Dr. Karen McAuley:

We have not had a chance to look at the proposals in detail. To be frank, we are not quite sure what the rationale is behind looking to lower the threshold for a child being made party to proceedings. It is not that we do not agree with it in principle, but we do not know what the background to that is. To reiterate what colleagues from Barnardos said, what is really key is to acknowledge that the current proceedings under section 25 are not designed in a child-centred way. They are not intended for children to be participants in that way in proceedings, so an awful lot of work will be needed to put safeguards in place to ensure what is provided for, in terms of the environment, the information, and the supports for children do support them to act as a party.

Without wanting to reopen the Child Care (Amendment) Act from last year, there is also the question around the circumstances in which it is appropriate or necessary for a child to be made a party to the proceedings, other than whether they may wish to. What we would like to see is that where a GAL is appointed to a child, they should enjoy the same procedural rights, etc., as a child who is made a party. We do have questions around when it is necessary for a child to be made a party, and if that equity is ostensibly provided for through the 2022 Act.