I welcome the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. His officials are on the way. We now move to the Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026, which was changed from Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill 2026.

I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the Seanad this afternoon. This Bill upholds a fundamental principle that those convicted of the most serious crimes should not retain automatic legal authority over the children left behind. The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. As I said in the Dáil, the Bill is not about additional punishment for a crime, rather it is about the welfare and protection of children. It is intended to protect vulnerable children from further trauma, provide clarity for surviving family members, and prevent perpetrators from maintaining control over the lives of their children.

I welcome to the Public Gallery in the Seanad David French and his sister Veronica, who have campaigned tirelessly for a change to the law in memory of their sister, Valerie, who was murdered by her husband seven years ago. Valerie’s husband still retains all guardianship rights over their three children. I supported Mr. French in his campaign and, since becoming Minister for justice, I have worked to change the law. There are other families in the same terrible situation. This Bill acknowledges their circumstances and, I hope, in some way ameliorates their difficulties.

This important Bill will give the State the necessary power to ensure the safety and welfare of the children left behind by such horrendous crimes are protected. It will do so in a manner that ensures their voices are heard and that their best interests are the paramount consideration at all times. The State must play a role here. Guardianship when one guardian kills another should not be regarded as a matter of private law to be determined between the families concerned, but must be regarded as a child protection and welfare issue.

As I said earlier, this Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment. It is part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the independent study on familicide published in May 2023. The study was commissioned by my Department to analyse and present recommendations on how the State’s response could be more effective, in terms of response after an incident occurs and how systems can be put in place to learn lessons with a view to reducing future incidence of domestic homicides insofar as this may be possible.

The Bill ensures that, following the conviction of a parent or guardian of a child for the murder or manslaughter of another parent or guardian of that child, the Child and Family Agency will make an application to the courts. Tusla will be required to make an application as soon as practicable for an order that may remove or restrict the guardianship rights of the convicted guardian. My Department has worked with the Department of Children, Equality, and Disability to ensure the Bill is focused on child welfare. The role of Tusla in making these applications recognises its important role as the State agency with primary responsibility for promoting the safety and well-being of children.

Given the tragic and serious circumstances being addressed by this Bill, Tusla will in many cases already be involved in providing support to the children and their caregivers. In some cases, Tusla may be making use of its powers under the Child Care Act 1991 to safeguard the safety and welfare of the child in the immediate aftermath of the crime.

The Bill is a concise one but it deals with fundamental rights under our Constitution, including Article 42A, which provides that the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as possible, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights. The Bill will apply to both married and unmarried guardians. Children will have a voice in proceedings and the courts will ensure that the child’s best interests are balanced against the rights of a guardian who has failed in his or her duty towards that child by his or her horrific crime of killing that child’s other parent. Importantly, the provisions of this Bill will apply also to cases where one guardian killed another before the commencement of the legislation. This is an essential element to ensure that Tusla has the power, where it considers it necessary in the best interests of the child, to make an application to restrict or remove guardianship in the circumstances.

The Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill contains six sections. Section 1 provides for the Short Title, collective citation and commencement of the Bill. Section 2 provides for definitions defining “the Act of 1964” as the Guardianship of Infants Act of that year and the “Act of 1991” as the Child Care Act of that year. Section 3 inserts a new Part IIA into the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. That part gives effect to the programme for Government commitment to remove or restrict guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. The new part contains nine sections. The first of these, section 12B, defines terms that are used. Section 12C is the principal operative provision of the Bill. Tusla must apply to the District Court within six months of the conviction of a guardian for the murder or manslaughter of another guardian of the child. This application must be made where the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her parental duty to such extent that the child’s safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected. An order may be made by the court that will be suspended and take effect once an alternative arrangement is in place, either a care order under the 1991 Act or that another guardian is already in place. The court must consider both the failure of duty and the best interests of the child before making such an order. An order may either restrict the convicted guardian’s powers and duties or remove completely the convicted guardian from office as a guardian. The court may impose such conditions as it considers necessary in the best interests of the child.

