Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(e) a person who, in the opinion of the court, has a bona fide interest in the child."

I put down this amendment on Committee Stage. I argued at that time that the section as it stands was more limited than section 37(1), which allows a broader category of interested persons, for example, relatives of natural parents, to apply for conditions to be added to the order under the Bill. I ask the Minister of State to consider the amendment as it might be a way of dealing with the issue I raised in amendment No. 22. Section 37(1) of the principal Act states: "facilitate reasonable access to the child by his parents ... or any other person who, in the opinion of the board, has a bona fide interest in the child". This Bill ties in the new sections 43A and 43B with section 37 of the principal Act, which allows for the type of person I allow for in amendment No. 23.

I do not understand why the category of "any other person who, in the opinion of the board, has a bona fide interest in the child" is allowed for in the principal Act but not allowed for in this Bill although section 37 is allowed for in the amending Bill. With regard to the new sections 43A and 43B, the Bill at page 5 allows that a judge might make an order with regard to section 37. The new section 43B on page six mentions conditions or restrictions attached to that order. That could include conditions that would have a connection with access, which is what section 37 of the principal Act is about. To be consistent, the Minister of State should allow my amendment. It would allow for the parent who does not have custody, and would solve the problem I raised earlier, at least for this part of the amending legislation.

I previously raised the issue of grandparents. This is also related to the overall aim of the Bill regarding the types of consents that foster parents can give under this new legislation. Those consents can include the broader consents a guardian can give or they can be restricted. That is why the Minister of State is allowing for conditions and restrictions in the new section 43B. It is possible that, for example, a grandparent, parent who does not have custody or other relative could come forward and say that in certain circumstances he or she could have a role. That is why it is worded so broadly. If access comes in here, to be consistent the Minister of State should allow my amendment. What would be the harm? The court has a say and all the protections and safety nets to which the Minister has referred exist. Why not provide for these relatives in the legislation? The protections exist and the courts will do what is best, taking into account the welfare of the child and the background circumstances. There is information the court may need. A grandparent, parent who does not have custody or somebody who has a bona fide interest in the child may be able to say he or she wants an order discharged or a condition varied because he or she can contribute. The Minister of State should consider accepting this amendment. I do not see the problem with it, given it is already in section 37 of the principal Act, to which the Minister of State referred.