Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for coming here, although I found their remarks utterly depressing. It is brilliant that they decided to come here because this is such an important area. Our failure to deal with it, as a society, is so enormously damaging that there is an imperative on all of us to listen to the advice that we are being given, and act on same. The saddest part is that some of the issues have been well flagged but have not been acted on for a period. Some of my thoughts on this matter are a little bit eclectic, so I may throw out some stuff. I will start with the whole area of listening to the voice of the child. If we considered matters like that in a real sense then things might be different. It would be a good starting point. The Act in 2015 gave directions for an expert report to be done on the welfare of the child. Recently, the Bar Council talked about some of the regulations and the experts being problematic not least, I think the witnesses said, on account of the maximum fee being set. I would like to explore some of those things.

Why are the regulations problematic? What is the issue with the maximum fee chargeable? A maximum fee is a sensible suggestion. I have heard of people paying thousands upon thousands of euro for section 47 reports. Would it be better to cap them? Would a State-funded scheme be better, as suggested by Dr. O'Shea?

I refer to the differences between section 47 reports under the 1995 Act and the section 32 reports under the 2015 Act. Are they the same? How do they differ? How come section 32 reports can be compiled by psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and social care workers who have undergone specialist training while section 47 reports can be compiled by whoever the health board deems to be qualified? This is a huge problem. Is there a fee cap on section 32 reports? I think there is a cap on them but not on the section 47 reports, which are more commonly used. The reason for this is a lack of consistency. Some judges sit down with the children and ascertain their views in a very nice, all encompassing way but most judges do not because they probably think that talking to children is hippy nonsense and a waste of time when he or she has too much work to do or whatever.

Do the witnesses think there is a limit in the Act? The Act gave power or enacted the constitutional provision to recognise the voice of the child. The Act only talks about the views of the child where they are ascertainable and that the court "may" do so. Do the witnesses think the Act should be changed and the word "shall" inserted? Should the voice be required because some judges do not listen to that voice? In that context, there is a huge issue with the section 47 reports. I have heard a lot of people say that it is not the voice of the child but the voice of the psychoanalyst, for example, who takes a certain view. It is hugely problematic that this is an unregulated profession. I have raised the case of psychoanalysts many times with the Minister. It will be two years before the profession is fully analysed, so anybody can call himself or herself a psychoanalyst and, therefore, could be authorised to compile a section 47 report.

There is a gap in the law. If I do not like a report, there is nowhere I can go to overturn it. Is it the witnesses' experience that, even though the judge may take these reports into account, in practice they have become the gospel for many judges? That is against the backdrop of there being no mechanism where a report can be appealed or complained about because it is an unregulated profession. To me, that is an incredibly daunting and worrying situation. I would like to hear comments on that and how we can improve the situation so the voice of the child can really be heard. At the moment, as far as I am concerned, that is not being dealt with properly.