Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the witnesses for their presentations. We have had a very good discussion. I shall make three observations on specific heads and then I shall make some general observations.

In terms of head 6(6), we have had a lot of discussion on the cross-examination of parties. There is a clause to the effect that the GAL may not request specific professional assessments for the purposes of preparing a report. This seems to place a restriction on GALs, which should not exist. It may well be the case that a GAL could believe that a professional assessment is required but it would not be in the best interests of the child. I ask the witnesses to address the matter.

I shall not go into great detail on head 7 because it has already been discussed. This proposed provision needs to be improved. Perhaps the list of professions could be broadened. We should also tighten up of the manner in which the persons involved in the carrying out of GAL obligations and work are regulated, monitored and trained.

I am curious as to why head 8 is weak and thin when it comes to children who are subject to voluntary care orders. Perhaps this is an oversight or a weakness in the legislation. Such people are also in need of representation by guardians ad litem.

On a more general note, both today and perhaps a month ago, during pre-legislative scrutiny, the strongest message to come back relates to the need for an independent statutory body that would not fall under the remit of Tusla. As much as an actual conflict of interest, the perception of a conflict of interest is important. We must ensure that children and their advocates had confidence in the system that they encounter. I understand that Tusla is not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of monitoring or managing this service. I understand that Tusla recommended in its submission that the service could be located in the Department of Justice and Equality. My instinct is that it would be better to locate the unit in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I am interested in hearing the comments from the witnesses on the matter.

I support some of the observations made, particularly those from the Law Society of Ireland. All of the contributions shared the theme of calling for a stronger obligation to provide a guardian ad litemto represent a child. The Law Society of Ireland made the very strong point in paragraph 2.2 of its submission that family should include people who act in loco parentis. The committee should consider that issue.

In terms of EPIC and advocacy, should the role of advocate have a legal basis? Is the role an operational matter relating to how the GAL service should be structured? Should the committee insert a definition?

My final points are on cross-examination. How can we resolve matters in this regard? Should we remove the proposed section? Should we remove the prohibition on cross-examination? Can the matter be resolved through the use of the tandem model that exists in the UK?

Is there any possibility that if we remove the section there will be a conflict between legal representatives and the guardian ad litem? Could they be at cross-purposes? I am keen to get a sense of it. If the provision is faulty or may create difficulties, how do we resolve it?