Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth debate -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 2023

Possible Enhancement of Child Protection Powers of Tusla: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

The agenda item for consideration this afternoon is a discussion on the possible enhancement of Tusla's child protection powers. Joining us for this session from Tusla are: Ms Kate Duggan, interim chief executive officer; Ms Patricia Finlay, regional chief officer; Mr. Mike Corcoran, head of registration and regulatory enforcement; Mr. Ger Brophy, chief social worker; and Ms June Boulger, from the office of the chief executive officer. They are all very welcome to our meeting this afternoon and I thank them for being here with us.

Before we begin, I will go through some housekeeping matters. I advise everyone that the chat function on Microsoft Teams should only be used to make the team on site aware of any technical issues or urgent matters that may arise during the meeting and should not be used to make general comments or statements. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member who is participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House complex before making his or her contribution to the meeting.

With regard to parliamentary privilege, in advance of inviting the witnesses who are here today to deliver their opening statements, I advise them of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses who are participating from the committee room are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before I invite Ms Duggan to deliver her opening statement, I will take a minute to discuss the scope of this meeting. The topic of the meeting is a discussion of the possible enhancement of Tusla's child protection powers. While the initiative to hold the meeting arose following the publication of the Shannon report into St. John Ambulance Ireland, it is not within this committee's remit to consider that body. Furthermore, as a matter of law, the committee cannot investigate the conduct of that body or of any person who is not a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The committee's function is to consider and make recommendations relating to legislation, policy and the administration of the Department and State bodies for which the Department is responsible, such as Tusla.

I also remind members and witnesses that Garda investigations are ongoing and civil proceedings may also be taken. It is essential that all parties avoid any comment which could have the effect of prejudicing any criminal or civil proceedings, including comments that assume the guilt of any person. This is required by the constitutional separation of powers and by Standing Orders. Prejudicial comments could prevent a trial taking place and I remind all present that no one has been convicted of an offence and that all persons are presumed to be innocent unless and until convicted in a court.

I also remind members and witnesses of the long-standing rule that persons who are not Members of the Houses should not be named or referred to in any way which could enable them to be identified. I will not hesitate to intervene if necessary although I do not believe this will be necessary. The opening statements will be followed by a session of questions and answers. That completes our housekeeping matters. I invite Ms Duggan to deliver her opening statement.

Ms Kate Duggan

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to appear before it today in relation to the possible enhancement of the child protection powers of Tusla following the recent publication of the Independent Review of the Handling of Past Complaints of Abuse in St. John Ambulance Ireland conducted by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon. I am joined here today by: Ms Patricia Finlay, regional chief officer for Dublin and mid-Leinster; Mr. Mike Corcoran, head of registration and regulatory enforcement whose responsibilities include Tusla’s child safeguarding statement compliance unit; Mr Ger Brophy, chief social worker; and Ms June Boulger from the office of the CEO.

At the outset, I acknowledge and commend the bravery of the survivors who have come forward, spoken out and shared their harrowing experiences in St. John Ambulance. The trauma they experienced when volunteering in an organisation to which their care was entrusted and in which they trusted and expected to feel safe and yet suffered is clear.

They are very much in our thoughts at this time. Dr. Shannon's report, with its comprehensive findings and recommendations, was made possible in large part due to their courage. This report has rightly raised questions about child protection practices in St. John Ambulance and the need for organisation wide change.

While Dr. Shannon's report did not make any specific findings or recommendations for Tusla, I welcome the opportunity to discuss its role in responding to retrospective allegations of abuse, the compliance of child safeguarding statements and wider child protection matters. Tusla has a broad remit across many areas relating to child protection and welfare matters. Regarding this specific case, there are two main areas in which Tusla interacted with the organisation in question, which I will outline further today.

The first relates to retrospective disclosures. Retrospective disclosures are where an adult makes a disclosure about something that happened in his or her childhood. In cases of retrospective abuse, Tusla’s statutory responsibility is to ensure there are no current or existing child protection concerns. If there is a current child protection and welfare risk, Tusla staff work with family members and other professionals to ensure a safety plan is put in place and, liaise with An Garda Síochána, as appropriate.

In relation to retrospective allegations of abuse against members of St. John Ambulance, Tusla has to date received a total of 11 referrals relating to abuses that may have occurred during the period between 1960 to the 1990s. Five of these referrals were received through the helpline set up by Tusla in recent weeks.

Our second remit relates to Children First information and advice and our child safeguarding statements. Under the Children First Act 2015, organisations classed as providers of relevant services are required to have child safeguarding statements and have a responsibility to keep children safe from harm. A child safeguarding statement is a written statement that specifies the services being provided and the principles and procedures to be observed in order to ensure, as far as practicable, that a child availing of the service is safe from harm.

Tusla’s enforcement powers in respect of the child safeguarding statement is limited to maintaining a statutory register of services who have failed to present a safeguarding statement compliant with the requirements of the Act. Tusla also has Children First information and advice officers who are available to liaise with voluntary and community organisations and to provide advice and guidance on Children First.

In organisations that are funded by Tusla, we have a greater role and power in oversight, which I will refer to later. From 2019 to 2022, Tusla’s child safeguarding statement compliance unit engaged with St. John Ambulance and in December 2019, it was deemed to have a compliant child safeguarding statement in line with the requirements of Children First. During this period, Children First information and advice officers also worked with St. John Ambulance to assist it in developing its child protection policies and procedures.

In 2019, Tusla had information relating to three allegations of abuse against one individual, who no longer worked for the organisation. This information did not at that time suggest evidence of systemic abuse across the organisation. In 2020, following two founded outcomes of abuse against this individual, two reports of abuse by the same individual and concerns being reported to Tusla regarding the management of disclosure of allegations within the organisation, Tusla engaged with St. John Ambulance and recommended that the organisation commission an independent report to seek assurances.

While we did not have the power to direct it to undertake this investigation, we were satisfied it had taken this action and were pleased with the appointment of Dr. Geoffrey Shannon to this role. Following the publication of Dr. Shannon’s report, I invited the CEO and chair of the board of St. John Ambulance to meet me and colleagues from the Department of Children Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. During that meeting, they indicated that they accepted in full the findings and recommendations of Dr. Shannon’s report and provided a copy of their response report. This details the actions the organisation has taken and will take to implement all of the recommendations. They have agreed on a voluntary basis to provide a quarterly update to Tusla and the Department on the implementation of these actions. We also established a helpline following the publication of the report and have received a total of 12 calls to date.

