Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Apologies for my late arrival. I have previous experience of working as a barrister with a guardian ad litemand I have been through that process so I understand how the court process works. It appears that the legal representation provided to a guardian ad litemis almost a certainty; most guardians ad litemare represented in court. The proposals with regard to the qualifications that a guardian ad litemshould possess include that they should be a qualified social worker with five years experience. If the guardian ad litemis to retain the ability to make court applications and engage in those legal processes, do the witnesses feel that those qualifications are sufficient or should some legal training be provided? The huge cost associated with the guardian ad litemis often the hiring of their barrister. If the guardian ad litemwants to retain the ability to make these applications, which are quite basic and over time they would be making the same applications time and again, how would witnesses feel about the development of a one year diploma course or certificate in legal studies, for instance, that each guardian ad litemwould have to achieve before they would be able to act in that particular capacity? This is a long-term plan but maybe it is something that we should work towards in terms of efficiency and cost saving and getting rid of the necessity to hire a barrister on every occasion.

I agree with the presumption of representation or the presumption of a guardianad litembeing appointed. Every child should have representation in court and it should not be at the discretion of one individual. However, I would say that the justice system does act very well in this regard and judges would be very mindful of this. The application can come either from the Child and Family Services, parents, the guardian, the court, so there are a number of checks and balances there to ensure that a guardian ad litemis appointed if needed. There are probably very few cases where a guardian ad litemis not appointed where one is needed but I agree that in law we should enshrine the presumption that one would be appointed. That is a very sensible approach.

Fears were expressed by Deputy Rabbitte and others about retaining the services under the remit of Tusla, but I wonder if we move it to somewhere else, do we get rid of those risks or would we create other problems? We could have the same problems with another organisation. Can we work with what is there to put further checks and balances in place and see if that service works properly? I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that it is an organisation in its infancy and instead of discarding that link we could work to improve it and address the concerns that have been expressed around that. Ultimately, we want to ensure that the guardian ad litemoffers an independent assessment and recommendation to the court, that they feel they can operate independently of any other organisation or body and that there is no fear in doing that.

What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure that continues? At the end of the day, guardians ad litemwill be paid from public funds and, therefore, there will always be a link to the State. Perhaps we can make it more tenuous by putting them at a further remove but the link will always be there. How can we ensure that an independent assessment will always be forthcoming and there will be no fear on behalf of the guardian ad litemin providing that?