Ms Freda McKittrick:

By removing the funding of a guardian ad litemfrom Tusla, it takes away competition. The funding would be ring-fenced. I accept the Deputy's point that if an organisation is to be set up under public procurement, it has to have proper governance. There is no governance at the moment. People practising as guardians ad litemcome into Barnardos on a voluntary basis; they do not have to do so. They can work elsewhere or by themselves. There is no regulation at the moment and that was highlighted in chapter 11 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report in 2015. It is a free-for-all, leading to the kind of difficulties the Chairman is experiencing. The argument that is held up is that to get a guardian, we are sacrificing resources for Tusla. We need to get this out from under Tusla in order that we do not have to make such choices.

On the legal questions, currently the spend is balanced 50:50 between guardian ad litempractice and guardian ad litemlegal fees and we have no oversight regarding the fees. The proposed scheme would provide for a legal department and it would allow us to properly examine legal fees, obtain much better value for money in respect of the legal requirement that is needed, and to get on with our practice while opting for legal representation only when it is needed. It would allow the service to take an overview on when it was required. It is important the guardians ad litemhave a proper standing in court and that they are properly equipped.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked how it can be made a presumption. Under head eight, if a child is going to the High Court for special care, which means that he or she will be detained and their liberty will be restricted in the specialist care unit, a guardian ad litemwill be appointed. Subsection (2) states, "If a child is the District Court or Circuit Court, a guardian ad litemmay be appointed". The intention is that will become the norm but that is not strong enough. If that were to say, "...a guardian ad litemwill be appointed save in exceptional circumstances", that would allow the court to say one was not needed in this case.