Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I accept that all amendments have been tabled with good intent and I am responding to them as such.

I was not in the previous Dáil. My understanding was there was no reference to party-type rights in the original draft. The Deputy tabled an amendment similar to what she is proposing here. What we have done now is proactively recognise that the issue of party-type rights had been left hanging. It needed to be resolved. We have put in a mechanism that is flexible. I do not believe party-type rights are needed in every situation. We have put in place a mechanism that gives the court that discretion to put them in where they are needed and put in the type of party rights that are needed.

We have accepted the overall point that the Deputy and others raised in the previous Dáil that there are circumstances where party-type rights are necessary. While she is absolutely correct to bring forward an amendment, our amendment better encapsulates the flexibility that is needed in these types of situations. The provision at present states "The court or any party to the proceedings may call a guardian ad litemappointed for a child as a witness.", and the proposal is to delete that as part of amendment No. 2. That is problematic. I would like to think that I have pointed out the reasons. It is clear that the GAL is not only a witness. Indeed, the mere fact that in certain circumstances a GAL can have party-type rights is even further evidence that it is clear that the way in which a GAL is treated under this legislation is not as a witness. He or she is not a witness. It is proposed to delete that clear statutory permission to allow perhaps a parent call the GAL in as a witness and get that testimony. That would be a retrograde step.

See this speech in context