Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

The Minister of State is correct. In my amendment I lean toward a broader category of person. I have particularly in mind parents without custody, grandparents and guardians. I still have a difficulty with this. The Minister said he would examine the issue in general. This section is not to do with notification. It gives a person the power to apply to the court to vary or discharge an order or particular conditions in that order. What if a grandparent, guardian or parent without custody could come the court and say that circumstances have changed and that he or she can play a bigger role in a child's life and wants the court to consider varying or discharging the order on that basis? I hope the Minister re-examines this as he said he would. We need to examine all these issues.

While much of what I am thinking of has more a family law aspect than a child care one, it is also relevant here. We need to examine the types of reforms being introduced. Australia introduced the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act this year and it specifically defines grandparents as people who have custody, unlike Irish law. To allow grandparents we bring in the broad definition but do not specifically mention their role. Perhaps we should begin to specifically mention grandparents in our legislation and examine our definition of parent in order that we do not exclude any parent. The welfare of the child is always the paramount consideration.

I reiterate that I am not saying the motivation of this legislation or even the principal Act is to discriminate against anyone. However, there is an inherent bias in the legislation which emerges when we try to amend it. We are looking at the manner in which society was ordered in days gone by, and we must examine modern realities instead.