his finger on issues attaching to it and how it is handled in respect of the child more than on the birth certificate. We should focus on that area. Senator Mooney gave examples of mature children finding out unexpectedly and it being a real difficulty for them at that stage. There is an approach to this on the part of the parents from an early stage that leads naturally to the child being aware and accepting that there is no difference between an adopted child and a biological child the family might have. It is successful in many families. Many adopted people say that. It is a sensitive area. I am unsure about the birth certificate and whether the fact that the child is adopted should be recognised on the birth certificate. I am probably not convinced that, in all cases, later in life the child will welcome it as a notation on the birth certificate.

We touched on certain issues on Committee Stage. I fundamentally have a deep conviction that a child has an entitlement to know at a certain stage who the biological parents are, from the point of view of knowing one's genetic make-up and having a sense of identity, which we all like to know about, but also from the point of view of medical history. It is an important part of our DNA. When considering a serious illness, one of the first questions a medical practitioner will ask concerns family history. Sometimes, that guides towards detection and medical investigative procedures. It is a complex area but is one that should be looked at comprehensively by the Government.

The last day I referred to sperm donors. The case of Dr. Joanna Rose-----

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is going somewhat outside the amendment.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment brings in these issues although I am somewhat to the side of the amendment. Attached to the amendment is the biological background of the child and the entitlement of the child, at some stage, to become aware and to be informed of this and to be able to access it. Dr. Joanna Rose gave a talk to Oireachtas Members in a neighbouring hotel and she said she had 300 brothers and sisters.

There was a case in Britain that I mentioned last year in which a couple got married only to discover subsequently they were biological brother and sister. This raises an interesting point but we need to have a much wider debate. It really needs to be addressed, particularly with the advances in medical science and the many social changes, including surrogacy. All of these areas need to be considered carefully and regulated. Unfortunately in our jurisdiction, we are devoid of regulation in almost all of these areas. This subject will require deep research before we reach conclusions on the basis of which we can legislate on these issues effectively.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As with Senator Mooney, I have great admiration for Senator van Turnhout. She works tirelessly on behalf of children and has, at every given opportunity in the House, raised the plight of children. I have listened today to two compelling arguments on the same subject. It is very hard to say one is right and the other wrong because, as Senator van Turnhout said, the certificate is an official document. Should we weigh up whether we are obliged to include the true facts in an official document? We must take into consideration the views of the parents adopting the child. Adoptive parents are not pulled out of the sky; they must go through a rigorous vetting system and they are scrutinised to ascertain whether they are worthy of adopting a child. Anybody who has adopted a child will know that. We cannot take away from the rights of adoptive parents. It is their right to bring up the child as they see fit and to tell the child it is adopted. When is a good age to tell the child? Is it when the child comes out of the cradle or when he or she is making his or her communion or confirmation? When does one decide the time at which a child should know he or she is adopted? Until a child is 16 or 18, he or she is under the care of the adoptive parents. Consider what happens if he or she goes to the doctor and a medical history is required. Including that one is adopted on one's birth certificate does not amount to giving a medical history. One really needs to know the identity of one's true parents to get one's medical history.

I do not know whether the Minister of State is accepting this amendment but I do not believe we should just write it off. This matter requires much wider debate. I commend Senator van Turnhout on raising this because it needs to be discussed. As Senators Walsh and Mooney said, we really need to go into greater detail on this in a wider forum to ensure we get it right.

Senator van Turnhout said she could not comprehend what it must be like not to know the history of one's family on one side. I am in that position. I do not know anything about my father's parents or grandparents because he was adopted. I know exactly what the Senator was speaking about. I have said before in the House on a number of occasions that, until the day my father died, at 55 years of age, he never spoke about his having been adopted. He would not speak to us about it when we were young. Unfortunately, he died suddenly when we were approaching adulthood and could speak to him about such matters. We never really got to know his family background or the medical history of his family. Therefore, I know what it is like not to know one's family history. It is nice to know this history, where one came from and who one's grandparents were. Unfortunately, I know what it is like not to know.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The debate this afternoon outlines the problems very clearly. There is unanimity on the matter. If we made this amendment now, people would see change out of the blue without having had an opportunity to discuss the matter and engage in proper consultation.

