Katherine Zappone (Dublin South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

All those are excellent questions. Many of the members have focused on similar issues and I might deal with the issues as distinct from responding to individual members' questions unless a member asked a unique question. Deputy Ó Laoghaire commented that ideally it would be better ultimately if this service provision was located within an independent body as distinct from there being a tendering process for a national service provider in light of all the arguments he made for that. Deputy Devine also referred to this issue. While ultimately that may be the case, and I accept the point in terms of institutional memory and all that would need to be assembled to perform these functions and this service for the children, largely the decision to move in the direction that we are going is to ensure we enable as speedy a reform as possible. Effectively, it is a pragmatic decision. There is also the opportunity built into this approach of reviewing the process after a number of years. The officials might identify that period but I will deal with the members' questions first. When this service is in operation, there can be a close review and monitoring of it to determine if this is the best way to deliver the service. We are in a position where extensive reform is required and it is happening on an ad hocbasis. We all know what the issues are. We are trying to put in place the provision of a top-class set of services for our children and young people but we may not be able to get to that point as our starting point. I still believe that this is the best way to proceed in terms of the establishment of a national service provider through a tendering process as distinct from the establishment of a separate body immediately. Members will be aware that current Government policy is that we must be careful about establishing any further public bodies, but that is the not be the best reason for not doing it because Government policy can always change.

On the question of Tusla's role in this regard in terms of the operation of a guardian ad litemnational service, I appreciate the members' concerns and questions and also those of the advocates in terms of Tusla.

Let me say a couple of things in that regard and then we can have a further exchange on it. I emphasised in my opening remarks that I as the Minister am the contractor. As I understand it, all of the responsibilities and so on that come with that role, including the funding, fall on the Department. The Department ultimately provides the funding but Tusla administers it. That is the way I would describe it. Perhaps officials can help to finesse the detail of that. Tusla is not funding the service. The Department for Children and Youth Affairs is funding the service. Tusla does not have any role, for example, in reviewing invoices in terms of the work or the fees for the guardian ad litem, or the establishment of fees for the legal representatives. The service provider does that. The decision is that in the interests of efficiency and to fund the service effectively, the Department provides Tusla with the moneys to administer the services but it does not in any way make decisions on the oversight or dealing with individual invoices and so forth. A member said the Department needs to be clear and to spell out exactly what Tusla is doing and not doing in this regard. The perception probably needs to be sorted, and what that means is there is no role for Tusla except to administer the funding which the Government provides.

I will ask Ms Fisher to explain it.