Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

It is important to recall that amendment No. 14 states:

In page 44, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:

"(3) Nothing in subsection (1)(d) or (2) shall be construed as making ineffective any consent which would have been effective if those provisions had not been enacted.".

The Bill allows the HSE to consent and the amendment to which I have just referred allows that other previous, existing consents would not be invalidated. Therefore they can co-exist and there is no question of eliminating the consents that would have existed prior to this Bill. For example, if a parent or child has a right of consent, it would continue to be valid, and would not be invalidated as a result of the previous amendment. The question of consultation is quite separate to consent, which is a veto. Consultation is simply having reference to comments that are made by the categories of individuals that are listed.

I should draw Members' attention to later sections which indicate this has been contemplated. On pages 57 and 58, section 23NM deals with the provision of information to certain persons. Subsection (1) states the HSE shall, from time to time during the period for which a special care order has effect, provide a parent having custody of the child with information etc. Equally, section 23NN states the parent of a child may make an application in writing for information on the care of the child. Therefore consultation is ongoing and continues throughout the period of the order, but there is also the issue of consent so that any pre-existing consent, prior to the application of this Bill, will continue to be valid.

However, there is another issue which Senator Alex White raised in amendment No. 12. I am inclined to accept the first part of that amendment, which states that "Regard shall be had to the views of the child, having regard to the child's age and understanding, prior to taking steps under this section". I think it is worth inserting that in the Bill. I will therefore accept that proposal, but I would like to examine the phraseology, as well as detaching it from the second part of the amendment, which I tried to refer to in my original comments.