Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I welcome the inclusion of relatives in the provisions of the Bill. I have encountered relatives who are taking on the role of foster parent because the parents are, for whatever reason, not in a position to look after their child. Their position is not good relative to that of other foster parents. As Senator Browne observed, such persons cannot access similar allowances. This must be reviewed because there are many relatives in this position. Some of them receive the orphan's allowance or other forms of payments but others do not. The manner in which they are dealt with by the Health Service Executive is not always helpful and some do not feel secure in their status. This Bill will help to some degree but it is an area the Minister of State should consider reviewing.

Section 43A(4)(a) of the Child Care Act 1991, as inserted by section 2 of the Bill, provides that the foster parent or relative shall have "on behalf of the Health Service Executive, the like control over the child as if the foster parent or relative were the child's parent". This definition seems faulty because it does not allow for the possibility that the child's parent may be an unmarried father who, unless he seeks guardianship rights through the courts or with the agreement of the mother, has no rights in this regard.

The Minister of State mentioned the possibility of setting up a register of unmarried fathers. We should follow the example of England, Wales and Scotland where the man designated as the father on the birth certificate has automatic guardianship rights to the child. There are many thousands of unmarried fathers who have no rights, including those in unproblematic relationships who are not even aware they do not have those rights. A register is inadequate to deal with this. The authorities in Scotland found that men simply did not register their guardianship agreements. My suggestion represents only a halfway house and one could go much further. It would, however, do much for unmarried fathers in terms of extending their guardianship rights. I hope the Minister of State will take it on board.

Section 43 A(4)(b) of the 1991 Act, as inserted by section 2 of the Bill, defines what a foster parent or relative may do for the purposes of safeguarding the child's health and welfare, including the ability to consent to any medical or psychiatric examination, treatment or assessment and the provision of passport facilities for the child. Are other guardianship rights not included, such as decisions in regard to education and so on?

Section 43B(1) of the 1991 Act, as inserted by section 2 of the Bill, sets out the persons or bodies on whose application the court may vary or discharge an order under section 43A, as inserted by section 2 of the Bill. These include, as well as the Health Service Executive and the foster parent or relative to whom the order was granted, the parent having custody of the child at the relevant time. What about the parent who does not have custody at the relevant time? A mother who does not have custody, for example, but is by law the child's guardian should be able to go to court and make the application as the guardian. The definition needs to be clarified to cover such situations.

In general, however, I welcome this Bill. I hope the Minister of State will build on it and introduce other positive measures.