As always, we continue to encourage anyone who has a concern about a child to contact their local duty social work office or, in an emergency, to contact An Garda Síochána. Our child safeguarding statement compliance unit and Children First information and advice officers also remain available to all organisations working with children that need support with a child safeguarding statement or policies and procedures relating to Children First. In addition, we are part of the Children First interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department, where all Departments and agencies meet to promote the implementation of Children First and ensure that collective responsibility for child protection and welfare is taken across Government.

The primary principle of the Children First Act is that all organisations working with children and young people are charged with responsibility for safeguarding and protecting them from harm. Where Tusla or another Department or Government agency funds an organisation, it is required to have policies and procedures in line with Children First to be eligible for funding. Funding can be suspended or ceased through the contracting agreement if we are not satisfied that they meet these requirements. If an organisation is not State funded, we do not have the powers to compel it to comply with these requirements.

We would very much welcome the opportunity to be part of a wider stakeholder engagement as part of the Children First interdepartmental group, with a variety of stakeholders including Departments, funders, service users and regulators, to explore how all organisations working with children and young people can be further supported in meeting their child protection obligations and held accountable for the implementation of child protection policies, procedures, and practices.

I will finish by once again acknowledging the courage of the survivors, and their determination to highlight the depth and breadth of the issues within St. John Ambulance.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I open up to questions from members, I wish to repeat that at present there are allegations of historic abuse in the organisation and these allegations are still the subject of ongoing criminal investigations. No one has been convicted and we must avoid any prejudicial comments. The purpose of the committee meeting is to consider policy, legislation and issues relating to Tusla and not the facts of what happened in St. John Ambulance. I ask members to remain within that topic of the meeting. I advise members that they have 12 minutes each for their questions and answers.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. I want to acknowledge that Dr. Shannon is a very much respected person in our State. He is now a member of the Judiciary, having been a children's ombudsman, practising solicitor and noted author on a lot of child protection matters and children in this country. The report he produced has been published and there has been a response document from St. John Ambulance in which it accepts all of the findings of the report and all of the recommendations and commits to implementing those recommendations. I want to acknowledge that, as well as the fact that it has issued an apology. I want to acknowledge that at the same time as it is saying it accepts the report, will implement everything and engage with Tusla, it is vigorously defending personal injuries claims down in the High Court.

It is alleging those who are making allegations are liars and making several others in their defence. In public it says one thing but in the privacy of the Four Courts it is saying something completely different. This is contemptible. I also want to note-----

An Cathaoirleach

In fairness, St. John Ambulance is not here to respond to this.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

And in due course it will be here, or will have the opportunity to be here, and I am sure at that stage it can correct me.

An Cathaoirleach

I just want to put that on the record.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I thank the Chair and I appreciate it. I also note that, in the recommendations, one of the particular findings was that St. John Ambulance should be honest about how its structures facilitated grooming and predatory behaviour. It has outlined all of the steps it will take to make sure this is not the case in future. The report found St. John Ambulance lacked professionalism in some operative culture. It states the lack of professionalism poses a continuing threat to the implementation of robust and effective child protection systems. The review recommends it takes steps to consider this lack of professionalism through the implementation of robust and effective child protection systems. I will take the opportunity to note that it is funded by the GAA, the IRFU and the FAI, all of which continue to engage its services while it is still at a stage of lacking professionalism.

Now we are on to how Tusla engaged with St John's Ambulance over this period. Coming from the opening statement and that which we know from the report, Tusla engaged with it between 2019 and 2022. In December 2022, St. John Ambulance was in receipt of a letter, and I have seen copies of a similar letter, stating its child safeguarding statement was compliant. In fact that letter went further to state there were no issues for improvement. Tusla is widely understood as being the child and family agency and having responsibility for child protection in the State. It is widely understood to do this. A letter from it that makes this decision is something that will be brandished by any organisation as being a statement of its standards. Therein lies a very dangerous precedent that we need to get to the heart of today. Tusla was saying there were no issues for improvement and St. John Ambulance was compliant during that period. When it submitted the safeguarding statement, did it have all of the policies and procedures attached? Tusla's wording states that, during this period, it was working to assist St. John Ambulance with this because it is an obligation to have all of the policies and procedures in place. I would like to know when exactly Tusla was working with it and when it had its policies and procedures in place.

The operative understanding of the people of the people in charge of St. John Ambulance according to the report, and accepted by it, was that it believed a criminal standard of proof was required before it could even instigate and investigate a child protection matter. This is extraordinary since child protection has been in place since 1999.

Looking at the two pieces I have read out, one that St. John Ambulance's structures facilitated grooming and predatory behaviour and the other that the ongoing situation was that St. John Ambulance needed to implement robust and effective child protection procedures, I am curious to know how Tusla went on to say there were three allegations and that nothing suggested systemic abuse. I am curious to know what is the standard that qualifies for systemic abuse in an organisation. What does Tusla understand by it? Is it when leadership of an organisation doctored a photograph in 2003 to cover up someone against whom there may have been allegations of child sexual abuse and rape and to make sure the person was not in the photograph? To me that potentially would be a hierarchy covering up. When there are allegations-----

An Cathaoirleach

This is getting very specific with regard to St John's Ambulance. Again, the organisation is not here. The Senator has referred to other organisations that are engaging with her.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I appreciate that and I hear the Cathaoirleach, but with due respect, this is about how Tusla made its decisions.

An Cathaoirleach

I know, but I do not want to have to stop the meeting.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I appreciate that. I will not allude to it again.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Senator Seery Kearney.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I am curious about how there can be several allegations about divisions of an organisation and other behaviours. What exactly triggers a view that Tusla is able to come before the committee and say it did not see anything that was systemic abuse? I am curious as to what is the threshold for systemic abuse. What is the arbiter of this that triggers some sort of engagement? In other areas Tusla is mandated to be part of an interdepartmental group that includes the Garda and others. What triggers it?

What is very important about today is that people understand that, depending on whether Tusla is dealing with an organisation that is funded or not funded, it is either quite powerful or completely impotent and completely toothless. Even the recommendation to commission a report was merely that. It was a recommendation. That is all it was. What would have happened had it said "No"? What would have happened if it had not done anything? What would have happened in those instances? It suggests nothing would have happened.

The opening statement says there were two well-founded allegations and a further two allegations. It states there were concerns about the management of the disclosure of allegations. I know that when one allocation was made, to be fair to St John's Ambulance, it was reported in line with mandatory reporting in 2013, albeit to a previous entity of Tusla. From 1 January 2014, Tusla has been responsible for child protection. That report was made and it was not investigated until 2018. That was five years later. This is because it was retrospective. I have been a mandated person for a number of years in my career. Even if it is retrospective, it must be considered in light of the current situation. Given the other suggestions and what Tusla has disclosed, such as concerns about management disclosure and the recommendations that are here and how they have been accepted by St. John Ambulance, it is unbelievable no investigation was done. It is really quite shocking.

