Ms Cliodhna O'Neill:

I thank the committee for having us back so soon. We sent some follow-up information after our last appearance on cyber-safety which I hope members found useful.

We are delighted to be here to discuss this important and long-awaited legislation.

The ISPCC has been calling for reform of the guardian ad litemservice for a number of years. We have many concerns, some of which are addressed in the heads of this Bill and some of which are not. I want to briefly refer to these. What the legislation should do is give effect to the constitutional amendment which recognised and affirmed the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and, in this case, particularly in a situation where they are vulnerable. To some extent, it does this and to a large extent it does not. Our primary concern in calling for reform over many years is that the current system is unregulated and while there are many examples of good practice among existing guardians ad litem, there are no recognised professional standards to which all guardians must adhere. Further concerns have been that the current system lacks statutory guidance on function, eligibility criteria and payment structures, to the detriment of children. The new Bill must address these deficits and, to some extent, it does so, and these are the positive aspects of the Bill. However, some of the proposals still fall short of best practice standards and there are key improvements we feel are needed to ensure that children's voices are heard and their rights truly vindicated, which is the purpose of the legislation.

We make several recommendations. We recommend that the reformed guardian ad litemsystem requires a shift in focus from that outlined in the new legislation, that is, from assisting the court in decision making to clearly meeting the State's obligation under Article 42 of the Constitution and Article 12 of the UNCRC to ensure children's rights are vindicated within the courts system, particularly in child care proceedings. The State, through legislation, must ensure appropriate measures to allow the guardian ad litemto ensure full participation and realisation of a child's constitutional rights. This is a concern we have in regard to the heads of Bill, as outlined. We do not believe the right of the child to be provided with a guardian should be restricted, and I would echo the comments of my colleague from EPIC, who said all children should have access to a guardian. We believe a comprehensive and independent service cannot be achieved if it is funded through Tusla and that an alternative mechanism should be followed.

We welcome the establishment of a single national service, the proposals on management and structure and the fact the role of the guardian ad litemwill be defined in legislation. We are less thrilled at how the role of the guardian ad litemis defined in legislation, and my colleague Ms Catherine Ghent, a solicitor who has advised the ISPCC on this topic, will speak shortly on that. To give a little more detail, while we believe the establishment of a national guardian ad litemsystem is to be welcomed, it must achieve what is outlined in Article 42A and the voice of the child must be heard. In order for the voice of the child to be heard in our courts system, however, it must be effectively advocated for within the courts system. This can only be achieved where the status of guardian ad litemin proceedings is equal to that of others who are appearing in court.

I was at the excellent Barnardos conference yesterday and it must be congratulated for holding such an excellent event. It was remarkable how many people who work within the courts system, including judges, spoke of their concern in regard to this item within the legislation whereby the role of guardian has been restricted to that of a special type of expert witness who advises the court on a child's interests and views but who is not party to proceedings. It was notable how many people talked about the removal of the ability to cross-examine, which is a diminution of service to children when compared to the existing system. It is a crucial role for guardians and their legal representatives to be able to question what happens in court. To remove that in this legislation would, we believe, be a retrograde step. Ms Ghent will address this shortly.

As EPIC has said, every child should have a guardian ad litem. With regard to the funding structure, for the purposes of independence we do not believe this national system should be funded through Tusla. We believe there is a conflict in this regard and we believe it should be taken out and funded through a separate mechanism.