The adoption (information and tracing) Bill is a priority, not only for me but also for the Tánaiste. We will certainly consider putting in place the resources needed to ensure that Bill will go through. It is a priority of the Government. It is probably the best vehicle for dealing with this matter. It can be flagged at a very early stage. It will give an opportunity for what I would say is a proper consultation period in which the pros and cons can be discussed and argued without any preconceptions. One should enter the process with an open mind and everybody's views should be heard. This should be a proper and healthy debate because the priority of everybody is the child in the case of adoption. When we deal with this matter in the House, the very first objective is to put the child at the forefront.

Ireland has changed and is changing very quickly. Views have changed since I was a young man. I do not attach any stigma to adoption and I look forward to the day on which there is absolutely no stigmatisation. Unfortunately, in certain generations the fact that a child is slightly different can result in bullying in the schoolyard, as Senator Mooney said. Differences can be very mild. A slight difference isolates a child in the schoolyard, and this can result in his being bullied. We have to be conscious of it.

We must also be very conscious of the child's rights. It was highlighted on Committee Stage that the abridged certificate may in some cases facilitate parents in hiding from the child the fact that he or she is adopted. However, this amendment would have an immediate consequence for everybody adopted and his or her family. It would remove the ability that currently exists for parents to opt for the abridged certificate. It would remove from them the choice regarding when and to whom they should disclose personal information. For many people, losing this choice may not be an issue but for others it could be a great concern.

I can only speculate on people's views because there has not been broad consultation on this issue. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I noted very clearly the Senators' concern and passion. I have examined international best practice on this matter and concluded there should be a balancing of rights. My view is that the child comes first. My Department has written to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs advising officials who are currently engaged in reviewing the Adoption Act 2010 and it has indicated this matter will be examined in the context of the review. For this reason and many others, I do not support the amendment. However, I thank all the Senators for their engagement on this. It is a very important issue that merits consideration and consultation. We must remember this is quite a technical Bill covering a wide range of areas. Without sufficient consultation, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. It will be dealt with more properly in the information and tracing legislation and in the revisiting of the general discussion on the adoption of children.

Let me move away from the amendment briefly. Senator Healy Eames has arrived. I commend her on the amendment that was passed on Committee Stage on the registration of foreign deaths and the role she played in that regard.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate that.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just wanted to mark that as the Senator entered the Chamber.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, I am disappointed, but I am a realistic person who believes it is always good and positive to have consultation. Having taken the initiative to allow for consultation, the Minister of State should limit the period therefor because I do not want what is occurring to go on any longer.

I agree that we need to find a balance.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my replies to some questions. I said in the vast majority of cases everything is good and children and parents know the situation. I am trying to address the small but significant number of cases where a parent conceals information. I have dealt with cases where, to this day, parents are actively concealing that a child is adopted. I do not refer to concealing information regarding a two year old, but rather people who are now 20 years old. The difficulty is that parents can continue to conceal this information until a child obtains his or her birth certificate. If a person does not have a birth certificate, where can he or she go to find out whether he or she is adopted? Where is the signal for people to look for that information? If one does not know one is adopted one does not know one needs to go to the Adoption Authority or the adoption registrar to check one's name.

The right to be adopted belongs clearly and firmly with the child under all international law. It is not a right for a parent to adopt a child, rather it is the right of a child to be adopted. I know we have to balance rights but this is an absolute and unequivocal right. The best interests of the child are of paramount consideration. That does not take in any way from the amazing work done by adoptive parents. I have many good friends who have adopted children and have had very positive experiences. I recently had dinner with four female friends, three of whom had experience of adoption. It is part of society today and is all around us. For me there is no stigma. The suggestion we omit information could create the potential for stigma.

