Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

She was promoted. A big plus is that she is no longer directly involved with children. That is why I am such a great believer in whistleblowers' charters, which we should have in all aspects of life. I could not believe what happened.

I look at people doing jobs. With experience, and having got to know people, one knows whether they are good and have the requisite interest. My instinct is not to trust a person on the first meeting. Perhaps that is a bad way to be, but it reflects my experience. I recently met a couple well into their 50s who had four small children with them. They were lovely children, well cared for and clearly very comfortable in the family situation, draped over the woman, who might have been their mother or grandmother. They turned out to be four foster children. It was an entire family made up of a diverse group but clearly very comfortable in one another's company and well cared for. That is the ideal for which we strive.

In those circumstances, this Bill is ideal, since it grants a kind of autonomy to those parents and reassures the children by stating that those whom they consider their parents, for whatever length of time, are there in times of crisis and emergency to tell them what to do without the drawn-out, bureaucratic nightmare of having to contact health boards or social workers, 95% of whom are good. The Bill is very good from that perspective. I started by saying that we all feel that we have the panacea regarding how children should be reared, what the future holds for them and what we should be doing as a society to protect them. None of us has that, since no child comes with a label stating how it should be washed, fed or reared; they are individuals like everyone else.

The Supreme Court decision of two weeks ago was an awful tragedy, and not just for the natural parents or those who cared for the child for two years. The dust will settle and things will come right, but the hurt will never go away, on either side. When one examines the detail of the case and considers the fact that the request for the child to be returned was made very early, one sees that it was not the fault of the adoptive or the biological parents. It was the fault of those in between, and sometimes people are inclined to believe that their vision of an individual's future is right and that only their prescription will work. However, that is not so. What happened in the case in question should be a lesson to us all.

I mentioned the four children I met recently and their very loving foster parents. However, we must be very careful that fostering, good as it is, is not adoption. It can progress thereto, but it is not the same thing. Some people place their children in care voluntarily because they simply cannot cope with the daily stress of their lives. Most of them do so on a short-term basis. It may not turn out to be short-term, but most do so with that intention. They ask for a month to get themselves back on their feet. It may take longer — and they may never quite be in a position to take their children back full-time — but they never place their children in care expecting it to continue until the child is an adult.

We must be very careful of the balance. The orders made are very good, and five years is a suitable period. It is not too short or too long. Let us imagine that a child is placed in foster care at three months, which I believe is the most common age. It will be five, going to school, settling into a community, and the biological parents at that stage have probably reached some kind of conclusion regarding where the child will be. The health board, if it is not a voluntary care order, will definitely have done so by that stage. However, the conclusion should not be reached any sooner. There is a difference, and one must be extremely careful of the natural parents' rights. We do not want the situation to arise where an order is made that people find very hard to reverse. Further important protection is provided by the fact that an access order can also be made after the residency orders have been granted. It is not a barrier to the biological parents having access to their children. The shutters do not come down, but a mechanism is provided whereby foster parents exercise more autonomy in the lives of the children for whom they care.

I see from the transcript of the debate in the Seanad that the Minister agreed to consider the list of people with a bona fide interest in a child's life. I agree that the list should perhaps be more precise, including the immediate family and siblings. However, we must do something about grandparents' rights. They need not necessarily be included in the Bill, but they must be examined with the utmost care. As Deputy Twomey said, apart from when the child is very young and the arrangement is voluntary, a child usually enters care at a fairly chaotic time in its life, and that may be why fostering can take some time to settle. The grandparents may very well be the only stable point in the child's life at that stage. I have seen cases where grandparents, seeing that there is chaos in the family home, have pursued the health board, now the HSE, to ensure the child's best interests are taken on board and that he or she is taken into care.

Grandparents have a special role to play. Not all grandparents find themselves in the situation I described but we must make some provision for situations where children are placed in care even though they have grandparents who wish to be involved in their care. It is unacceptable that a child who has lived with his or her grandparents for several years may end up in foster care and the grandparents have no right of access.

I agree with the Minister of State that the list of people with a bona fide interest in a child's life must be precise. Grandparents should be included on that list so they can apply to the court for access. My heart goes out to grandparents who, having enjoyed a close relationship with their grandchild, must then endure the sudden cutting off of that relationship. This happens not only in foster care situations but also in cases, for example, where one of the child's parents remarries and the new spouse, usually contrary to the child's wishes, does not want the grandparents involved in his or her life. We must be farsighted in dealing with this issue.

Family life is changing dramatically but it should not be beyond the wit of legislators to regulate these social changes. Like Deputy Twomey, I was amazed to hear the Taoiseach speak about a referendum on children's rights. It is not that simple. One cannot simply put together a formula of words on which everyone will agree. The best interests of children should be at the heart of everything that affects their welfare. I am not certain, however, that we can devise a formula of words for insertion in the Constitution that will ensure that.

We spent two years trying to secure constitutional rights for people with disabilities, including children. We were told by a succession of Ministers, however, that this type of constitutional provision could not be made and would be unenforceable. How can the Taoiseach now tell us that it will be done in regard to children's rights by means of a simple formula of words before the next election? If it can be done in this instance, why was it not done in respect of people with disabilities, a more manageable and readily identifiable group?

More than 5,000 children are currently resident in various types of care. I am always astonished this figure is not higher given that the supports provided by extended family networks are generally no longer in place. Moreover, communities are not as strong as they were, although the situation is not as bad as is usually suggested. The way in which we manage children in care is vitally important. If these children have a good experience of childhood, a good education and emerge into adulthood as well rounded people, they can play an important part in society. On the other hand, we know what happens when children are treated poorly.

The family to whom I referred, comprising the parents and four foster children, told me they were planning to go on a holiday. That is why I am particularly interested in the passport issue. I can only imagine the hoops these parents had to go through to secure passports for their four children, who were all close in age. It is vitally important that foster parents are able to give permission for children to go abroad for limited periods of time, on school trips, for example. Children who have not had the best start in life need more support to make up for the difficulties they face. This is why the role of grandparents can be particularly important.

It is not reasonable or acceptable that any judge should be expected to hear cases regarding drink driving, assaults, neighbours' disputes and so on all morning and then have to deal with family law matters in the afternoon. It is a specialised area that requires a specialised approach. Such hearings should not take place in the court house in Cork or elsewhere where defendants in criminal cases are in handcuffs. The cases are different and should be treated as such.

Serious and careful consideration should be given to the introduction of a magistrate system such as that which exists in Britain, which avails of the expertise of psychologists and specialists in family law in an informal setting. This would remove some of the stress from proceedings and would undoubtedly better serve those involved in family law cases. We must seriously consider the introduction of specialised sittings for family law matters.

I agree with the Minister of State's observation in the Seanad that the list of persons who could apply for access to a child should be clearly defined. This is a good and workable Bill so long as the sensitivity of the biological parents is not interfered with in any way and that people are not led to believe that foster care is some type of short-term adoption. In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Baby Ann case and other cases, we must be sensitive to both sides while always bearing in mind that our priority should be the best interests of the child. It is that which should always guide us.

See this speech in context