Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to speak for the Labour Party in support of this important Bill and to welcome its introduction today. As others have said, it is hugely important that we see regulation in place on the principle and the practice of GALs. Indeed, this is a Bill that has had a long genesis. The Minister alluded to that. A previous iteration of it fell in 2020. It is long overdue.

I should say that I am somebody who, in practice as a barrister, represented GALs in quite a number of cases. I came to know several GALs very well and was hugely impressed by the way in which they carried out their work and by the enormous merit of the GAL process. All of us are conscious that GALs have been operating in an unsatisfactory legal context. There was little set out in law on their role or functions, and yet the seasoned and experienced GALs with whom I worked performed hugely important work in a very traumatic context.

The State exercises one of the most extreme forms of State power when it takes a child into State care and away from his or her parents, who are often themselves in deeply traumatic circumstances and contexts. Obviously, huge issues have to be in place before the State would contemplate this. In these scenarios, GALs often act as an important bridge between parents and social workers. Indeed, they fulfil the important mechanism of conveying to the court what is in the child's best interests or, where the child is old enough, the child's own views. They provided a way of expressing those views and the voice of the child to the court in the years even before we passed the referendum to insert Article 42A into the Constitution, which now requires the voice and the views of the child to be heard. Therefore, GALs have been hugely important.

In my experience, there has been greater concern in many child care proceedings where GALS have not been appointed. This can make court proceedings more difficult and often more protracted. I have seen GALs - sometimes this point is missed - perform a valuable function not only in the substantive conveying of the interests of the child and ensuring the child's interests are protected, but also in enabling the more efficient and effective functioning of child care courts. It is a much better way for a judge to come to make a decision where he or she is presented with a report from an experienced GAL and where the GAL is intervening to assist in the making of very difficult decisions around care proceedings. I say all of that not only to commend GALs but also to defend the system that is operating in spite of this legal vacuum without adequate legislative governance. I welcome the new provisions that will give us for the first time a proper statutory framework for the exercise of GAL powers because these are weighty powers and proceedings where we are talking about children being taken into care.

I am conscious that this is not the final stage in regulating the practice of GALs. This morning, the Joint Committee on Gender Equality heard from the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, who discussed with us the new proposals around the family courts system in the context of measures to address the needs of survivors and victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. There is a real awareness among NGOs and any of us who have worked in the courts system of the current problems that arise where there is insufficient co-ordination between criminal courts and family courts. I refer, for example, to circumstances in which domestic violence issues are before the criminal courts and at the same time there are parallel proceedings in the family courts involving private family matters around custody of and access to a child. It is essential that there would be greater co-ordination in such circumstances. We should have a family court system that can deal with all of these questions together in a unified and co-ordinated fashion that is in the best interests of the survivors of abuse but also, of course, of children who are involved in such proceedings.

I am conscious that, as the Minister has said, there will be fuller legislation coming forward, not only on the basis of the review of the childcare legislation that is being carried out but also on the basis of the overall reform of the family court system. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, has talked about family hubs. In that context, it is worth mentioning one area where GALs are not involved. In private family disputes, we have often extremely protracted, difficult and traumatic proceedings going on around contested custody, guardianship, care and access arrangements in respect of a child. These are scenarios where many practitioners, judges, social workers and, indeed, parents might be of the view that it would be helpful to engage an independent impartial advocate for the child. Judges may, of course, seek reports, such as private reports and written reports, on children's views but it is very different from the GAL process. The Ombudsman for Children, Dr. Niall Muldoon, has expressed concern that children in private family law cases may not be getting the same opportunity to have their views expressed in court as children who are represented by GALs. Therefore, the question of extending a similar mechanism arises. Ms Freda McKittrick of Barnardos, which, of course, runs the country's largest GAL service, has spoken about the need for a family court welfare service - a one-stop shop - which would allow families to access a range of services and thereby enable more joined-up co-ordination when there are a number of different issues before the courts dealing with one particular family. This is part of the broader reform that the Ministers, Deputies O'Gorman and McEntee, have spoken about but it is an important context in which we are debating this particular legislation.

As the Minister stated, the legislation has been welcomed by NGOs and experts alike and there will be longer term arrangements made to ensure the establishment of the new executive office, and this legislation is enabling the Minister to do that.

Looking back at our recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny from the joint Oireachtas committee, I will address a couple of those points. Like Deputy Funchion, I was interested to hear what the Minister said about introducing a presumption rather than a mandatory appointment in all proceedings. I take the Minister's point that it may be a better way to ensure the voice and views of the child are heard but we will need to consider that further on Committee Stage because the GAL should be, and normally is, the best way of expressing a child's view. There may be cases, of course, where the child is an older teen and where that is not necessary. The way the Minister has framed the legislation means that the presumption will be displaced where the court is satisfied that it can determine other means by which to facilitate the expression by the child of his or her views. It may be necessary to spell out in a little more detail how that decision is to be made by a judge and that may be part of a broader reform involving more of an overarching family court welfare service.

Another of the concerns the committee had and that we will need to address, perhaps on Committee Stage, is the appointment of a specific guardian ad litem. Other speakers have raised this issue. Where a guardian has been involved in respect of a child's siblings, for example, or has knowledge of a particular family, there should be a facility whereby the court can appoint that specific guardian.

The issue of the access of the guardian to information from Tusla was raised at the committee. Section 35F gives the power to the court to order a report on the application by a guardian for same. Section 35G gives the guardian the power to request information from Tusla. I see there is a mechanism for the court to adjudicate when there is an issue about access to information. My own experience, and this is self-evident, is that the guardian process is at its most effective when full information is provided and, indeed, that is the practice because without that, the guardian cannot give a full report, particularly if the child involved is very young.

I welcome the Bill. There is a lot of technical material in it that will be better dealt with on Committee Stage. However, I repeat that the guardian ad litemprocess, as it has evolved, has been significant in providing a better mechanism for children's interests to be represented before the court than any previous process. We have, of course, become cognisant of the need to ensure there is better governance of guardians ad litemand I welcome, therefore, the technical provisions around how to authorise guardians and the sorts of qualifications required. I know a lot of the detail will be dealt with by ministerial regulation rather than via the primary legislation, as is appropriate. It is also appropriate that we see clearer provisions around the appointment of legal representation to guardians because like the guardian practice itself, that has been ad hoc until now. I have seen that myself. It will be a welcome change to ensure we have proper regulation of all of these areas.

I welcome the legislation and commend those who are currently involved in providing the important services guardians ad litem provide. I look forward to further debate and discussion on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context