Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

My amendment is coming at exactly the same issue as Deputy Ó Caoláin's but with a slightly different approach. The substantial point is the same.

The Government's proposal serves to limit the conditions in respect of which the voice of the child must be heard in proceedings. By prescribing the applicability of Article 42A.1 in this manner, the Minister is limiting its applicability to the State and excluding other proceedings that might be taken in the interests of vindicating the rights of the child and ensuring, in any such proceedings, that the voice of the child is heard. Our amendment proposes to remove this limitation by deleting the words "brought by the State, as guardian of the common good" from Article 42A.4.1 (ii). Article 42A.4.1 would thus read as follows:

Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—i for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

As I said, I do not understand why the limitation imposed by the reference to "brought by the State, as guardian of the common good" is required. As I understand it, its effect is to assume that the State is the only party which might take proceedings in the best interests of the child and the only party that might be concerned to ensure the voice of the child is heard. That is not the case. In fact, there could be situations where the State is the offending party. My amendment would ensure the imperative that the voice of the child is heard would also apply in the case of proceedings taken by other parties. I urge the Minister to take on board the substantial point Deputy Ó Caoláin and I are making in these amendments. I do not see any argument against our proposals.

See this speech in context