Kathleen Funchion on broadening care definitions and timelines

I just want to come in on this because we did actually have this discussion at committee stage and I welcome that this has been included and I think it's important and it was an important point that was made I suppose about lots of different arrangements that we've all seen various stories over the years that obviously there was very formal arrangements but there was informal as well and I think it's important to be as inclusive as possible with this legislation. I just want to welcome the fact that that's in there. Thanks. Thank you. So this amendment number six is amendments to the definition of care arrangement to include records of relative foster care and again this was just an issue that arose at committee stage and that I committed to going back and working with my officials to see if we had the definition right. So I'm again I'm pleased to be able to bring forward an amendment which further expands the definition of care arrangement to include formal foster care by relative. So records related to a relevant person's foster care placement have always been included in the definition and this amendment will ensure that where a relevant person was fostered by a relative the records related to that placement will also fall to be released. So again just a slightly broadening of the definition recognising that foster care arrangements while predominantly with non-relatives on occasion did happen with relatives and it is right that those relationships and it is right that those relationships should be encompassed within the within the definitions. So again pleased to be able to respond to the the points that the deputy raised in committee. Just really briefly I don't want to end up saying the same thing although I'm sure there'll be probably some more contentious issues later but it is welcome to see some of the stuff that has been discussed at committee stage and I suppose sometimes you know when you're going through pre-ledge and committee and all the various stages it is good to see the discussions that are had that there is points taken on board and you know as I've already said like just there's been so many different situations and examples and examples and different stories from the time in our history of the mother and baby institutions so I think it's really important that you know we have as wide a reach as possible for people to be able to access this legislation so I would just welcome that. Thanks. Thanks very much. So again this is another amendment springing from the discussions we had at committee stage and they collectively removed the time limitation placed on early life information and care information. So when the bill was first published the bill provided that the definition of early life information and care information were subject to a limited time period which was deemed to end in the case of an adopted person at the date of their adoption or in the case of a person subject to an illegal birth registration the date on which their social parents assumed their role as parents. And amendments seven and eight removed the reference to early life and care definitions being subject to subsection 2.2 while amendments 17 delete subsection 2.2 completely thus removing that limitation. And I know that deputies did bring similar amendments at committee stage and in response I stated that I would seek to have this timeline removed subject to consultation with the office of the attorney general. So following that consultation I'm happy to be in the position to remove subsection 2.2 and that means that the definition of early life and care information for all relevant persons will now extend all the way up to the age of 18. So I think I think both Deputy Batchick and Deputy Function raised this in the context of committee stage. We did say we go back and look at it and listen to the arguments made and we're making this change on foot of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I'm actually really delighted to see this thing because I think we actually had a number of amendments that were sort of similar and all kind of saying probably the same thing around the time frames and being restrictive. So it's good to see that and I actually think I have a later amendment that can be withdrawn now on the basis of this. We'll see when we get there but no it is good. I'm glad because that was one of the things that we were really anxious about that there wouldn't be any limitations. So that's welcome. So this is in relation to the whole illegal versus incorrect I suppose and the terminology and Oh sorry. You're okay but just to point out just in case of any misunderstanding 10 up to 13 are being discussed now together. Yeah that's fine. I think that they're all in or yeah they're all related anyway. So the same argument applies it's and I do take the the point on board that I think the argument for not using the word illegal is that it has the person has to prove that it was illegal and that there might be difficulties around that. So I am a bit conflicted on it but I'm wondering if if the minister's amendment number two does that make any changes I know that's already been discussed but does that make any changes to the whole incorrect illegal because I just think people feel so strongly about it and rightly so and we all when we're discussing it and talking about it we all reference it as illegal nobody really goes around saying incorrect and it is an important point I suppose for people that are affected by it that it's it's called out for exactly what it is but I do understand it might it might pose difficulties too but I'm not sure if two has any reference to this at all but it would just be interesting to to hear back from the minister on