In all of the years since 1 January 2014 how many times has Tusla written to the Minister saying that, when it comes to non-funded organisations, it is completely toothless and child sexual abuse and rape could be going on around the country? It has a register, and if a child safeguarding statement is not sent forward, an organisation's name might be entered on the register. How does Tusla know the organisations even exist? What sort of a deterrent is this? It is a completely toothless deterrent. There are no sanctions. How often does Tusla ask for there to be sanctions? Did Tusla ever identify and raise this at ministerial meetings or at meetings of Oireachtas joint committees? I cannot find it and I have done a search. I would welcome the witnesses turning around and saying otherwise. The child first responsibility is proactive. Mr. Justice Barr said it is a proactive duty to ensure child safeguarding. It would appear, based on what we have seen to date as an exemplar, that the public perception is completely different from the reality. This needs to be explored. Vulnerable people find themselves having to go public in very vulnerable ways to try to instigate any action. We need a response to this.

Ms Kate Duggan

I will start by talking through all the delays from 2013 Deputy Seery Kearney has spoken about. My colleague Mr. Brophy will deal with the queries about systemic abuse. My colleague Mr. Corcoran will deal with the specific queries Senator Seery Kearney has about the powers we have or do not have at present with regard to child safeguarding statements.

As I referred to in the opening statement, we have had two parallel pieces in place with St. John Ambulance. I absolutely hear the Cathaoirleach's reference to not speaking about St John's Ambulance when it is not here to defend itself. We will speak about what is on the record for Tusla, what we have found and the concerns we have.

The first thing is we have publicly apologised to the individual victims and survivors for the delay that took place in investigating the allegations of abuse which first came to light in 2013. I put that apology on the public record today.

Over 2013 and up to 2017, we had received three allegations of abuse against one individual. Given our statutory powers with regard to retrospective allegations or abuse, our primary consideration has to be to determine that there is no risk to child protection today. In this instance, we were assured at the screening process that there was no current-day risk in the context of the individual against whom the allegation was made, because the individual was no longer in that organisation. We fulfilled our statutory obligations to assure ourselves, based on the allegations we had, that there was no current-day risk.

We have to work in due process and did so when investigating the allegation that was made. We believed, and believe, what the survivors told us about the abuse they suffered and we made a founded outcome with regard to the allegations of abuse in two of those cases. At that time, one of those individuals was an adult when he alleged the abuse had taken place and that would not be a matter for our retrospective teams. We believed those two people in 2019, but in line with due process, there was an appeals process to which anybody is entitled. When the correspondence was written in 2019, we were basing it on facts available to Tusla at that time. The facts available were that two allegations were made to us against one individual who no longer worked within the organisation, there was not a current-day risk to children, and there was a child safeguarding statement. We can talk later about what a child safeguarding statement means and what level of protection it gives with regard to assuring the public, but there was a compliant safeguarding statement.

In June 2022, when the founded outcome was upheld after appeal, we had our founded outcome at that stage. We believed the survivors and their story. We also believed and were able to take into consideration all the other information. The Senator referred earlier to a photograph and other documentation they shared with us. At that time, we were able to go back to St. John Ambulance and put what we considered significant pressure on the organisation to undertake this investigation into how it handled allegations of child sexual abuse. That was almost to assure ourselves or to check whether this was a bigger issue in St. John Ambulance. Did this relate to systemic abuse? Was this talking about organised abuse or organisational abuse? They mean three slightly different things. In 2020, we got the assurance that St. John Ambulance would complete that investigation and we very much welcomed that happened. We believed the survivors who made the allegations in 2013, and Dr. Shannon's report has concurred, with regard to the allegations made by those individuals.

The Senator referenced the proactive nature of Children First and it is very important for us as an organisation. We absolutely believe in the principles of Children First. We believe in the principles that, throughout this country today, there are tens of thousands of organisations working with children, whether they are organisations that are or are not funded by the State or they are organisations that may be something as simple as somebody local, in a community, setting up a local art and hobby class for the children living there, that are providing good and safe services to children. There are volunteers throughout this country who are absolutely living the values of Children First, and all of their interactions with children are ensuring those children are safe. However, we want every organisation to have a child safeguarding statement and they have to have one under Children First. I have referred in my opening statement to what that is. In a child safeguarding statement, every individual organisation understands its own organisation and knows the type of work it does, the interactions it has with children, and the risks in its organisation at a particular time with regard to child protection, and it will have identified the risks and the actions to mitigate and prevent those risks from happening.

We do not have the powers to compel organisations to submit the policies and procedures, when they are submitting the child safeguarding statement. Organisations refer to them in the child safeguarding statement, but we do not have the powers to compel them to submit them. What is most important for us, and it is very important to state, is that we are fully committed to doing whatever is expected of us in the child protection space. We are here to talk about the possible extension of powers, whether that is to Tusla or another statutory body. While it is a matter for the legislators, we wish to be part of that process and the discussion. We will certainly operationalise whatever is asked of us.

When we look at the proportionality of what we might do with regard to additional resources or powers coming to an organisation, I certainly see that the most fundamental thing is we increase the resources available to enhance the awareness of organisations around their obligations under Children First. We know we could be given additional powers. We could go into an organisation today and ask that organisation for a copy of its child safeguarding statement. We could ask that organisation for a copy of its policies and procedures and assure ourselves on a particular day, at a particular point in time, that the organisation is doing what it should be doing. However, we know from organisations and sectors already regulated that there still remains a child protection risk. Something can change a week later with regard to an individual or a process.

What we really need to do is make sure that all organisations know and understand how to bring a child safeguarding statement to light, but also make sure the volunteers and staff within those organisations and the parents of children and young people accessing those organisations know what to do if they think they have a concern. If we have staff members, how do we create that safeguarding and child protection culture in organisations throughout the country? That is the part of the discussion we are really interested in having. We talked earlier about where an organisation is funded by the State. When an organisation is applying for funding from Tusla on the portal, it has first to indicate and provide information on its safeguarding statement and child protection and procedure policies. When we have the organisation's service level agreement or monitoring meetings, those are fundamentally part of that review and of those meetings. However, even recently or in the past six months, we have had a situation where a staff member has abused a child in an organisation. It came about because it was reported to us. The organisation and the people working within it became concerned, made a referral and the referral went through its due process.