It is important here to emphasise that Tusla is required in these circumstances to make an application. However, it will be a matter for the court to determine the form of the order to be made, considering the best interests of the child. Section 12D provides for the same procedure and powers on the part of Tusla and the court in circumstances where the other guardian of the child has been a victim of a serious offence but has not been killed. A serious offence is defined as an offence causing serious harm, which carries at least a penalty of ten years imprisonment. In these circumstances Tusla may apply to the court for an order removing or restricting guardianship of the guardian who has been convicted of a serious offence. Tusla may make such an application where there has been a failure of parental duty, as in section 12C, and there has been a change in the care arrangements or guardianship of the child as a result of the serious offence. Unlike section 12C regarding murder and manslaughter, the provision here will be a discretionary power for Tusla, that is, the power to ensure that guardianship of the convicted only can still be removed or restricted in situations where the victim guardian has not been killed but is not in a position to exercise their guardianship.

Section 12E provides for the procedures for a review of court orders under this Part. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the voice of the child in proceedings under this Part. This section applies the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended by the Child Care Act 2022. This includes a requirement for the court to appoint a guardian ad litem unless it is satisfied that the best interests of the child can be determined without such an appointment. Where a court has decided not to appoint a guardian ad litem, it will be required to give reasons for its decisions in writing. Section 12G provides for jurisdiction and the conduct of proceedings under this Part, which will be heard in the District Court and in the family District Court on commencement of the Family Courts Act 2024. Section 12H provides for the necessary safeguards in relation to data protection and data sharing. Consultation has been undertaken with the Data Protection Commission in developing these provisions. They will provide the necessary legal basis to permit Tusla to share and receive data with relevant bodies to enable it to perform its functions under this Part.

Section 12I provides for individuals to be made notice parties to proceedings. Any guardian of the child must be made a notice party to the proceedings. Any relative of the child may seek leave to be joined as a notice party and this is broadly defined. This section implements a request of stakeholders and a recommendation of the Oireachtas joint committee that family members be in a position to be made notice parties to proceedings. Section 12J provides for the retrospective application of this Part to cases where a conviction pre-dates the commencement of the provisions of this Bill.

Section 4 is a technical amendment to section 8A of the 1964 Act and Part 3 of the Bill, comprising sections 5 and 6, provides for a short set of technical amendments to the provision for guardians ad litem in Part VA of the Child Care Act 1991. These amendments are included at the request of Deputy Foley, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. They ensure that the policy intent in respect of the appointment of guardians ad litem and the provision to them of legal advice and legal representation under the guardian ad litem national service, which is in operation as of yesterday, is set out clearly in the legislation for the avoidance of any doubt. Where the guardian ad litem appointed for a child is no longer available or suitable to act for the child, in order to continue to meet the requirements of the court order concerned, it is an administrative necessity to provide in legislation for a replacement guardian ad litem for the child.

In terms of other amendments, I intend to bring on Committee Stage some technical amendments of a drafting nature to provide for cases under these provisions to be heard in the family District Court on commencement of the 2024 Act and a technical amendment to section 6C of the 1964 Act to account for the insertion by this Bill of the new Part 2A. Many details will merit debate, and I look forward to contributions from Senators.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire ar ais go dtí an Teach inniu. The Minister is welcome back to the House this afternoon. I also welcome David and Veronica to the Visitor's Gallery. On behalf of Fianna Fáil I welcome and support this Bill. As the Minister outlined, the Bill progresses a legislative change to allow for the removal of guardianship rights from a person who has been convicted of killing their partner or the other parent of the child or both. The Bill is a programme for Government commitment to examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partner or a parent of their child as part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the study of familicide and domestic and family violence death reviews.

These are grave offences. Killing the guardian of a child raises concerns for the safety and welfare of that child. Legislative changes are required to address this troubled issue, and I commend the Minister on moving swiftly in this area. The Bill is fundamentally about ensuring the best interests of the child as a paramount consideration with respect to guardianship. We believe these issues should not be regarded as a matter of private law to be determined between the families concerned but instead should be regarded as a child protection and welfare issue arising in the area of public law.

The legislation is to be known as Valerie's law, in honour of Valerie French, who was killed in June 2019, by her husband James Kilroy. On behalf of Fianna Fáil I thank David French for his advocacy in this area and in honour of his dear sister, Valerie. I know he has been a champion in that area, and the change has come along. He can be proud of that, and I am sure it is an emotional day for him and his family. I thank him for that. Today we are thinking of his family and the painful journey it has had to navigate.

