Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. It is useful that she has come after we have heard the various voices. Some of her officials were in the Visitors Gallery and would have been able to take notes.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire has covered several of the issues involved. I will return to the question of separation from Tusla. The various groups which appeared before the committee advocated strongly on that point. I will try to summarise what they sought. They called for the Department to be the funder rather than Tusla. They believe this is necessary and Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire outlined the reasons well. Since we are only at the stage where we are considering the heads, we are calling on the Minister to consider that suggestion.

The issue of the constitutional position was raised in the context of there being a presumption a guardian ad litemwas needed. The court will have to explain why it would prefer not to appoint one. We need to come at it from a constitutional perspective. Representatives of the Law Society of Ireland quoted Article 42A and made reference to how the views of the child "shall" rather than "may" be ascertained. This was inserted into the Constitution following the recent referendum. It should not necessarily be at the discretion of the court. If a child believe he or she needs a guardian ad litemor a voice or needs to have his or her voice expressed through a guardian ad litem, that should be the priority rather than the views of the court on the matter. In other words, the guardian ad litemshould be there for the child rather than the court. It is a fundamental shift in the emphasis on how decisions are made with regard to a guardian ad litem.

I wish to follow up on another point made by Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire. It relates to the ability to cross-examine. Ms Ghent said this was taking away a right. Perhaps it might not apply in all circumstances, but if there is such a right, perhaps the Minister might reflect on whether it is being taken away. I do not know. I am referring to the right to cross-examine. Obviously, Ms Ghent has considerable experience of such cases.

There was a suggestion that under head 5 one of the functions of a guardian ad litemshould be to advocate on behalf of a child and that an extra function should be included in head 5.

There was a considerable discussion about non-verbal children and children who found it difficult to express themselves. The point made was that a wider range of professionals should be referenced in the head dealing with professionals.

Perhaps the Minister should consider the inclusion of a wider range of professionals on the list of approved guardians ad litemto ensure, for example, that a guardian ad litemwould be able to communicate with a child who had a difficulty communicating.