It is very important we keep the discussion today focused, not just on possible powers and the choices and decisions legislators might make, and we will fully support and implement whatever is asked of us, but on looking at additional resources to maximise our existing powers, which is another important conversation. We can ask organisations we do or do not fund for their child safeguarding statement. We do that on a risk basis. If we see something through a referral to another part of our organisation, or in the media, or something is brought to our attention, we ask organisations. We know 90% of the child safeguarding statements we receive voluntarily are of the organisations' own volition. Some 10% are based on our having had a concern with regard to a child safeguarding statement. We have reached out to those organisations and asked for the statement, if we are concerned about their policies and procedures. That is the role and the obligation our Children First officers have through Children First, in that they can support those organisations.

However, if an organisation refuses to give us its policies and procedures and it is not State-funded, we do not have the ability to compel it to do that. The last thing I might say is-----

An Cathaoirleach

I remind Ms Duggan of time, because we have gone way over and a number of members still wish to put questions. I am aware she wanted Mr. Brophy and Mr. Corcoran to come in but maybe they can do so at the end.

Ms Kate Duggan

Mr. Brophy might come in on the systemic abuse piece and the thresholds.

An Cathaoirleach

He can either do so really briefly or leave it until the end. There are a number of members who still have to ask questions.

Mr. Ger Brophy

I can be really brief. The proactive duty is important. Mr. Justice Barr established at that time that Tusla and the HSE were being proactive in following up on retrospective abuse. When it comes to a case like this, we are looking at organisational abuses. What Geoffrey Shannon's report establishes is culture is one of the features, let us say, of what we might call organisational abuse. That is important. The culture in organisations is not necessarily about their polices or procedures, but how they operate and the assumptions they make. It is the way they have always operated; it is their custom and practice. That is the piece that has been clearly identified in this report as needing to be looked at, but that is only one of the features. If we look at what was described as systemic abuse, it could be organisational or organised - namely, where two or more people were in a cohort together - or it could be something around child exploitation where there is reward involved. Again, we do not see all those features present in this report. Maybe that is all I can say at this point in time. There are some features there, but not all the features that would easily classify it into any one of these. Geoffrey Shannon's report does a really good job on pulling that together in a really understandable way.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I thank the officials for their presentation. In his report, Geoffrey Shannon said the board of St. John's Ambulance put the organisation ahead of young people. That is a pretty damning statement. Clearly, St. John's Ambulance has not learned, because while at the same it is apologising publicly, it is still fighting survivors in court and that is a huge thing-----

An Cathaoirleach

I apologise for interrupting but I have to remind people St. John's Ambulance has no representatives here to defend it. I do not want to stop the meeting but I cannot continually interrupt either. I will have to stop the meeting if I have to interrupt again. I ask people to be really careful and really cautious. I understand where people are coming from, but we have a duty as well, as a committee.

Deputy Chris Andrews

Ms Duggan mentioned it was flagged in 2013 with Tusla that there were issues around abuse. What actions did Tusla take prompted by the flag raised with the agency then? I am not clear about what actions it took on foot of that, and how it came to 2018 and Geoffrey Shannon exposing everything. Does Tusla feel it could get a better idea of how organisations were implementing safeguarding standards in practice if it were given powers to inspect organisations beyond just looking at safeguarding statements? What is Tusla's view of current child protection standards in St. John's Ambulance? On something Senator Seery Kearney mentioned, does the agency continue to issue letters of comfort to organisations where allegations of abuses have been flagged with it?

Ms Kate Duggan

On the letters of comfort, the correspondence that was referred to in the media in 2019 was correspondence issued to a Deputy in response to a specific query about an individual case, so it was not a letter of comfort to St. John's Ambulance.

The Deputy's first question was on the allegation in 2013. That was the allegation I referred earlier to in respect of having to investigate the allegation against an individual. We went through what was the process at that time in how we would investigate that and I already apologised for the delay in that.

On our child protection standards and St. John's Ambulance, we could not say today we are assured. Dr. Shannon's report has made significant findings about the culture of the organisation and we all know it takes significant time to change a culture in an organisation. As I said, I met the CEO and the chair of the board and there are going to be some changes in the board membership and the director-executive of St. John's Ambulance, but I am assured by the fact they have accepted the full findings of the report and have accepted all the recommendations. They have agreed to implement all of those, particularly with respect to the appointment of a national safeguarding lead for St. John's Ambulance and they have committed to meeting us quarterly to update us on the implementation of those recommendations. All that provides a level of assurance at this point in time, but we continue, and our children first information officers continue, to engage with the organisation on its policies and procedures.

On the question of Tusla being given additional powers to inspect, I will not repeat myself for reasons of time, but we talk about powers, rules and legislation. They create an expectation, but they do not on their own protect. What we are saying is this is about how we as a State collectively promote a culture of safeguarding and of child protection in all organisations, whether they are State-funded. That is the challenge. If we look internationally, in some countries the charities regulator has a function in that and in others it is around local and regional safeguarding committees. It is a conversation to see whether we need more powers or additional resources to maximise the powers we have. I firmly believe the most fundamental thing is how we push the resources we have into awareness to ensure everybody who works with children and families understands what they can do and that if anybody has a concern they should refer the matter to Tusla.

Senator Lynn Ruane

I have been listening very carefully and struggling to differentiate what has been interrupted and what has not. There seems to be some conversation that is skirting on being allowed to ask particular questions and I do not see the difference between it and the ones that were interrupted. If I cross over into that, it is because I am struggling to figure out what is permissible. There is no need to stop the meeting as the Cathaoirleach can just tell met to back off. Apologies in advance.

Before looking at the possible enhancement of powers and that area of things, I want to pick up on a couple of threads that have gone before to seek understanding of what has been said so far. On the original allegations, at the time it would have been found by Tusla there was no current risk. Am I correct that this relates to the perpetrator only? Ms Duggan is nodding. At that stage, was there an investigation or was Tusla aware or did it have information about the concerns at a management or board level about how they may or may not be implicated in covering up of that abuse over the years?

Ms Kate Duggan

Is that in 2013?

Senator Lynn Ruane

In 2019.

Ms Kate Duggan

I am going to let Ms Finlay talk in more detail about that.

Ms Patricia Finlay

May I reference 2013 first?

Senator Lynn Ruane

Yes.

Ms Patricia Finlay

First, I reiterate our sincere apologies that there was a delay with a person who made a report of abuse in 2013. It is important to highlight that and acknowledge the delay. I have engaged with that person and have apologised. It is a sincere apology. There were reasons for that delay, though that is of no comfort to the particular individual. In 2014 and 2016 - we were before the Oireachtas committee in, I think, 2017 or 2018 - we as an agency are very clear we were in difficulty in terms of how we were responding to retrospective abuse allegations as an organisation. We had policy issues. We had practice issues-----

Senator Lynn Ruane

I am sorry to interrupt, but I have a small amount of time, so if I can just-----

Ms Patricia Finlay

Yes, so in 2019-----

Senator Lynn Ruane

If there was information beyond the risk of the perpetrator, was there information on the potential that there was a cover-up?