The Bill is about putting children first in situations where one parent has killed or seriously harmed the other parent. It implements recommendations from the study of familicide and domestic and family violence death reviews. It recognises that these cases are not simply private family matters, but issues of child protection and welfare. The Bill ensures that a parent convicted of murder or manslaughter of the other parent of their child does not automatically retain guardianship rights. Instead, Tusla will be required to bring the matter before the District Court, which can restrict or remove those guardianship rights where it is in the child's best interest.

The Bill also applies in certain cases where a parent has seriously injured the other parent, resulting in changes to the child's care arrangements. Throughout the process, the welfare and best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration. Importantly, the legislation strengthens the voice of the child by providing for the appointment of a guardian ad litem and allows family members to participate in proceedings where appropriate.

This Bill represents an important reform that places child welfare at the centre of decision-making, strengthens protections for vulnerable children and responds directly to lessons learned from tragic cases of domestic and family violence.

The Minister is welcome to the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I approach the Bill with a great degree of caution and circumspection, as it warrants. I have substantial personal experience in helping children from troubled homes and situations. I recognise the great difficulty and complexity that comes with such issues, especially in how we legislate on them. In this case, there are a number of tensions that merit consideration as it progresses to Committee Stage.

First is the role of the wider family, particularly kinship care. As a State, we should look to models that recognise children are best supported, where possible, within their extended family networks. Grandparents and relatives often provide stability in the most difficult cases. Under this Bill, even where a child is being cared for by grandparents or close relatives, those carers cannot initiate or trigger an application for guardianship. It appears they are entirely dependent on Tusla choosing to act. This means the people most directly responsible for the child's day-to-day welfare will often have no formal role in the legal process governing the child's future. That creates a clear disconnect. I would like to see greater support for kinship care. Law should reflect it not by displacing the State but by recognising that those closest to the child may have a legitimate role in protecting them. There is scope to consider a more balanced model that allows some structured role for family members.

Second is the constitutional dimension. The Bill allows for restriction and, in some cases, removal of guardianship. That is understandable but even in the most extreme cases the individual remains the parent of the child. A criminal conviction does not dissolve that relationship. It does not dissolve the unconditional love that child has for that parent, despite the most heinous crime that parent may have done. Our constitutional framework treats the parent-child relationship with particular weight. We are not simply removing administrative rights; we are intervening in one of the most fundamental legal relationships we recognise. In some cases, circumstances may change, convictions may be overturned and children as they grow may form their own views about contact. The safeguards in the Bill are important but there is room to further ground the legislation in proportionality and to check its constitutionality, ensuring we protect children while still recognising the enduring nature of that relationship.

Third is the role of Tusla. As drafted, Tusla is effectively the gatekeeper. The process begins only if the agency acts. In some cases, it depends on a reasonable cause threshold; in others, it is simply that the agency considers it appropriate. If Tusla does not act, the legislation is never triggered. That is a significant concentration of power and must be viewed in light of current realities. Public confidence in Tusla is not where it needs to be. That is reflected in a number of serious, well-documented cases. We have seen, for example, the murder of the poor Ukrainian boy under Tusla care and the case in Citywest where the ten-year-old victim of the alleged sexual assault had been missing from Tusla supervision for over 24 hours. We have seen repeated judicial criticisms and findings that Tusla failed to comply with hundreds of court directions affecting hundreds of children. A High Court description of its approach to court orders is "wholly unsatisfactory". A District Court found its conduct was "shocking and appalling", including cases where children were left without allocated social workers, despite court orders. These are not abstract concerns; these are findings from our courts about the performance of the body to which the Bill assigns decisive gatekeeping power. This is not about individual social workers either, who often work under immense pressure but it raises a legitimate question: is it appropriate to place such a high level of discretion in a single agency without additional safeguards, balance or alternative pathways? If the intention is that these serious concerns should come before the courts, then we should be cautious about a system where the outcome depends entirely on an internal decision within Tusla. For that reason, I intend to table amendments on Committee Stage to look at these issues. If we are serious about protecting children, the system must be robust not only in principle but in practice. We must ensure no single point of failure can prevent the law operating as intended.

