Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 9(2) is very particular. It refers specifically to functions under the terms of the Child Care Act 1991 or the Adoption Act 2010, and very rightly makes the point in regard to "paramount consideration". With Deputy Troy, I have put down a further amendment in regard to section 9(2) on which we will reflect in a few moments. However, section 9(1), which we are seeking to strengthen, refers quite particularly to sections 8(1)(a), (b) and (c), which we addressed some time back in today's debate, and it would "have regard to the best interests of the child in all matters". The two sections are most definitely not addressing the same issues and, while I acknowledge that subsection (2) is incorporated in subsection (1), subsection (2) deals with a whole other array of issues outside the terms of the Child Care Act 1991 and the Adoption Act 2010. Therefore, I believe that having "regard to the best interests of the child in all matters" in terms of section 9(1) falls far short of what should be there. It is not contradictory in any way, nor is the language competing, for us to change section 9(1) to "as a primary consideration".

The Minister then went on to section 9(2) in the context of the Child Care Act 1991 and the Adoption Act 2010, where the term is "paramount consideration". I suppose one could argue that "paramount" gives it an even stronger connotation. However, I have no doubt in regard to all of the other matters that pertain in regard to children, and which the agency will have responsibility for outside the terms of the Child Care Act 1991 and the Adoption Act 2010, that we need to affirm in the strongest possible terms the "primary consideration" of the best interests of the child.

I believe this is what is required. The term "having regard to" does not, of itself, compel in terms of decisions made or outcomes arrived at. There could be situations where decisions were taken where the best interests of the child were clearly not the end result in any consideration. That simply would not be tolerable, in my view.

This is about children. What was wrong in the past was that children's interests were not given primary or indeed paramount consideration. I welcome the use of that phraseology in section 9(2). It is long past time they were given primary consideration and not just regard, never mind 'due regard'. People could claim they had given regard to the interests of the child - in order words, taken them into consideration - but that does not of itself necessarily mean that the outcome was in the best interest of the child and that other competing interests were not given precedence or preference. I do not want to see a situation in which competing interests have preference over the best interests of a child, who cannot fight his or her own corner or represent himself or herself as we would wish. We want to see not only the best interests of children confirmed but their voice and views fully taken into account. That is what my amendment No. 15 seeks to establish. I think we need to start off at the best possible point, which in my view means moving from the words "have regard to the best interest of the child in all matters" to "regard the best interests of the child as a primary consideration." in section 9(1). I thought we had all arrived at that consensus some considerable time ago.