Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will respond to some of those points. Regarding amendment No. 1, I do not see what the difficulty or issue is with even the wording or language of that because it was passed and was allowed through in the legislation the last time around. In terms of any Attorney General's advice or anything, I assume it would have gone through all of that before the previous Dáil fell.

My concern is: what if one gets a court that is not au faitwith this? It is good, as the Minister said, that the family courts will be changed and reformed. Everybody will welcome that but in the interim, in many cases family courts, I hate to say it, in some areas of the country are genuinely not fit for purpose. If a court interprets something one way, I do not see what the difficulty is in giving the GAL that status. If it is not needed, obviously, it is not needed. Why do they have to fight for that and why is it at the discretion of the court? I have an issue with that because of what happens, as I queried on Second Stage, if there is any sort of grey area. There is not an appeals mechanism, as far as I understand it. I do not see what the issue is with adding in the phrasing that we have there.

Regarding the word "witness", my concern is that in a court situation one is calling somebody a witness. Everyone's understanding of that is that he or she comes forward, gives his or her piece, and goes again, and that is it. They are not involved. If a particular judge or a particular family court is rigid and states that this person is described as a witness, I do not see the difficulty with the language.

We have not tabled a string of amendments, which shows we are sincere in welcoming the Bill. These are just two minor amendments that, to a certain extent, we had discussed and had been decided upon. I accept the times move on, Dáileanna change and all the rest of it. Whatever about maybe them being opposed for the sake of it, I do not accept that there is any issue with the language in them because that was not flagged with us in the previous process when some were agreed.

See this speech in context