I dtosach báire, cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire, an Teachta O’Callaghan, as ucht teacht isteach arís chun déileáil leis an mBille. Is céim thábhachtach í an Bille seo chun ár ndlíthe a bhaineann le cosaint leanaí a neartú, go háirithe i gcásanna foréigean baile nó foréigean teaghlaigh ina ndúnmharaíonn tuismitheoir amháin an tuismitheoir eile agus na himpleachtaí atá aige seo ar chearta an tuismitheora sin a mhaireann maidir le caomhnóireacht na leanaí a mhaireann.

They had an argument, she went out to buy groceries while he said he had a few drinks. When she came home later he murdered her and then abandoned the children.

These are the words spoken by David French in relation to the brutal murder of his sister, Valerie, by her husband, James Kilroy, in 2019. As the Minister stated, Mr. Kilroy still retains all guardianship rights over his and Valerie's three children. Like the Minister and other Senators, I welcome David and his sister Veronica to the Visitors Gallery. I acknowledge the huge amount of work David and his family have done over the past seven years in campaigning for the law to be changed to improve safeguards and protections for Irish children and families.

I welcome the Bill for the reasons outlined in detail by the Minister. It is an important step forward in the area of child protection and is the legislative follow-up to the commitment made in the programme for Government. It is right the conviction of a person in our courts for the murder of their partner, their fellow parent or the guardian of their children should automatically preclude that person from full guardianship rights of the surviving children. The safeguarding and protection of surviving children must always supersede all other considerations. We welcome the promotion and safeguarding of the best interests of the child through the statutory scheme, which requires the expertise of Tusla - the Child and Family Agency in child protection and welfare, as the Minister outlined. The passage of this legislation will ensure future cases of this nature will be regarded as child protection and welfare issues and not as matters of private law.

On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I commend the Minister, the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and all involved in the drafting of this legislation, which has our full support.

Next are Senators McCormack and Tully. I understand they are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sinn Féin welcomes the progression of this legislation. We are eager to work with the Minister to ensure it is as robust as possible.

I want to start by paying tribute to Valerie, a woman who should have been turning 49 this year. As other Senators have mentioned, she was violently killed by her husband in 2019 when she was 41 years old.

Valerie was a mother of three children, a caregiver and a professional therapist. My thoughts are with her children and all of her devastated family as we debate the various Stages of this legislation. I acknowledge Valerie's brother, David French, who is in the Gallery with Veronica today. David has worked tirelessly to highlight that the current legislation allows for people who kill their partners to retain guardianship of shared children. He and his family have fought tirelessly for seven years for change here and in so doing he has done society a huge service. He must be commended for his work, perseverance and determination.

I thank all the campaign and advocacy groups for their amazing work on the ground with victims, survivors and families in the area of domestic abuse. I acknowledge Jason Poole and his family for fighting to create a domestic violence register, another important Bill, known as Jennie's law, coming through the Seanad at the moment. I would also like to mention a group - Victims' Voices - with which Deputy Matt Carthy and I have been working to bring forward the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill. There are so many gaps in legislation which fail to protect mostly women, but not all women and children, in domestic violence situations. I am glad that some of these gaps are now finally being addressed.

The legislation before us today will be known as Valerie's law. I gladly support the Bill but I feel there is still work to be done. The least we can do is make sure that we get it right. A number of issues were raised by David French during pre-legislative scrutiny. As we know, this has already been debated in the Dáil. We will be tabling those amendments again on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will reconsider some of the Sinn Féin amendments, which were voted against in the Dáil and work with us on them in this Chamber.

Although not necessarily part of this Bill, I would like to take the opportunity to raise another concern that I have relating to the newly established guardian ad litem national service announced yesterday. This will affect children who we are trying to protect in the legislation today. My colleague, Deputy Claire Kerrane, has been raising for months the removal of the guaranteed legal representation for guardians ad litem, GALs, who are the voice of children in child care court proceedings. Nobody to date, including the Minister who is bringing forward this change via amendment today, can say why this is being done. Deputy Kerrane has engaged extensively with the Association of Guardians ad Litem in Ireland, AGALI, the representative organisation for the majority of practising GALs in the State. They are extremely concerned about the removal of guaranteed legal representation.