Ireland has moved forward. I do not foresee that from the moment a child can talk his or her first sentence has to be, "I am adopted." Rather, I refer to the seamless process that happens naturally in most families where children are adopted. Children will often say that they do not know when they found out they were adopted. They often say they always knew they were adopted and that there were no big meetings on the eve of their 18th birthday where they were told. We need to be careful that we are not adding to the stigma. The integrity of State documents is really important and it is a question we have to ask ourselves. What would a person do if he or she had a birth certificate, as per the 2010 Act, and then found his or her adoptive mother who then provided him or her with another birth certificate? Such a person would have two identities which the State knowingly gave to him or her, and there would be nothing to indicate which certificate refers to the natural parent. The State needs to consider such issues.

I have tabled the amendment in good faith. I will not press it today because I welcome the fact we will have consultation. I welcome the future publication of the information and tracing Bill. I will put a marker down by saying if by the end of January 2015 we have not moved any further on information and tracing, I will consider introducing a Bill to deal with the issue. It is too important to wait or allow things to get lost. Every day that passes involves birth certificates being issued in this way and I do not want to add to that legacy. I understand and heard what my colleagues said but we have to ensure the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late. I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his new role. I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that this Bill will, for the first time, allow citizens who die abroad to have their deaths registered in Ireland. That is a great step forward. I have taken the journey with some families. The Minister, Deputy Burton, worked with me diligently over the past few years on the matter.

Senator van Turnhout made an eloquent contribution. I was part of the group which passed the 2010 Bill. I did not know that we unwittingly changed birth certificates. My two children are adopted and it is part of their real life story. We would not wish to hide or conceal anything. They have birth and adoptive parents. As Senator van Turnhout said, neither birth nor adoptive parents own a child. It is the right of a child to be adopted. It is wise to have consultation, but I have serious concerns about an adoptive child receiving a birth certificate as if there is no other story in his or her life and as if he or she is the natural child of his or her parents. That would not be an accurate story. It would be a cover-up.

We have to find a middle ground whereby birth certificates reflect the reality of the lives of those who were adopted. I accept that if people had not been told by their families, and the first time they found out they were adopted was when they received a birth certificate, it would be a shock but it would be the truth.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, you are re-opening this issue.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to re-open it but I am just saying-----

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The time is very limited.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a final closing word. We have to find a middle ground. I agree with Senator van Turnhout that an adoption should be recognised on a birth certificate but we should also have directional information on the reverse side of the certificate if, for some reason we do not know about, that was the first time a person found out he or she was adopted. I am grateful to the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak and I am delighted to see the Bill pass today.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. It is the first Bill he has charted through either House. I am not known for patronising Ministers when they come before the House, but he has shown a level of engagement on this topic which does him great credit. In many ways it recognises the importance of these Houses when we approach issues in a non-partisan way to try to improve our legislation in a way that serves the people well.

In this instance, we have been prompted by very sad and tragic circumstances. I compliment Mollie Enright's grandfather, David Walsh, who is in the Public Gallery with his daughter Hilary. They put an enormous effort into campaigning and meeting all politicians to present their case to try to address what they feel is an anomaly and injustice in the current legislation. As the Minister knows, they have taken High Court proceedings in order, as it says in their declaration, that the life and death of the said Mollie Enright can be registered in the same manner and to the same extent as births, deaths and stillbirths are currently recorded, registered and recognised, pursuant to civil registration. The Minister of State can see there is a compelling case. I was happy to withdraw my amendment because of the confidence I have in the Minister of State moving the matter forward and I hope we will achieve a result which will obviate the need for any High Court case.

