Dr. Niall Muldoon:

From our point of view, we are not necessarily prescribing the qualifications but we do think it is too limited to limit it to social work and psychology. Our whole idea is that every child should have a GAL available to him or her. Therefore, one is looking at someone who needs to have expertise in infant observation, mental health issues and a range of issues. Keeping the qualifications open is important. That is something that needs to be discussed in terms of how one would allow that but, for example, there are fantastic barristers who were formerly teachers and a range of youth workers could also be involved. We must look at the issue on a wider scale.

The way we see it in terms of linking it with advocacy is that a GAL is somebody who will hear and listen to the voice of the child, respect that voice and present it as the advocate for the child. The GAL is crucial. If there is an independent advocate such as EPIC, Empowering People in Care, that adds to the situation enormously but the idea is that one would have somebody who would automatically ask the child where they are coming from and what they want and then allow that to be represented in the court system so that there is an absolute certainty that the child has their voice heard.

Ms Ghent touched on the issue in the sense that there is no way you or I would not be allowed into a court to give our point of view. We would have representation, including a barrister and all sorts of support yet the child who is at the centre of all those issues has been kept silent for so long. There is always the possibility that a child will come back at a later stage and say they were not represented, that their voice was not heard and those responsible are culpable because the child was sent to a secure care facility or was not sent to a foster home. We are really letting down children enormously in this situation. The idea is that the GAL is that voice, but it is the voice of the child through the GAL in the courts system and they have to be able to be represented at the court table exactly as every other party in that system is. At the moment the system is set up for adults not for the child, and the child is passive. The idea is that children should not be passive. We need to give children a voice and hear it. That is the way I see it at this moment in time. I will ask my colleague to respond about the question on Article 42A.