Picture a courtroom, with a GAL, the voice of the child, who may never have stood in a courtroom in his or her life, a parent with his or her legal representation, and Tusla, with its legal representation. How is it in the best interests of the child if the GAL is without legal representation? This move is not in the best interests of the child at the centre of these court proceedings and I believe that this move will do untold damage. I hope the Minister might be able to answer this for me.

I also welcome this Bill. It is important legislation that will see the partner of a person who murders, kills or seriously injures another parent of his or her child either lose or have his or her guardianship rights restricted, which is absolutely called for. I acknowledge David French for his advocacy on this issue and welcome him and his sister, Veronica, into the Chamber today. There are so many cases like Valerie's where children have been bereaved. He is right; it is abuse of children.

I am concerned about the time between a crime being committed and sentencing, which can sometimes be considerable. It can take up to a year for a case to come to court. Children are already being abused. It is quite common that children will already have been subjected to serious abuse or witnessed abuse within the home for many years, leading up to the murder of their parent. Then, we have a time-lapse between when the crime was carried out and the sentencing. What is the situation there? It is an interim period. Children are grieving for the loss of their parent and if the perpetrator of the crime is out on bail, which will often not be the case because it is such a serious offence, are the children left in the custody of that parent?

We need to better hear the voice of the child. We need to have experts who recognise and can understand children because we know children can be pressured, coerced or even, from fear, say something that is not what they actually feel. I talk to parents all the time who have separated from their partner because of violence, yet there is a court order for access to the children. The children are crying. They do not want to go to see, in most cases, the father. If the mother does not compel them to go and she does not want to because they are fearful and in tears, she is the one in breach of a court order. There needs to be a better understanding of the rights of the child here. If children do not want access to one of their parents because of what they witnessed in the home, then they need to be listened to. Take into account that coercion and pressure can be put on children to say one thing. When we have experts in the field, they should be able to interpret that.

The Bill provides that Tusla be given the responsibility to apply for this order within six months of the conviction but Tusla, as we know, is not properly resourced as it is. It is under pressure to meet demands and people are falling through the cracks. We have children being left for far too long in the care of families where they have been abused or neglected. We have an insufficient number of foster families. We need far more. We have ended up with children being put into precarious care arrangements. We also have a lack of aftercare support, and I have come across several people who have left the foster care situation and are not receiving the support they require to navigate their lives. One in five complaints that the Ombudsman for Children's office received were about Tusla. I am not running down Tusla. I am just saying it is an under-resourced organisation and if we are giving Tusla even more powers and responsibilities to act in these situations, then it needs the resources to enable it to do so within the six months in a timely fashion.

When a person is convicted of the manslaughter of his or her partner but was acting in self-defence, where domestic violence has been prevalent for many years, that should be taken into account. Such parents may have lost their lives defending themselves and their children from a violent situation, so they should not be subjected to this. I acknowledge that John O'Dowd, my colleague in the North, is introducing similar legislation, so we will have an island-led approach to this.

The Labour Party wholeheartedly welcomes this legislation. It is a testament to the bravery and resilience of the French family, who have campaigned so strongly for this absolutely necessary legislation. Their advocacy for Valerie's legacy and for her children has been powerful and moving to see. I thank David and Veronica, who are in the Gallery. We hope to see this Bill being progressed quickly. We also need to make sure that this legislation is watertight. It is vital that we get this right. With this in mind, I want to raise a few questions for the Minister to address.

There have been some reports that Tusla has expressed some concerns about its level of resourcing when it comes to implementing the measures in the Bill. We are all aware of some of the issues that Tusla has faced in recent times and we need to see reassurance that it will be properly equipped to carry out the duties assigned to it under this Bill. There are also constitutional questions about the legislation. Article 42A of Bunreacht na hÉireann allows for the State to take on a guardianship role where a parent has failed in his or her duty towards a child to such an extent that the safety or welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected. The wording of that constitutional test is embedded in this Bill, which is welcome, and we think it is sufficient, but we ask the Minister to assure us that this Bill's provisions are constitutionally watertight and will not be open to any challenge on the ground.

The question of timescales is also important. The Bill's only time limit is a six-month deadline after conviction, during which Tusla can apply for a restriction or removal of guardianship rights. This means the child would likely remain under the guardianship of his or her parent's killer for many months. There are no easy answers here but this needs to be looked at. Is this Bill doing all it can to protect the safety and well-being of the children or child during that interim period?

