Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Most of my questions have probably already been asked and answered. The most interesting thing has been what Ms Kiernan said about there being a philosophical argument. That is the problem with the whole system. The Department of Social Protection is definitely in a different place philosophically from anybody who deals with children. The Department does not, I believe, have the best interests of children at heart in that it is more about looking after the money and cutting back on the money being spent. Is there anything any of the witnesses can see that can get beyond that? I think that is what we have to do to actually get somewhere in this regard.

Further, do the witnesses see the removal of the option of non-payment of means as a way of stopping access to children? Maybe that should be worked in a different way. It should be important. I think men use it as a way of controlling what happens. I think that needs to be looked at differently and separately for the benefit of children.

Do the witnesses wish to take a first step on the philosophical point?