Ms Tanya Ward:

I will address a few of the other questions. Political and legal accountability for GALs is a major issue. As Ms McKittrick stated, there are no governance arrangements or regulation of the GAL system. Establishing the service and regulating it in law are the first steps. From a legal point of view, GALs can be held accountable by judges, the other parties to a case, Tusla's lawyers and parents' lawyers. This is how it will happen in court. Politically, the State can hold the GAL service accountable.

The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, working directly with the service, is how the system is structured in the Bill, but this raises an issue of independence in that the service's independence could be undermined by imposing too many restrictions and regulations and not funding it properly, which would mean that it could not provide an appropriate service. This matter needs to be considered.

The issue with placing the service with Tusla is that we live in a small country, so one can imagine the impact on local relationships if a GAL presents a view that opposes that of the Child and Family Agency. What will happen to that information and where will it go? We need to put procedures and barriers in place so as to ensure that there is no possibility of political interference or even the appearance of same. Often, the GAL could be in agreement with Tusla's decision, so it is important that we know that that has been done independently as opposed to because the GAL is being funded directly by Tusla or there is a close relationship between the two. This important issue of accountability needs to be considered.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked about broader independent representation for children in care. Tusla funds Empowering People in Care, EPIC, to provide an independent advocacy service for children in care. This is an important measure, so the service must be properly funded, but having a legal service specifically for the courts is also important. Perhaps the two could be merged at some point.

Regarding training and qualifications, GALs could be trained in a range of fields that would build their capacity to provide a good service, for example, listening to children, working with children who have experienced trauma, and various forms of legal training. Training in how to be questioned and cross-examined is a major part of that. Social workers in Tusla and others must go before courts, but being questioned by judges and lawyers is difficult, so this is an important part of their training.

This matter could be addressed in the legislation, not by specifying what type of training people get, but by specifying that they should get training on a regular basis. There are similar provisions for solicitors. For example, they must amass so many continuing professional development points annually. The same could be imposed on GALs, so they would have to update their own training and experience constantly.