Ms Patricia Finlay

The first step in 2019 was to engage with the two adults who were making allegations of abuse. We take into account the detail of the allegations, which is our focus in terms of that. Additional information can be provided during that assessment but our first step is to substantiate the allegations. In 2019, we substantiated abuse. We believed the people who came forward had been abused. In line with due process and fair procedure, the person who is subject to an abuse allegation is entitled to look for an appeal, which is an appeal of our finding of abuse. That happened in 2020 and the outcome of that appeal was in the summer of 2020. It was in that period, following further and ongoing engagement with one of those individuals who was advising us of concerns about the organisation, its culture and issues within it, because we had found that abuse had taken place, that we then engaged with the organisation and asked that it consider and commission and independent review of how it had managed allegations in the past.

Senator Lynn Ruane

Referring to the time between the chid safeguarding statement being given and being aware that there were potential issues with people covering potential abuse up, was the child safeguarding statement given before or after Tusla had an awareness from victims that there were wider concerns about people within the organisation?

Ms Kate Duggan

There are two things there. To be honest, in December 2019, we established that they had a child safeguarding statement that was compliant with the Act. That is what our statutory powers ask us to do. On the one hand, they had a safeguarding statement that was compliant with the Act and, at the same time, we had found that abuse had occurred. There had been abuse and we also obviously referred that matter to An Garda Síochána because that-----

Senator Lynn Ruane

That is what I was going to ask. When referring a matter to An Garda Síochána relating to a perpetrator, where is the scope when it comes to measuring risk in also referring other members or board structures to An Garda Síochána? On the one hand, there is an alleged perpetrator but, on the other, there is complete negligence where there is the potentiality that people have allowed children to be subject to abuse. Where is the legal culpability for individuals like that? I am trying to understand at what point it is not just an alleged perpetrator that needs to be investigated and referred by Tusla because the alleged perpetrator may no longer be a current risk. However, if there are still current people and members in positions that continue to be a risk, where does the risk stretch beyond a perpetrator?

Ms Kate Duggan

I might let Mr. Brophy take that question. Even currently, we are engaging strategically with An Garda Síochána regarding a different organisation. Our obligations are around, as the Senator said, the individual assessment of the abuse but where we have information and further information known to us. We have certain powers and the Garda have certain powers where there is something of concern to them. We saw that the encouragement and getting them to complete an investigation into that whole organisation and how they handled those allegations of abuse was going to be the best way forward to truly understand what was going on in that organisation. In the situation we are in at the moment with a different organisation, we are also working with the Garda on that. We liaise with the Garda.

Senator Lynn Ruane

Before moving to Mr. Brophy, in light of the Dr. Geoffrey Shannon report, have there been further referrals to An Garda Síochána?

Ms Kate Duggan

The matters we have referred to An Garda Síochána since the publication of the report are where we have received new allegations through the establishment of the helpline.

Senator Lynn Ruane

But not in relation to the failings of the other members of the organisation.

Ms Kate Duggan

No.

Ms Patricia Finlay

Our role is to assess individuals’ risk to children. In this situation, we were liaising with the Garda in criminally investigating that. Since the publication of Dr. Shannon’s reports, further referrals have been received. We have notified, and do notify, the Garda of those additional referrals.

On the issue of an organisation, the Garda has a withholding of information Act in its powers. People are culpable. The Garda can investigate whether people withheld information from it. That is a power that the Garda has available to it.

Mr. Ger Brophy

Significantly, in this area, we are dealing with retrospective allegations. We have seen good co-operation at times between the Garda and Tusla, which has been acknowledged in a variety of reviews and inquiries. At times, there has been not so good co-operation as well, particularly around church inquiries in the past. There has been good co-operation between us and the Garda. We have met on a co-operative basis with the church, gone through allegations and established where there was non-co-operation or where we needed to get more co-operation and how we might facilitate that. It is a combination of the powers that we have to encourage, to put children first, to explain that to people, to provide the structures for them to do that and to encourage them to put those structures in place in their own organisation. If we are aware that is not happening, we then combine with the Garda to be able to have those conversations with them. By and large, that resolves situations where there has been retrospective abuse. We have not yet come across a current situation and the need to go in to, as we say, identify organisational abuse where that is happening currently.

Senator Lynn Ruane

For clarification, I will return to no current risk. Let us forget the organisation for a moment but recognise that there are still potentially some members within the organisation and in power and decision-making roles who it is alleged may have covered up. They were very aware of and sang songs about it. There were all these different statements in the report. Are they not a current risk if they are still in the organisation if they had the capabilities to ignore? What is the referral and risk assessment then? They are not at home, retired. I just do not understand why.

Mr. Ger Brophy

The report is significant in that respect in that it brings this out and into the open. That has been enabling. The Minister was in here. He has been engaging with this organisation as well. We were recently engaging with this organisation too. We have written to them recently. There is an active engagement around that. The hope is that the powers that we have are sufficient. We have to exhaust those powers to encourage and to provide that structure. It is up to any organisation then to respond to that, which takes time.

Ms Patricia Finlay

We have immediate powers. If there are identified children at risk, we have immediate powers, if required. We will engage with their parents and put a safety plan in place. We can share third-party information in terms of a potential risk to children. We have those powers. We have our child abuse substantiation policy, so we have very clear policies and procedures to ensure we do that in line with due process and fair procedure, following a large stakeholder engagement on the development of that policy. We are very clear. If there is an allegation against a person at this point, we have powers to intervene in respect of the immediate risk-----

Senator Lynn Ruane

I think I understand all of that. Forgetting being political for a moment, and just thinking, say, as a parent with a child in an organisation, if I became aware that there were allegations that people who worked and still work in that organisation who, potentially for many decades, turned a blind eye to abuse, would I feel my child is not at risk because the perpetrator of the abuse is not in that organisation? I would say, “No”. I would still think my child is at risk if child protection is not the main priority of the individuals still employed within the organisation.

Ms Patricia Finlay

And the culture. Absolutely.

Mr. Mike Corcoran

I thank the Senator for her question. She raised an interesting point that links to a criminal threshold of actively blocking. Should that information be contained in any statement received by Tusla, it is passed to the Garda. The Garda, in theory, would then pick up on that kind of allegation if it is a substantive part of the report that we are receiving from those who are making reports to us.

Senator Tom Clonan

With such little time and so much to ask, I do not know where to start. Following up on what Senator Ruane said, a paragraph in the report states, “The information did not at that time suggest evidence of systemic abuse across the organisation.”

