It probably does not happen often, but this is a matter that we, collectively, as a Legislature and a body politic, are glad to see happening. I welcome Valerie's family. They are very welcome. I commend Valerie's brother, David, to whom I listened on multiple media appearances over recent years and during pre-legislative scrutiny in committee. His testimony was compelling. His steadfast determination and resilience are completely admirable. I say "Well done" for the fight. He has ensured that legislation that is absolutely necessary is coming forward because of his advocacy and strength, and the way in which he has pushed for it. I also commend the Minister, which does not happen every day, as we know.

Sentiment score: 0.43

We have to acknowledge when legislation is necessary and we all agree that this legislation is necessary, and the Minister has brought it forward. We will tease it out. In the main, I support it. I will obviously be supporting it, but we will tease out a few things. The Minister and his Department are to be commended on bringing it forward in a pretty quick manner. I hope we will bring it through the Houses relatively quickly. I have a few issues. The Minister went through section 12D, which relates to the issue of being able to take away guardianship where there is a situation in relation to the second guardian as well. He outlined that comprehensively in his few words, but we might look to see how we can tighten it up on Committee Stage. There has been some commentary from Tusla, probably not on the record, relating to resources and so on. It is not something that I believe we need to get overly concerned about because in truth, it must be the agency to deal with this. That is the way it should go. There are issues with the constitutionality of the legislation. My concern when this legislation was being drafted was whether there would be a constitutional test. Article 42A was inserted by the referendum on the rights of the child. Article 42A.2.1° states: In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. This test, that a parent has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned to such an extent that the safety of welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected, is recited throughout the Bill. That is necessary just in case of constitutional challenges, which we know can happen quite frequently. From a Labour Party perspective, we are watching out for that but we do feel that it is covered as part of the Bill. As Professor Louise Crowley argues, in the event of a challenge, the court will very likely have very strong grounds to say that it was in the best interests of the children to have someone else acting as their guardian or custodian. That is in relation to interaction with Article 41. That puts that to bed and I expect that we will be covered. Having gone through the pre-legislative recommendations, I am glad that a review mechanism is in place whereby there is an acquittal. We cannot foresee all circumstances as to what will happen in this country in years to come, so where there is an acquittal, we need to make sure the legislation is safeguarded for such scenarios. I am glad that is there. There were some other recommendations, which the Minister might discuss. When we went through this, there was a specific kind of onus put in on the voice of the child. We might discuss that on Committee Stage as well. I might bring forward an amendment relating to how children can be better involved, how they can be better brought through and how there can be a mechanism to hear the voice of the child or children through the Bill. That was something we specifically went through when we discussed this previously. There was consideration also of a register of guardians to aid State bodies implementing the legislation. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that. There was also the issue discussed earlier of the consideration of explicitly excluding victims of domestic violence convicted of manslaughter when found to be acting in self-defence from having guardianship rights removed. That is quite a delicate area but that needs to be teased through. In relation to the timeframes, currently, the Bill's only time limit is a six-month deadline after conviction, during which Tusla can apply for restriction or removal of guardianship rights. This takes no account of the time it takes to charge and convict or the time for the application to be decided. This means the child would likely remain under the guardianship of their parents' killer for many months. Can we tease that out? Can there be a period when there is something else in place, or can we define even what that is? I do not have all the answers to this but it is certainly that six-month period. Are there any guardianship issues that will still remain with the person who will have the guardianship rights removed? I acknowledge we have to have a time period, but does the Minister see what I am getting at? I do not know if, from a legislative basis, we can even provide an answer because there has to be some sort of timeframe. This is something that cropped up when I was discussing this with some people. Maybe there could be a suspension of guardianship once a guardian is charged rather than convicted, and then there would be the overlap of the six months. Maybe something like that could be considered. That might be appropriate. Maybe child impact assessments should be completed ahead of an application to court as well. That is something else we might discuss. By and large, however, I and the Labour Party are one hundred per cent supportive of this. There are some issues that I have just raised and that I will tease out on Committee Stage. We will look at amendments. I would rather work with the Minister on amendments than table amendments myself. We could maybe discuss that and get to the right wording, but I wanted to put out those issues, which are the ones we should consider. In particular, I have a concern about the issue of the six-month period. Maybe there should be a way in which that is covered. Furthermore, the voice of the child, as part of this process, is the second most important issue, which we may need to look into again. I thank the Minister again. I thank David and the family of Valerie. It is appropriate that this Bill is named after her. I hope it will be put through in a very speedy manner. The Minister will get the full co-operation of the House. I expect and hope we can do this in a short time. I commend the Minister and his officials.

Sentiment score: 0.10