Finally, we want to raise the issue of guardians ad litem. I know the Minister amended the Bill in the Dáil, but we are still looking for a guarantee that the GALs will have legal representation in all cases.

On the whole, we want to support this important Bill. It definitely will close an existing gap to keep some of our most vulnerable children in some of the most horrific circumstances safer than they currently are under the law. That is why we appreciate the opportunity to speak about it here today. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill.

We in Aontú welcome the Bill and the protections it seeks to put in place for children who have already endured unimaginable trauma. The level of cross-party support for this legislation speaks to the shared goal of putting children’s interests and well-being first. I particularly acknowledge the tireless work of David French, along with that of his sister, Veronica. David’s advocacy following the murder of his sister, Valerie, has helped bring us to this point. No child or relative should have to face the additional burden of a parent retaining guardianship rights after murdering the other parent. David deserves enormous credit for ensuring that these children’s voices are heard.

This debate comes at a time when domestic violence continues to cast a long shadow over our society. A report released today from Women’s Aid shows that disclosures of abuse have risen by a third since last year. It estimates that one in three women in Ireland are abused by their partner. For many women and their children, home is not the safe place it should be. While legislation is important, we must also ask whether we are doing enough to prevent violence in the first place. Has the Minister examined further education programmes within An Garda Síochána and our schools? We need to teach young people about healthy relationships, respect and consent long before problems arise.

I also welcome the Minister’s stated intention to tackle violent pornography. However, I ask him to go further and consider stronger measures to prevent children from accessing pornography altogether. While not all pornography involves threats with knives, strangulation or explicit violence, even more mainstream content contains misogyny and aggression and presents women as less than human. It is not healthy for boys or girls to grow up consuming this material and believing that aggression, humiliation or domination are normal parts of sex or relationships. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, then we must also be serious about addressing the messages young people are absorbing online every day. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts in that regard. I thank him for his work on this Bill. It must be noted.

I thank the Minister for being here today. I echo the support that my colleagues have expressed regarding this legislation. I also welcome our guests here today. Unfortunately, having grown up in Finglas, I am sadly acquainted with the horror of murder within the family unit and the profound violation it is of all that we hold to be the social and ethical contract between people, especially its impact on children, who are the most vulnerable. Given the issues we have on this island with violence against women, gender-based violence and domestic violence, it strikes me that we have a very high rate of incidence. Often, the perpetrator is an intimate partner of the person who is targeted in this way. It reminds me of that expression – I do not mean to be trite or facile – that we are taught to be afraid of the monster under the bed when, in fact, we should be thinking of the monster in the bed beside us.

This Bill is a great step forward and I welcome it. However, I echo what Senator McCormack said because it is a good point. We are taking one step forward but at the same time, we are taking a step backwards. I raise concerns about this new scheme for the appointment of guardians ad litem. The Association of Guardians ad Litem in Ireland, which represents 96% of those guardians, has expressed grave concerns and challenged this new scheme in the High Court. Previously, it is my understanding – the Minister must forgive my layperson understanding of this – that it was the court that appointed a guardian ad litem to the child. Under these changes, it is now proposed, that contrary to the Constitution, the first-named defendant is inserted as a third party in between the previously direct relationship between the court that appoints a guardian ad litem and the guardian ad litem. It provides for a legal structure whereby a guardian ad litem serves at the pleasure of the first-named defendant, rather than the court hearing the application. There are several other grave concerns raised in this case but I do not intent to go through them all. As a layperson, it seems extraordinary and perverse that the Minister for children would appoint a guardian ad litem, rather than the court. In my amateur interpretation of it, I question whether this violates the separation of powers between the State and the Judiciary, or the Executive and the Judiciary. The State, against which a complaint has been made, then has the right to decide whether that plaintiff should have legal representation and who their guardian ad litem should be.

It is also my understanding that this new national guardian service is about to appoint 65 full-time guardians ad litem, many of whom have come straight from Tusla. To me, as a layperson, it seems to be a kind of a power grab or attempt to capture and control the capacity of guardians ad litem to fully and freely advocate for a child, given that they serve at the pleasure of the defendant who can withdraw their guardianship at any given moment. As a layperson, I am disturbed by this. I imagine it is not in the interests of the legal profession either. I am sure there must be some considerable concern about this among the legal profession. If the Minister could address that in any way, I would be appreciative.