That was in 2019. The values and norms of behaviour in that organisation suggest that the risk factors were systemic. With my understanding of how abuse takes place in organisations, for example, in the many thousands of organisations throughout the State, some of which are funded and others which are not, there is a kind of social contract in play with each of those, such as a neighbour who provides an art and craft class while perhaps a mum, a dad or a carer is sitting in the room. That is an entirely different proposition from the organisation which I am forbidden to mention here. To me, however, at my distance from it, of course the evidence was there that the risk was systemic because of the power differences between staff and young volunteers.

In regard to triaging all the organisations that are registered with their safety statements and safeguarding statements, does Tusla proactively identify and publish or engage in public affairs? Does Tusla engage in media relations and primary definition, and warn in the public domain that there are organisations that match the risk factors and that those risk factors are systemic? Is that something Tusla does? That is the first question. If not, why not.

Second, Senator Ruane asked a question in regard to Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Defence Forces, without reaching the threshold of criminal convictions or the proof that is required in a criminal prosecution, just by a simple iterative process we know that it is not a safe place for women. In fact the judge-led independent review group said that it is not a safe place for men either. We know that. Is St John Ambulance, as we speak, a safe place for children?

An Cathaoirleach

Again, I reiterate that we cannot mention St John Ambulance as it is not here to defend itself.

Senator Tom Clonan

I believe there is a fundamental, categorical, ethical, imperative-----

An Cathaoirleach

I understand all that. Sorry, Senator.

Senator Tom Clonan

These questions have to be answered.

An Cathaoirleach

Please let me finish. I understand all of that. I understand where people are coming from. However, as Chair, I have the duty to make sure everything is fair and all procedures are followed. I do not want to have to suspend or stop this meeting-----

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank the Chair. If I can restate it-----

An Cathaoirleach

-----but I cannot keep interrupting because that means ignoring what people are doing.

Senator Tom Clonan

If I could restate that question then-----

An Cathaoirleach

People can ask in a general sense.

Senator Tom Clonan

For example, I have an 18-year-old daughter. She is doing her leaving certificate. There is not a hope in hell that she would apply to join the armed forces of a certain country. If she did, I would say not to join the armed forces of a certain country because it is not a safe place for women. My question for the witnesses is, is an organisation with the types of risk factors that have been revealed in published, on-the-record reports, with its systemic risk factors and its culture, a safe place for a young person, a child or a young adult? That is the best way I can parse that, without mentioning the organisation.

The other question relates to the concept of giving Tusla greater powers. In everything I have heard thus far, Tusla seems to have inherited a corporate culture that is really predicated on moral legalism. The capacity for existential action, ethical and moral leadership, and moral courage seems to be absent in the descriptions of how Tusla dealt with these allegations. In regard to that, in the absence of the enhancement of powers, is there not a case for Tusla to learn from this and to engage in more public moral leadership and for an absolute revisiting of the way in which Tusla practices its leadership? I do not get this idea that there was no evidence it was systemic. This was in 2019. We know that systemic abuse and systemic risk factors exist in other organisations. We know, for example, sexual violence and harassment exist on university campuses, affecting one in four and, in some cases, one in three. For anyone in 2019, on foot of a very cursory examination of an organisation such as that, to come to the conclusion that the risk is not endemic or systemic speaks to me of a culture that is too rooted in a narrow, deterministic, minimalistic, legal approach. That is not the kind of leadership we need, I would argue. If it is child centred then it has to be proactive and robust. I do not know if the witnesses want to comment on that because it might cast some of their predecessors in a particular light.

Other organisations were mentioned in which Tusla is collaborating with an Garda Síochána because there is a suggestion, and based on the threshold on which it seems to operate, that seems to me to be a serious risk. Are those organisations identified in the public domain? If not, why not? Should the parents, guardians and carers of people who are possibly sending their children or dropping them off to these organisations not be aware that these criminal investigations or these preliminary inquiries are under way? I do not know, as a layperson, whether there is any impediment to that. I cannot imagine there would be. For example, it is all over the newspapers that An Garda Síochána is going to investigate a member of a rival investigating organisation. There does not seem to be any inhibition or impediment to that kind of information being put out there in the public domain. Those are the four questions. I thank the witnesses for their patience.

Ms Kate Duggan

I hope I have captured the four questions correctly. Please come back if I have not. In regard to the last question, the organisation to which we refer to has been reported in the media. There is a process piece there in regard to the allegations that have been made and the investigation that is ongoing. In regard to the risk factors, the first thing to say is that, unfortunately, and this is the case worldwide, there are always going to be individuals who intend to harm and abuse children and young people. Those individuals often seek out organisations that provide services to children and young people to enable them to access children and young people. The risk in child protection terms is significantly high, no matter how big or small the organisation. The Senator referenced the smaller group with a neighbour or with the family member. We know from the work we do that most of the abuse we see and that is referred to us is where abuse is done by somebody known to the individual. I do not want to underestimate the risk to child protection that is there, whether it is an organisation that works with one, two or 1,000 people. That is really important. That is where there is the piece in regard to that wider societal context and the State piece in regard to generating a culture right across society around child protection.

The Senator asked about the proactive-----

Senator Tom Clonan

Just to be clear, I am not downplaying the risk. Of course we all know that abusers are usually known to the survivor and very often are family members. I am talking about it from a sociological or anthropological perspective - systemic in the context of an organisation. When Tusla is dealing with an organisation such as the one we cannot mention, at our stage and with our level of expertise, such as it is, in 2019, for somebody to come to the conclusion that there is not evidence of systemic abuse is, to me, incredible.

Ms Kate Duggan

I accept what the Senator is saying. I believe for us, there was a process going on and there was a right to an appeal at the time that correspondence was written to a Deputy where it was responding to a particular query.

One of the issues the Senator talked about and which Mr. Corcoran can talk about in more detail is in regard to the proactive piece. I would not like this committee to think that we are just reactive as an organisation in terms both of child protection and particularly around the culture of safeguarding. Under the statutory powers we already have available to us, our child safeguarding statement unit will and is engaging proactively with organisations. I will give two examples.

We have just recently finished a project in collaboration with HIQA and the HSE where we have looked at the safeguarding statements and practices across 137 disability services. That would have been triggered by, and where we know it is again linked to, the conversation earlier about giving additional safeguarding powers. We know that in disability services which are regulated, there is still a risk of harm and abuse. This is a proactive piece in strengthening child protection. That report is due for publication very shortly and has been completed.

We have also completed a survey with parents, and Mr. Corcoran can give the committee more detail on that, which asks parents about their understanding around safeguarding. Those parents have told us they are not aware to a great extent of the types of questions they should be asking or the types of information they should be looking for when they are bringing their children and young people to these types of organisations.

