I move amendment No. 1: In page 4, lines 18 to 32, to delete all words from and including “(1) Where—” in line 18 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following: “(1) Where a person (in this section referred to as the ‘convicted guardian’) who is a guardian of a child is convicted in the State of the murder or manslaughter of a person who was, at the time of the commission of the offence concerned, another guardian of the child concerned the Child and Family Agency shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 3 months after the conviction or any extension of that period under subsection (2), apply to the court in that behalf for an order under subsection (3).”. I welcome Mr. David French to the Visitors Gallery. When he attended the Oireachtas committee on justice yesterday, I said only half in jest that he has a better attendance rate in this place than some Members do. Everybody in the House, including the Minister, will acknowledge the reason this Bill is before us at all is largely down to the efforts of David and his family. Their efforts in memory of Valerie are commendable. The amendment seeks to strengthen section 12C by requiring Tusla to apply to the court in every case following a conviction and by requiring that to be done within three months. As it stands, there is a discretionary test I am concerned about that could limit applications where reasonable cause is not established and that contradicts the stated intention that the application would be made in all cases. A conviction for the murder or manslaughter of a co-guardian is in itself sufficient evidence of a fundamental breach of the duty to the child and no further threshold need apply, so removing the discretion ensures consistency, protects the child and avoids the risk the legislation becomes ineffective in practice. I raised this with the Minister on Committee Stage. My appeal was that he would either accept this amendment or provide another formula of words that would be acceptable to him because there is a concern in terms of the veracity of Tusla in these matters. We had Tusla representatives before the committee yesterday. Essentially, it appears that in practice this will operate with a single social worker making a determination. That is concerning. There could be a situation where Tusla decides, via one person or very small number of people, that this law should not be applicable in a situation whereby somebody who has killed another parent and is still considered under law a legal guardian of a child who has been deprived of a parent by that individual and that that might remain legally the position at the behest of a single institution. Therefore, we believe there is a need for absolute clarity in terms of the law and to ensure there is no ambiguity. As the Minister knows, we have a further amendment that clarifies one of the areas he has raised and it is a valid point whereby somebody could have been convicted but on the basis of all the discernible evidence it could be proven that they had been a victim of domestic abuse. In that regard, we recognise there needs to be a level of discretion but it is our view that discretion should be in the hands of the courts, not in the hands of the agency. There should be a very clear level playing field in terms of where these decisions are made. As in all cases, once Tusla brings an application, it will be for the courts to adjudicate but there is a real concern by campaigners and by the people who have brought us to this point that you could have a scenario whereby one parent is responsible for the murder or manslaughter of another parent and Tusla, in whatever wisdom or logic, decides it does not believe there is a case to be brought to remove guardianship rights from that parent. There is no mechanism for appeal in that regard. That is unfair and it goes against the spirit of everything the Minister has quite rightly said in terms of the importance of this legislation.

Sentiment score: -0.01

I will make a couple of points. In respect of the three-month provision included in my amendment, I want to restate clearly, as I did to the Minister on Committee Stage, that if this was the big stumbling block I would have quite happily accepted his suggestion to increase the time. To me this is a red herring because it is clearly on the record of the House that there is a willingness to accept it. I do not accept his other arguments in respect of the broader issue here, which is the ability of a single agency. Tusla has told the Oireachtas justice committee this will mean that ultimately it will be down to the call of a single social worker, somebody who in 90% of cases, if not 99.9% of cases, will have the best interests of the child at heart, or at least what they consider to be the best interests of the child at heart. They will make a judgment call. We could have a situation where somebody who is convicted of murdering a parent remains the guardian of the children, where an individual or a small group of individuals in Tusla think this is okay but any other reasonable person outside of that organisation might consider it not to be okay. There is no mechanism in this law for anybody else to make this application. It is not possible for a garda, other family members or interested parties in terms of the well-being of the child. This to me is a lacuna in the law and more than is the case with any of the other amendments, should we get to a point where we could agree to this alone, we would have much stronger legislation that would have a much clearer impetus and support of all concerned.

Sentiment score: 0.38

I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: "(8)(a) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (7), this section shall not apply, or shall apply with such modifications as the court considers appropriate, in a case where the convicted guardian was convicted of manslaughter and the court is satisfied that— (i) the act giving rise to the conviction was committed in self-defence, or (ii) at the time of the commission of the offence, the convicted guardian had been subjected to domestic violence (within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act 2018) by the deceased guardian, and the offence occurred in circumstances materially connected to that history of domestic violence. (b) In determining whether paragraph (a) applies, the court shall have regard to— (i) any findings of fact made in the criminal proceedings, (ii) any evidence of domestic violence, including patterns of coercive control, and (iii) the best interests of the child concerned. (c) Where paragraph (a) applies, the Child and Family Agency shall not be required to make an application under subsection (1), unless the Agency is satisfied that, notwithstanding those circumstances, there is a risk to the safety or welfare of the child concerned. (d) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the court from making an order under subsection (3) where it is satisfied that such an order is necessary and proportionate to protect the safety or welfare of the child concerned.". In moving amendment No. 2, I am conscious that the vote on amendment No. 1 is probably going to be the only one on this legislation, which has cross-party support and will be known as Valerie's law because of the campaigning efforts of David French, who has brought us all to this point. It is appropriate, seeing that we are all in this House, to acknowledge David and his family.