I too welcome David and Veronica to the Gallery on what is an important and emotional day for the French family. As someone who comes from west Cork, I am not too far from Leap. The French family has had widespread support from the people of west Cork in their campaign since the brutal murder of their sister. I genuinely thank the Minister for his work on this Bill. I know that David, whom I have met on a number of occasions, expresses deep gratitude for the Minister’s work on this. I acknowledge that.

There is further work to be done in this area, as the Minister knows well, in terms of other legislation. There are other advocates who see other parts of legislation that need to be worked on. The job cannot stop today. I welcome this, however. I pay particular credit to the French family for enduring what they had to do during the criminal process and continuing their campaign to bring today about.

I commend An Garda Síochána on its work in the area of domestic and sexual violence and the progression it has made in recent years. I worked closely with the protective services unit in Wexford dealing with victims and I can see real progression in this regard. The Minister knows that, as an organisation, it has progressed. The French family would have received deep support from the family liaison unit in An Garda Síochána as well, and that must be recognised.

As a State, at times, our organs and institutions can be slow to move but this is good politics today. The Bill has cross-party and broad support. There is further work to be done in other areas, however. I genuinely thank the Minister for his personal work on this and for the help and support he gave to the French family. We will continue our work, as legislators, to ensure that victims of crime and their families are supported and that those who commit crimes are dealt with properly by the organs and institutions of our State.

I thank Senators for their considered contributions. I thank all those Senators who welcomed the Bill, which I think was universally the case. I will take on board the suggestions that were advanced. Senator Gallagher welcomed the Bill. He, like everyone else, echoed the legitimate and genuine recognition that everyone in this House and the other House wants to give to the French family for the work they have done, particularly David French. I wish to start my comments by echoing that.

Senator Keogan said that, like all legislation, we should approach it with a great degree of caution. Any time we are legislating, we have to consider it very carefully. That is why I very much welcome the contributors in Seanad Éireann because we get a cautious response and one that seeks to interrogate the legislation.

One of the points raised by Senator Keogan she felt merited attention was kinship care in circumstances where the legislation does not provide a mechanism for, say, grandparents or another family member to bring the application. This was related to a point another Senator discussed as well. In general, what happens when a tragic event like this occurs - and regrettably it is generally the case a mother has been killed by the father - is somebody needs to look after the children on the evening of the fatality. Usually grandparents, a sister of the deceased or a close relative will step in. If there is no available relative, Tusla will step in and bring an application under the Child Care Act 1991. As such, it is important to recognise there is an immediate response, as is necessary in the tragic circumstances where one guardian is murdered on a particular day and there are children there. Somebody needs to mind the children and there are arrangements put in place for that. Senator Keogan's concern is why there is not a provision in the legislation to allow for a family member, such as a grandparent, to bring an application under this procedure. As she will be aware from the legislation I am introducing, only Tusla can bring the application. I gave careful consideration to that. If we think about it, it is going to mean there could be conflicting interests and conflicting applications being made. You could have, for instance, parents of the deceased bringing an application while at the same time the parents of the convicted person are bringing an application, or siblings from different sides of the family. It could create a very tense situation because families do not, as we all know, think in a homogenous way and family members will have different perspectives on what should happen. Consequently, I took on board the recommendation from the justice committee and accordingly, Tusla will bring the application but family members - and it is a very broad definition of family - can apply to be notice parties to the application. Thus, in the situation Senator Keogan is concerned about, grandparents may apply to the court once Tusla brings the application for the purpose of seeking to ensure they are notice parties and their concerns can be heard.

The Senator also raised the constitutionality of the Bill. Removing guardianship is a very significant step. Notwithstanding that, what is premising this Bill is concern for child's welfare. Protection of the child is the primary focus of this legislation. There are very many measures put in place where custody of children is taken off parents because they simply cannot care for the kids and that is something regarded as constitutional. It is also important to point out it is not interfering with or seeking to interfere with parenthood. The parents remain the same no matter what. This is about guardianship.

Senator Keogan also spoke about Tusla and concern about how it carries out its functions. No statutory body has a more difficult job than Tusla.