Certainly, when we talk about additional powers, there is another part of the proportionality and the additional resources which could be provided to allow us to do much more of that proactive safeguarding work. That is something we are doing and want to do more of. I assure the committee we certainly are working in a proactive way in ensuring child protection is strengthened and robust.

As part of the interdepartmental group, there would have been a very significant campaign around Children First awareness and there is another campaign for that planned in 2023. When something like this has happened and we have received a report, Tusla proactively pushed for this investigation to be done. Now that this report is in the public domain and tells us all that it does, we all have to take stock, learn and look to see what we could have and should have done differently. Most importantly, we must ask what we must collectively do across all of the organisations and estates. This report is telling us that unless there is a culture from the top to the bottom which promotes child protection and safeguarding, we can never be assured around the mitigation of risk to children.

Senator Tom Clonan

I commend Ms Duggan on that. I wrote to the Garda Commissioner in the past week asking for a Garda investigation into the residential setting for persons with intellectual disability and, unfortunately, in writing to the Commissioner, I had to point out that some of the statutory agencies involved are actually the ones placing obstacles in the way of such full disclosure, with the withholding of information and so on. That is obviously a matter in and of itself. This speaks to me, however, of a culture that is habituated in moral legalism without being able to have existential, ethical and moral leadership, and to have that very clearly signposted.

I do not believe Ms Duggan answered all of the questions. Is she-----

Ms Kate Duggan

If the Senator wishes, I can certainly revert to him in writing because I am conscious that if, at a later stage, there are any particular questions-----

An Cathaoirleach

We need to move on.

Ms Kate Duggan

-----he wants answered or if he wants to meet separately, I will be very happy to meet the Senator to discuss any of those concerns.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank Ms Duggan very much.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

Many of my questions have been answered. I was just thinking, when Ms Duggan made her opening statement, that this goes back to 2013, we are now in 2023 and we are, in fact, ten years on. That says so much to me. I am aware Ms Duggan has apologised, but this is about the bravery of the survivors. We have all learned lessons and I spoke about this in a Topical Issue matter in the Dáil, where I was looking for the independent report to be published. I welcome that and it is important to commend Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, in particular.

I also welcome that Ms Duggan said everything in that report will be implemented and actioned. That is very important. The one thing I take from today is that we should never be in a position like this again for survivors who have been waiting so long for a report ,or whomever this might involve across any organisation. Today, in an overall sense, we are now getting to a good place. It is about the survivors today.

One of the things which worried me and which Ms Duggan spoke about is that there are very significant challenges with staffing and resourcing across the sector. Also, are child protection policies robust enough? What do we need to do and what sort of information do we require? Is it lack of information from people not knowing what they do, because all of us here today agree this is so important, as is timing. We do not ever want this situation to happen again.

What does Ms Duggan believe has been learned from this, how can we make policies more robust, perhaps by looking at more resourcing, and what can we do to ensure this culture, a term she has used on several occasions, is one we cannot allow happen any more?

I thank all of our invited speakers to the committee. We are all thinking of the survivors today.

Ms Kate Duggan

I will ask Mr. Corcoran to join me in this contribution but I believe it is certainly around first recognising that this had been about abuse which was suffered in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and up to the 1990s. This certainly provides a context for us around those very obvious organisational matters which we all need to be aware of. What we are talking about today is where the Shannon report talked about the level of risk and the culture of an organisation being the most significant risk, apart from the intentions of the individual perpetrator. It is the culture of that organisation which is the most significant risk and this is very much around that absolute collective communication and proactive work with organisations. This is not trying to dilute the powers for Tusla or that it is shirking any responsibility, be it additional responsibility given to it or what the legislators may decide is needed in light of this report. It is around those additional resources to ensure organisations are aware.

For most organisations, it is like any issue, where a policy or procedure is only worth the paper it is written on. We must all be factually correct in that regard. We can have a HIQA inspection report that today is fully compliant, and we have had an example of this just in the past year in our own organisation. On the particular day of the HIQA inspection, we were compliant with all of the standards and, within six months, we were escalated in respect of non-compliance because of changes in the environment due to an individual. That demonstrates that the policy and procedures are one thing but it is the implementation, the governance, the checking and the culture to support it that are important.

If we were to give 5,000 inspectors to Tusla in the morning to inspect all of the organisations and the use of the resources in that way, we would perhaps increase and create a certain level of additional protection, but it is fundamentally back to awareness and a culture of disclosure within an organisation involving volunteers, staff members, children and young people themselves. We are also very cognisant that in respect of the abuse we are concerned about which was suffered and perpetrated in the 70s, 80s and 90s, we are now facing a new type of abuse. This is online abuse, sexual exploitation, with increased global movement, and not just sexual but child exploitation, and human and child trafficking. It is about what we have learned from the past with regard to what we do today, but also with an eye to what the future risks are going to be in respect of protecting and safeguarding children. Would Mr. Corcoran like to make a contribution here?

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

Absolutely.

Mr. Mike Corcoran

I thank the Deputy for her question and I might address one of the points which Senator Seery Kearney raised. The policies, procedures or the compliant child safeguarding statement exist at a point in time and are not the totality of the providers' responsibility. They are simply the first step in creating a proactive safeguarding environment. If we are going to advance beyond paper-based compliance and its existence, and I am not suggesting to the Senator these are not important points, because they are, we must, when we talk about culture and complacency, address complacency through ongoing governance, ongoing training of staff and understand that the policy or the existence of a policy is one of a period of safeguards and is not the safeguard.

In the development of any organisation, therefore, especially many of those moving from volunteerism into a more professional space, the first challenge they face is implementing frameworks. The second, then, is keeping those frameworks alive. The purpose of a child safeguarding statement is an articulation of the ongoing commitment an organisation is going to make. The creation of a statement in itself is a regulatory compliance matter, but I refer to making it a living and breathing document which will have a positive impact on children. This is what we all want. We want there to be positive impacts on children and for children to be safe. This requires all organisations to understand that safeguarding is not a singular action but an ongoing one. Addressing complacency, in all its forms, is very important in this regard.

Ms Patricia Finlay

When children say something has happened, it is critical that people believe them, listen to them, have an open mind that abuse can happen and have an inquiring mind in this regard. It is important that they believe children and take the necessary steps. This is a critical aspect. In organisations where there are concerns, historically or currently, one of the factors involved was a culture of not believing children and not allowing their voices to be heard and not allowing children and young people to participate in how an organisation was run and delivered services. Changing the culture and ethos around child and youth participation and how we deliver services is crucial.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

That is so important. I thank the witnesses.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy Costello.

