Ms Cliodhna O'Neill:

We will try to get through as much as possible. To be honest, I have lost track of who has asked what so I will just go for it. In respect of the independent body, the key point is that form should follow function. We need to look at what this independent body needs to do and then determine the best mechanism to achieve that. What everyone believes this body needs to do has been pretty clearly described here today in terms of professional standards, regulation and keeping the independence, so it should be looked at in that context.

In respect of the Chairman's point about costs, I should have mentioned at the outset that the ISPCC does not provide any services related to this and our interest in it purely relates to the policy in law and strategic matters. I concur with the Chairman about costs and concerns about costs. It is great that this committee and other committees keep an eye on that in respect of value for money for the taxpayer. It is important to remember that value for money is not just about money. It is also about value and what value is got for children in respect of particular services. I have no doubt that costs could be contained better in a new system. However, it is not so much about questioning the role of the lawyers but ensuring there is equality of status for children in court proceedings so the children have the right to be represented and that right exists. That would be one of our concerns regarding the independence of the function. It is very important it never comes down to cost. It does not come down to cost for adults so why should it be the case with children? That is an important point to make.

In respect of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, I am not the world's leading expert on the topic but my understanding is that this legislation is about determining decision-making on the basis of the functional approach. It is quite a specific approach and that is supported by the National Advocacy Service. It is quite a different mechanism and I am not sure how useful it is in this context. There are some parallels but this service must be a specialist service, particularly for children, for the reasons my colleagues have outlined. Ms Ghent has some points she wishes to raise.

A number of people raised a point about cross-examination. It might be worth mentioning that under head 6, which states that a guardian ad litemmay not cross-examine parties or witnesses, it is our understanding that this means the guardian ad litemor his or her legal representative, so there would not be a conflict between the guardian ad litemand the legal representative. Where required by a guardian ad litem, a legal representative is instructed by the guardian ad litemon behalf of the child so there would not be a conflict there.