that. Thank you very much deputies and look we had very significant discussions about the definitions the definitions used in terms of the what we all know what we all recognize and what we all speak of as illegal birth registrations and they were illegal there was illegality involved in many of them and the use of the term incorrect in the legislation and I made the point that you know in in mine and in the government's communications and we've engaged very extensively with with groups of people who have been subject to illegal birth registrations we have always used that language the language of illegal birth registrations I also made the point that we want to ensure that people who were subject to illegal birth registrations can use this legislation and they are defined in the category but we also want to make sure that people who believe that they were subject to illegal birth registration and that's an incredibly there are you know 141 people who too so identified from St Patrick's Guild but there are others we know who have very good reasons to believe that they were always also subject to an illegal birth registration and we want to ensure that as many people the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of this bill both the existing provisions and some new ones that we'll be I'm introducing via committee stage amendment today and particularly that tracing amendment that Deputy Bacheck referred to a moment ago and the concern that we have said throughout is that by using this phrase of illegal birth registration by putting this in the legislation it creates a very high bar of an illegal birth registration and that's why we have an illegal birth registration and that's why we use this term incorrect which is a broader term and I know that has caused concern and in my communications on this I've always tried to show that the sole reason the sole reason for this is to have the definition wide so as many people as possible can you can fall within the provision and therefore use the provisions of this bill to possibly finally conclusively identify whether they were the subject of an illegal birth registration or not and one of the provisions again the one you referenced Deputy Bacheck that we're bringing in today will strengthen the ability of an individual to look back and see if they were subject to an illegal birth registration but also for me as min or for the minister whoever the minister is to direct to slower the AAI to undertake such a trace back and that's really important and that's a significant change for both individuals and for for for for for for for the minister in terms deputy function of amendment 2 amendment 2 doesn't change a specific definition here and just just be be upfront on that but I think amendment 2 by bringing in this very substantial change to the succession acts I hope is a further you know demonstration by the government of our recognition of what was done to people who were subject to illegal birth registration and our need to make very extensive and very novel legal changes to address their needs to address this very difficult situation this very different beyond the absolutely traumatic emotional impact of this this this this this revelation the very difficult legal situation that people subject to illegal birth registration have been have been made but and just come back finally to Deputy Bacheck's point at committee stage recognizing that there was concern about the use of the term solely incorrect that that that might be incorrect that that might be seen somehow as a diminution or a glossing over of what happened in terms of illegal birth registration we brought forward an amendment that was similar enough to amendment I I know Deputy Bacheck and maybe others brought forward so now under the under the definitions section of the bill so I'm looking at section section a section to do section 50 50 54 and it says for the purposes of this act a person is an affected person where as a result of the giving of information that was false or misleading so we added those terms false or misleading in terms of that definition of people who are affected and thus recognizing that there was falsity there was there there there there there there there there was in many cases a deliberate effort to um to to to to to to misrepresent to miss to to misrepresent the the the existence of uh uh and the relationships there we looked at this again since committee stage I asked officials to examine and see could any of the changes that deputies are bringing bringing forth here today could they be made and the responses from from from the office of the attorney general from parliamentary council that the attorney general from parliamentary council that the proposals that are that are being brought here they would act to undermine the clarity and the inclusivity of the bill so that's why unfortunately and much as all as I would like to take these amendments we believe that they will undermine the clarity and the inclusivity of this bill and I want this bill to be able to be accessible to as many people as possible who have questions on their uh uh on their identity we want the wrongness wrongness of what happened to people recognized I believe we've gone a significant way in terms of the uh amendments I brought forward at committee stage to do that except maybe deputies I accept most importantly I accept maybe some people who have been subject to this don't but you know um I I I I have looked at this I've done as far as I believe I can go to to address the the the um the language used while at the same time in everything I've said and everything the government has done we've recognized the illegality of what happened here thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda thank you Les Caincorda