David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. She is an ornament to her Department, as she was to this House when she was Leader of the Opposition. This is a simple, technical, one-page Bill. The first amending section provides for the substitution of 28 days with 29 days as the maximum duration for an interim care order. I read the Minister's speech but I was not completely clear about why this is necessary. That has been clarified in subsequent contributions, although I am sure the Minister clarified it. I apologise for not being present when she made her contribution but I had to attend a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The principal Act, which is the Child Care Act 1991, is being amended by this legislation. I recall the debate on that well. I take a certain proprietary interest in some aspects of it because I was involved centrally in advocating for the guardian ad litem service. The second amending section provides for the extension of interim care order renewals from eight to 29 days and there are clear, technical reasons for that. There are also human reasons and I am rather impressed by that. It is being done because of the time wasted, the stress on all those involved and, in particular, the impact on the relationship between the child and the social worker. Those three points are well made.

I am concerned at a reference to the increased legal costs in respect of the guardian ad litem scheme. I thought it was an excellent idea. I was briefed by Barnardos when the original Bill was introduced. I contacted its representatives about this Bill and they are pleased with it. They feel an extension is very necessary. However, I am concerned about the situation regarding the funding of the guardian ad litem scheme and perhaps the Minister could give the House some information about this. It has been suggested that the scheme is not adequately funded. I acknowledge we are in a greatly difficult financial situation but if we look back to the Roscommon incest case, there were suggestions that if the scheme had been adequately implemented, the suffering of those children might have been abrogated at a much earlier point. I was appalled at some fundamentalist Christians who intervened in the process and encouraged and incited the family to take the matter to court. That was profoundly shocking, given, subsequently, both parents were convicted of sexual offences against their own children. In general, the guardian ad litem scheme is a good one. It may have some flaws that may need to be ironed out. Given the Minister has raised the issue of costs, perhaps she could clarify the issue. If the House can encourage the Government and support the Minister to ensure the adequate funding of this mechanism, we will have done a good day's work.