Let us face up to the reality of the progress in relation to legislation in this area. I am talking not only of the past week but of the past decade. That rate of progress has been so slow so far as parties on all sides of the House are concerned that we are talking of a minimum of 12 months before we will be in a position to have the substantive law in place. That being so, we should use the opportunity of this smaller Bill to improve on the situation in practice as it is. The three amendments from the Labour Party proposing new sections address directly the issues addressed by the Supreme Court. At page 16 of the judgment, the Chief Justice said:
I am satisfied that in a case the facts of which are similar to those arising in the instant cast, namely, a suspicion grounding the original application under section 24 of illtreatment or abuse by one parent only, that there is a very definite and positive obligation on a Court to whom an application is made either under Section 24 or Section 21 of the Act of 1908 carefully to consider whether the welfare of the child clearly requires its removal from the custody of the innocent parent. A justification for so doing could only be if the innocent party was unwilling or, as might well be the case, unable to protect the child from the risk of harm from the other parent.
I do not think the case could have been put stronger. The Supreme Court is telling us how the innocent parent should be regarded. Up to now the innocent party had no say in the matter of these types of applications. Invariably the parents went together to court and the motion was to take the child out of their custody. In, perhaps, 99 per cent of these cases the child will have been placed already, on foot of a safety order, in the care and control of the health board.
What the Supreme Court is saying is that it is time to stop. It says this because of the regard that must be had to the innocent parent and to the institution of the family as laid down in our Constitution and in our laws. The court is telling us that we must address the matter both in practice and in law. Clearly, this is what the Labour Party has attempted to do. Their amendment is eminently sensible and should be supported.
The second point the Labour Party referred to is the concept of making a clearly identifiable person responsible for the care and custody of a child being removed into care. Further, in the judgment, the Chief Justice said:
Thirdly, I am satisfied that where an Order is made for the commital of the care of a child to a fit person with the intention that it will reside with an individual that it should be made nominating such individual by name and that where the commital of the child to some institution which was run by a person which would qualify as a fit person pursuant to the Act of 1908 is intended that it is desirable that an individual, be it the head of such institution or the effective matron or head of care, should be nominated.
That, again, is a clear declaration. If, after today, a court makes orders without having regard to those provisions or if we do not make such provisions in our law, there will be a possibility that proceedings in the higher court could well impugn any such order.
In their second amendment the Labour Party attempt clearly to address this position. Consequently, the amendment should be supported. The Minister has had this judgment for as long as any other Member so I trust he will have regard to these problems. There are other directives in the judgment to which we must have regard also. Now is the time to do that in view of the grave concern about the length of time it will take to put in place the more substantive legislation.