I agree.

I know Senator Keogan agrees with that; it is an extremely difficult job. It is the statutory agency responsible for the care of children. There is no other agency it would be appropriate to give this function to. It is also appropriate to place such a high level of discretion in Tusla. One of the arguments raised in the Dáil was Tusla must bring an application within six months if it is satisfied it is in the best interests of the child. That second hurdle will be easily overcome. Obviously there is nothing to stop family members from writing to Tusla or asking it to bring an application but it is better to have the application process controlled by one statutory agency as opposed to family members having the burden of bringing it forward.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir Kelleher freisin. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach lena óráid. He spoke about the importance of child protection being at the heart of this.

I also listened to Senators McCormack and Tully. Senator McCormack referred to very many gaps in legislation. There are, but I am trying to address them. It is important also in these Houses that we listen to other Members and if they bring forward proposals I think are good I will try to adopt them or else they can issued by way of a Private Members' Bill. I think Senator McCormack also referred to the issue of the application process being brought by Tusla and I answered that a few moments ago.

Senator Tully asked what happens in the time between a crime being committed and sentencing. I sort of answered that a few moments ago in response to Senator Keogan. Obviously measures have to be put in place immediately. You cannot just wait for a person to be convicted. What happens in that interim period is the day a mother is killed, somebody has to step in to the position of minding the children, especially if it is the case the father has been arrested and remanded in custody. The child care order issue between Tusla and the family can also be dealt with in the unusual circumstances of a guardian being remanded on bail if they are charged with murder. The Senator also spoke about hearing the voice of the child. Section 12F of the legislation provides a mechanism for the voice of the child to be heard. I am also bringing forward a policy proposal to ensure the voice of the child is properly heard in all forms of proceeding. Senator Tully asked about what happens in circumstances where somebody is convicted of manslaughter but it was self-defence. That was in an amendment put forward by Deputy Carthy in the Dáil. The better way to deal with that is how it is dealt with in the legislation at present, that is, Tusla decides to bring the application but it must bring it if it is for the benefit of the protection of the child. Let us take the example of a mother who in self-defence committed a criminal act. In such circumstances Tusla could decide not to bring the application. There are issues with the amendment put forward by Sinn Féin in the Dáil that would make it impossible to navigate in terms of how it is presented. If you are convicted of manslaughter this arises but generally if it is self-defence you get acquitted. Self-defence is a defence and people are acquitted, so it is not going to arise if somebody is acquitted but if somebody is convicted of manslaughter it will have to be considered.

I thank Senator Cosgrove for her support. She asked me whether the Bill's provisions are constitutionally watertight and I believe they are. She asked me if they will not be subject to challenge but I cannot guarantee that. People are entitled to challenge legislation and when you think of the powers we are taking away from people here - the right to guardianship is a significant statutory and moral responsibility people have - I suspect it will be challenged. However, we should not shy away from introducing legislation just because people may challenge it in future. I believe it will withstand that challenge.

I thank Senator O'Reilly for her comments. I agree with what she was saying about violent pornography. I spoke about that this morning at the Women's Aid report launch. It is having a very distorting impact on the development of young people's sexuality and we need to ensure people realise relationships should be healthy relationships.

I hear what Senator Clonan said as well and echo what is contained in the Women's Aid report. It recognises the overwhelming majority of violence done to women is done by people they are in a relationship with and that while stranger violence can happen, violence is typically inflicted on women by those they are or were in a relationship with.

I thank Senator O'Donovan for his contribution as well. He mentioned west Cork and I am conscious one of the big stains on the character of justice in the country is the fact no-one has ever been brought to justice for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. As the Minister for justice that is embarrassing to me, as I am aware it is to people in this House. I hope that heinous crime can be resolved.

As a final point, I am not trying to shy away from this but I am not the Minister for children, even though the legislation I am bringing forward is to do with the Guardianship of Infants Act. I am informed in terms of the issues about legal representation. Where the guardian ad litem needs legal representation, this will be provided. However, it must be acknowledged legal representation is not always required by the guardian ad litem. I do not want to start speaking on areas of policy that are not my responsibility. The Minister, Deputy Foley, has spoken on this before and with the permission of the Seanad I will evade that question and let her deal with it.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.