Sentiment score: -0.04

I move amendment No. 3: In page 11, lines 29 to 32, to delete all words from and including "(1) An" in line 29 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following: "(1) An application to the court for an order under this Part shall not be made in relation to the child concerned other than on notice to— (a) each guardian of that child (including a victim guardian within the meaning of section 12D), and (b) the next of kin of a deceased guardian of that child, where that deceased guardian died as a result of an offence referred to in section 12C(1); provided that a person shall not be regarded as next of kin for the purposes of this paragraph if that person has been convicted of that offence,". This amendment ensures that all relevant parties, including the next of kin of a deceased guardian, would be notified of court applications affecting a child. It is important that the family of a guardian who has been killed be made a notice party in proceedings. Such a family have a clear and legitimate interest in the child's welfare, and that role should be recognised, respected and reflected in the process. We discussed this at length on Committee Stage and the Minister did not accept our amendment of the basis that "next of kin" was not defined in the legislation, but the meaning of "next of kin" is quite clear, as is how that would be applied in real terms before a court. It is for this reason that we tabled the amendment again on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to accept it. If he feels there is a better formula of wording, we have been very clear that we are open to that. This is about ensuring families are notified. We should remember that we are talking about families who have lost a loved one in the most cruel circumstances by murder or manslaughter. They have a vested interest in the well-being of the child in relation to whom a court order is applied for. I do not believe notifying them is too much to ask for. We asked Tusla when its representatives appeared before the committee about their approach to these matters and they were not forthcoming in giving the committee a sense of how the agency currently approaches the issue. It is crucially and critically important that we do not have a situation where there is a court hearing in respect of a case involving a child where the family of the deceased person is not a notice party or perhaps is not even aware that the case is before the court. I appeal to the Minister to either agree to this wording or agree to find a formula of words that will meet the same purpose.

Sentiment score: 0.14

The Minister again, purposely or otherwise, has missed the point. This amendment was brought forward not because it was something that I wanted to bring forward. I brought it forward because the affected families pointed out to us that this is an anomaly. They have not been made notice parties or have not been informed at all, or have had to fight and battle with Tusla to have any say whatsoever about the care of a child that they love. They feel strongly that the legislation, as currently worded, does not cater for that. It is for that reason that this amendment was put forward. I take it that the Minister has issues with the wording we put forward but I hope he will accept our bona fides in saying that there are legitimate concerns that the Government's legislation does not fully address this issue. The answer, therefore, is not to leave things as they are but to find a solution. As with all of these amendments, if there is a middle road to be found, I am quite happy to travel there. It appears that the Minister does not want to accept the amendment. He starts from that position and then finds whatever reason he can to build up to what might appear to be a logical argument against it. The real logic of the fact is that we have had situations where court cases involving the well-being of children have not been notified to people who, probably more than anybody, have the care of those children at heart. That needs to be rectified, whether in this legislation or another piece of legislation. I am arguing that now is the time to do that.

Sentiment score: 0.12

I move amendment No. 4: In page 12, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(1A) Where a guardian ad litem of the child, another guardian of the child, or a relative of the child (being a person who would be entitled to notice of proceedings under this Act) is of the opinion that an application under subsection (1) ought to be made in the best interests of the child, he or she may request the Child and Family Agency to make such an application. (1B) The Child and Family Agency shall consider any request under subsection (1A) and, where it decides not to make an application under subsection (1), shall, on request, provide reasons for that decision to the person who made the request.”. This is another amendment we discussed at length on Committee Stage and I was hopeful the Minister would bring forward his own amendment to deal with this issue. As discussed, this deals with historical cases. As it stands, the section gives Tusla discretion in dealing with convictions that occurred before the Act commenced. The Minister made quite a lot of reference on Committee Stage to the fact that this is peculiar - I am not sure it is entirely unique - in that it has a retrospective element. That is important and I commend the Minister and Department on including it. However, without strengthening the provision to include other parties, as this amendment seeks to do, there is a risk that there will be cases where applications will not be brought where they should be. This amendment recognises that guardians ad litem, other guardians and relatives should have a role in prompting action where it is in the child's best interests. This is particularly important considering Tusla has raised concerns about resourcing and identifying historical cases. It is, therefore, essential that those closest to the child can bring matters forward and ensure appropriate applications are made to the court. The Minister previously indicated that people can contact Tusla anyway and that a provision in legislation is not needed. That is not necessarily an argument for not doing something. There is a strong case to put on a legislative basis that people can engage with Tusla to ensure there is, in the first instance, consideration of any such request. Equally important, in terms of the amendment we have put forward, is the provision that, if a decision is made not to pursue it, at least the rationale for that decision would be notified because that would resolve a question mark or concern on the part of those affected. I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.29

There is not much to say because we have argued this out in relation to all the amendments. The Minister is particularly wrong in this case. Consider a scenario in which a parent of a child has murdered or killed another parent of a child. They are in law currently considered to be guardians. There is now a provision where Tusla can apply to the courts to have that guardianship removed. For cases that predate the passage of this legislation, there is a level of discretion involved as to whether Tusla will bring such cases. This amendment simply seeks to allow family members of the deceased parent to make an application or a request of Tusla to bring it forward. If Tusla decides that in that situation, where the person who killed the other parent should remain the guardian and will not even bring the matter before a court for decision, the family of the deceased person should be told why. It is not too much to ask and that is why I am pressing the amendment.

Sentiment score: -0.24