I appreciate your giving me permission to raise this evening, the potentially very important decision of the Dublin Circuit Court last October which means essentially that, in cases affecting the welfare of children, professional witnesses' interviews with those children, or a video recording of those interviews, cannot be introduced in evidence on the basis that they constitute hearsay evidence.
When I mention professional witnesses I am thinking of people like child care workers, social workers and so on who interview children in relation to certain proceedings that may be taken in court. If evidence in this way is not admitted, the only alternative would be for the child to go into open court and give evidence if he or she wants his or her side of the story heard. Almost invariably a child who goes into open court to give evidence will do so in the physical presence of his or her parents. In most cases, certainly in very many, I would envisage vulnerable young children not being prepared to do that.
In custody cases, for example, when a health board is making an application to take a child into care, it is only right and proper — I think everybody would agree — that the child's view point must be taken into account, the child is entitled to be heard and should be heard. If the only mechanism for hearing the child's view point and feelings about his or her relationship with one or other parent, cannot be ascertained by the court, I do not believe justice will be done, particularly from the child's perspective. The child's rights must be vindicated. I have studied how the rule against hearsay evolved and I do not believe that rule was meant to apply to that type of situation. I do not believe it was meant to be used to exclude the child's point of view in cases that might have a fundamental bearing on the child's future welfare, in cases where the child is entitled to be heard and in cases where the child's rights must be vindicated.I do not know whether this decision is being appealed but the Government will have to change or clarify the law on this matter. If that requires legislation, and I think it does, so be it.
There has been much comment recently, particularly from the Government side of the House about vindicating children's rights. In the budget child benefit was substantially increased at the expense of social welfare recipients who are not entitled to claim that benefit.That provision was part of an alleged plan to give a basic income to children. We have heard a good deal of rhetoric and promises about vindicating and protecting children's rights. Unless the law on the position to which I referred is clarified, the Government's commitment to vindicating the rights of children in the fullest possible sense must be in serious doubt. The only way to turn the rhetoric about protecting children and vindicating their rights into reality is to make the law on the matter very clear to enable the point of view of children to be considered by the court in this case and at the very minimum by allowing a video recording of the interview into evidence. In many cases a child will not be in a fit mental state to give his or her point of view. The law needs to be changed in this matter and I look forward to the Minister's response.
