Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an dá eagraíocht anseo tráthnóna as an gcur i láthair. I will make some general observations first and, if it is possible at a later stage, come back with some specific observations on some of the specific headings. I was very taken with the two presentations in general and I would be very sympathetic to many of the observations. I agree with the idea that a right to a guardian ad litemshould be explicit in law. Unfortunately much of the discussion in recent weeks on the guardian ad litemservice has related to cost and some of the headlines have been misleading, in terms of social workers costing X amount without any real reflection about what service is being provided in the specific instance. That is unfortunate. Obviously, some of this discussion has to take cost and cost efficiency and that kind of thing into account but the priority needs to be the voice of the child. Members of this committee need to be robust in reflecting that this is a very particular service with a very important role.

I am sympathetic and agreeable to the idea that this should be funded and structured separately from Tusla. The fact that Tusla is likely to be a party to so many cases means that it is logical and sensible that over time if some tensions or conflict were to emerge between the body of guardians ad litemand Tusla, there should be a firewall there. How would the witnesses see a national service operating, providing it was independent from Tusla? This is not an employer-employee relationship; I imagine it would be a contract for services type of relationship between the guardians ad litemand other Tusla services.

If this legislation is passed following some improvement, and I anticipate that it will be, a matter arises which I think would be a positive thing, I imagine there will be increased demand and an increase in the number of guardians ad litemrequired. Does the capacity exist within the number of people who are qualified to undertake this role? Will there be a need to bring on more people with the necessary qualifications?

I agree that the presumption should exist that children should be entitled to a guardianad litemand it should be extended to the lower courts. I am interested in the point about the extension of the role. This is largely dealt with in Head 3 where the role is defined largely as that of an expert witness. The witnesses are concerned that it will not be able to undertake some of the functions that it can undertake currently. The Barnardos submission outlines the idea of a tandem model. Could the representatives expand on how that tandem model would work where the guardian ad litemcommunicates with legal representation? I have never seen it in court myself and I am curious about how that works. Do the legal representation and the guardian ad litemcurrently participate in cross examination? Is that potentially cumbersome or is it something that should be the aspiration, where a guardian ad litemconveys the wishes of a child not only to the court but also the child's official legal representation, whether it is a solicitor or barrister?

I have one or two additional questions but that is enough for now.