It would be a travesty because, having spoken with the family, I am aware it has to dig deep in order to fund the case. We are here to represent citizens and I hope the Minister of State can find a way to deal with this issue. I look forward to the passage of the Bill through the Dáil where, I hope, he will get support for an appropriate amendment to achieve the objective we are trying to achieve here. I wish the Minister of State well in his Ministry in the next 12 to 18 months. I hope it will be for the longer of those two periods.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join in the congratulations. I raised several issues on Second Stage before the summer recess, many of which came forward as Government amendments on Committee Stage. I acknowledge that. That is what is good about our legislative process. Today, I zoomed in on one particular issue but I do not want that to take from the really significant provisions contained in the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2014 to births, registration, marriages, civil partnerships and deaths. The Bill is long overdue. I congratulate the Minister of State on his engagement in the Seanad and his officials who have been involved in the Bill. It was clear on First and Second Stages that many angles had been covered and much work has gone into the Bill. It will make a difference. I thank the Minister of State and his officials.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing his first piece of legislation through the House; I presume it is the first of many. When we commenced, it appeared to be a simple Bill to pass through the House but as we progressed we found there were many emotive and sensitive issues and amendments were brought forward. It was handled with sensitivity by all sides of the House. There was cross-party support for most of the amendments. I am glad the Minister of State is taking their views forward. The beauty of the Seanad is that people take on board the views and proposals of the Opposition. I hope he will see it through as agreed with the Senators. I look forward to hearing that there will be changes on Committee Stage. Again, I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing his first piece of legislation through the House.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am almost reluctant to praise the Minister of State after all the glory that has been showered on him but he hit the ground running. It cannot have been easy for him. There is a transition from backbencher to ministerial office. One has to get one's feet under the table and read one's brief.

I endorse everything that has been said about the manner in which he has taken this debate. What struck me was that he has proven to be accommodating to points of view while at the same time holding the line on the original legislation, which is the role of any Minister because of all the hard work that has gone into the drafting. I am sure the unintended consequences are thought out and discussed in advance of the Bill coming before either House.

I am particularly pleased that he has indicated there will be further reflection on the various issues raised here, and particularly on the last amendment. Senator van Turnhout referred to the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill which might address this particular issue on the last amendment. I find it particularly instructive because the lead Minister in the Department, the Tánaiste, is herself adopted. I felt totally inadequate in the presence of Senator Healy Eames as an adoptive parent who has adopted children, that I would never be able to understand, even though I am a parent of children, the dynamic between parents who adopt and their adopted children because it is a living dynamic between them. That is why this particular issue is so complex and will require the wisdom of a Solomon-like Minister to resolve the issues raised here that will accommodate the two points of view.

I compliment the Minister of State on a section of the Bill which hopefully will stop the type of marriage which has taken place here, particularly since 2004 when the 11 new states became members of the EU where people have sought Irish citizenship under false pretences. I am pleased the Government has moved on an issue which was identified some years ago and nothing was done about it. There was much talk about it but no action. I am pleased the Bill addresses that issue. I hope it will be enforced. As has often been said in this and the other House, we are good at passing laws but sometimes we are not great at enforcing them. As Senator Marie Moloney said on the fact of it, the Bill may have appeared simple and straightforward but it had all sorts of nuances attached to it as the debate has proven. As the Bill moves to the Dáil the level of debate will be interesting from the Minister of State's perspective. In this House we always pride ourselves on having more time and Ministers themselves have more time to reflect on legislation rather than the somewhat adversarial environment in which the Dáil operates. I hope the Bill goes through the other House without too much difficulty. I look forward to seeing the Minister of State in this House on other legislation. I am happy to support the Bill.

Hildegarde Naughton (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials and also the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, for the amount of work put into this legislation. I commend the Minister of State on being open and receptive to the different viewpoints on very complex and sensitive issues. I congratulate him on his appointment. The legislation will be dealt with thoroughly in the other House. We will return to many of these matters in the future.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, in his position and wish him well. I congratulate him on getting the legislation through the House.