I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. While it is a short Bill, it is a very significant one. I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing it forward. It delivers on a clear programme for Government commitment. It implements a key recommendation of the independent Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. It does so under a name, Valerie's Law, in honour of Valerie French, killed in June 2019 by her husband, James Kilroy. I welcome David French and the wider French family to the Gallery and I offer my deep condolences to them. I commend them on their commitment, courage and persistence in relation to this legislative change. Valerie's brother David, whose advocacy has carried this issue through years when it could easily have slipped down the agenda, has spoken with dignity and persistence. The State owes him a debt of gratitude and we remember Valerie and her loved ones today. Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. The principle at its heart is straightforward. A person convicted of killing the other parent of their child should not automatically retain guardianship rights over that child. A person convicted of a serious offence causing serious harm against the other parent should not by default continue to hold those rights either. Until now, the law has been almost silent on this. Families have been left to navigate it themselves. That is not acceptable and this Bill ends that practice. The legislation is built on three sound foundations. First, the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration, and rightly so. Section 12C and Section 12D both require the court to weigh both the failure of duty and the welfare of the child before any order is made. The court can restrict a guardian’s powers or remove the guardian entirely. It can impose conditions, which can be reviewed over time. Second, the voice of the child is heard. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in line with the Child Care Act 2022. The child is not a footnote in proceedings about their own future; he or she is a party to them. Third, Tusla is placed at the centre. Section 12C requires the agency to apply to the District Court within six months of a conviction where there is reasonable cause to believe parental duty has failed. This is appropriate. Tusla is the body with the expertise, the statutory remit and the institutional memory to make these applications properly. The data-sharing provisions in section 12H, developed in consultation with the Data Protection Commission, will allow it to do that work on a sound legal footing. I welcome too the retrospective application provided for in section 12I. There are families already living with the consequences of these convictions. They should not be excluded from this protection because their cases predate commencement. Taking a step back for a moment, guardianship is defined by the Courts Service as the rights and duties of parents in respect of the upbringing of their children. Rights and duties are the two halves of the same legal status. The Bill addresses the most extreme end of the spectrum, where the duty has been violated in the gravest way imaginable, but the principle that guardianship carries responsibilities as well as rights is one this House should be willing to examine across the spectrum, not only at the extremes. There is a real concern in communities across the country, including in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire, about a small but persistent cohort of young people who are engaged in serious antisocial and criminal behaviour. We all know the pattern. It is the same names, the same addresses and the same incidents. In too many of these cases, the guardians of those children have effectively disengaged from any role in steering their behaviour. Will the Minister to examine, as part of the ongoing implementation of the Youth Justice Strategy 2021–2027, what further measures can be brought forward to hold guardians meaningfully responsible for their children who continue to engage in serious antisocial and criminal behaviour? Section 111 of the Children Act 2001 provides for a parental supervision order where the court is satisfied that a wilful failure of a parent to control the child contributed to the child’s offending. The principle is on the Statute Book. The question is whether it is being used, whether it is being resourced and whether it can be strengthened. The vast majority of parents of children in difficulty are doing their best in circumstances none of us would want to face. The answer for them is support, not sanction, but that is why this conversation cannot be separated from continued investment versus intervention. I welcome the record €43 million allocation for youth justice services in budget 2026, which is a 22% increase on the previous year. I welcome the achievement of full nationwide coverage of youth diversion projects, with 94 in operation. I also welcome the continued funding of the Greentown programme, which targets children subject to coercive control by criminal gangs. These are the right investments. They must continue and they must reach communities such as those in Dún Laoghaire and across the country. However, intervention works best when responsibility is shared by the State, the community and the guardians of the children concerned. The aside I am asking the Minister to consider is the third leg of that stool. To return to the Bill before us, this is good legislation. It is carefully drafted. It has been developed in consultation with the families who lived through events it addresses, with civil society and with the Data Protection Commissioner. It places child welfare where it belongs, in the public law arena, not in the private negotiations of grieving families. It honours Valerie French. It honours every child who has been left in legal limbo while the State worked out what to do. That is welcome in this legislation, and I am pleased to support it.

Sentiment score: 0.15