Deputy Patrick Costello

I wish to look at three separate elements. I will start with compliance and inspection, followed by some of the lessons learned in this context and then I wish to talk about the handling of retrospective instances of abuse in general. There are some issues there that we have not gone into yet.

Mr. Corcoran mentioned paper compliance. This is important. Mention was made in the opening statement of not having powers to compel. How organisations can be compliant with the Act was also referred to. He took the words right out of my mouth when he said that if these are not living and breathing documents, then they are simply paper and next to useless. It is the same with policies and procedures. I wish to be clear when it comes to the early years inspectorate and the alternative care inspection and monitoring service. Are those services in a similar position in not having the power to compel and not being able to go in somewhere and ask to be shown not just the policy but how it is implemented? Does Tusla have sufficient powers in those two areas?

Mr. Mike Corcoran

Indeed, we do. In both those areas, there is an inspectorate framework in place which is underpinned by-----

Deputy Patrick Costello

I am conscious as well that HIQA certainly does have those powers when going into Tusla's offices to examine things. The ongoing need to protect children was referred to, as was the ongoing framework in this regard. I am thinking of this context now in terms of a carrot-and-stick approach. Tusla needs the big stick of proper inspection and consequences, because this will aid compliance. I have no doubt that the services being inspected through the alternative care inspection or even social work offices are much more alive to the regulations because of the potential for there to be an unannounced HIQA inspection than they would be if there was not that possibility or if such an undertaking only looked at policies and procedures before the people concerned walked out the door. While I understand where Tusla is coming from, we should not downplay the importance of proper compliance and the need here for compliance. Based on what has been said, it would certainly seem that in some areas Tusla does have appropriate powers but it does not in others. This is concerning and we must be highlighting this situation.

Regarding the lessons learned from the past, in 2019, as we have discussed, the abuse being discussed was held to not be systemic. Since then, however, many things have emerged. We have about 16 people now making allegations. We also have Dr. Shannon's report around a structure and culture that facilitated these things. I refer to the significant awareness of serious threats within the organisation. Knowing what Tusla knows now, therefore, with the benefit of hindsight, admittedly, if the situation in 2019 were being assessed in this context, would it meet the threshold for systemic abuse?

Ms Kate Duggan

I will ask Mr. Brophy to come in on that question. Returning to the Deputy's query on compliance and inspection, it is important for us to say that we do not wish to underplay that aspect. What we are saying, however, is that any discussions around this element need to include our regulators, be that HIQA, the Charities Regulator, ourselves and other statutory partners. Under the guidance of the Children First interdepartmental group, a conversation would be needed to tease out what exactly we think this aspect should look like and who then should have this function. The question would be if this is required and, if it is, where this responsibility should sit.

Regarding lessons learned, we have talked about the wider lessons, but Mr. Brophy might address this specific aspect. To correct the record concerning our organisation, as well, we have received 11 referrals. We have received five referrals since the establishment of our phone lines, while we had received six referrals beforehand. Those are the referrals that have come to us. It is not to say that people have not come forward in a different context, perhaps to An Garda Síochána. I have just given the figures for our agency.

Mr. Ger Brophy

On the systemic abuse point, and looking back given what we know now, Dr. Shannon was very careful in how he described this in his report. I think he has achieved a very good balance in this regard. As I said in response to earlier questions, especially from Senator Seery Kearney, there are features of systemic abuse that certainly exist in this context. Could we say there is an organisational culture - and there is certainly an organisational culture - within elements of how the organisation functioned which facilitated that abuse? Dr. Shannon has been very clear in how he has pointed this out. Could we say this is organisational abuse? I do not think it fits that definition, even if we were looking back over it now. We certainly could not say it is organised abuse. There are not enough features of that to count consistently. A whole picture would be required to look at this as we do it. The powers we have concern looking at individual cases. When we look at those individual cases collectively and look back from this vantage point, there are definitely features of what the Deputy referred to. The report establishes this.

Deputy Patrick Costello

I would like to pick this issue apart a bit more but I am worried we would get stuck in that legalistic approach. However, I wish to pick up on the retrospective stuff in general. HIQA has repeatedly commented that Tusla struggles in terms of retrospective abuse. That goes back years in its various reports. Research was recently undertaken by Dr. Joseph Mooney in University College Dublin, UCD. Many of the people interviewed during that project said that having been through the process, if they had known what it would have entailed, they would not have come forward and made their disclosures. This is very worrying in respect of child protection in general. It is the survivors who campaigned and came forward who have brought this issue to light, as has been acknowledged widely during this meeting. A question arises in that context: what are we doing to ensure that Tusla will be good enough in respect of retrospective abuse, given how it has come through HIQA's assessments year after year?

Moving to the supports for survivors, some of those I have spoken to have been very blunt and said they feel they are only getting support now because of the media attention that has been on this issue. Does Tusla see its role as providing supports to people? When people make retrospective abuse allegations, those must be grounded and founded. There must be follow-through in respect of those accused and in the context of the entire risk assessment aspect. Then, however, there are also the survivors. Is it Tusla's role to provide them with supports? I compare this situation to parents whose children have been taken into care. We have repeatedly discussed here this lacuna and gap, and how it falls on NGOs and other groups to provide that support to parents. It seems that there are people who are, as a direct result of child protection issues, suffering and that Tusla takes a corporate attitude that it is not the organisation's role to support these people. Obviously, we cannot get into the issue of those parents whose children have been taken into care, but when survivors have gone through the founding process, etc., what happens then? They are still sitting there, holding that trauma and pain.

Is it Tusla's corporate role to support them? If so, how can that be done? Does Tusla feel that is being done well enough? I ask because I know that the survivors think that is not the case.

Ms Kate Duggan

Before I bring in my colleagues, Ms Finlay and Mr. Brophy, I wish to refer quickly to birth parents. It is important to us to recognise that birth parents at a point in time often do not want additional support from Tusla and do not want to come to us, as an agency, for that support. We have, in the last two years, increased our funding to NGOs to conduct research and provide support to birth parents. Certainly it is something we are committed to doing and want to do better.

Ms Patricia Finlay

On retrospective allegations, as the Deputy will know HIQA investigated Tusla's statutory investigation, on the direction of the Minister, relating to how Tusla managed allegations of sexual abuse, particularly retrospective ones, and persons of concern. Since 2018, we have initiated quite significant service improvement plans with regard to how we respond to retrospective allegations of abuse. That has widely encompassed the structure of how we deliver services. We identified that we had a capacity issue, in terms of the number of staff who were allocated to do this work, and an additional training need because this work is very forensic. We must ensure due process and fair procedure. Historically, we have at times fallen down in that regard, which has meant difficulties in having to do new assessments. That is obviously is very traumatic for a person coming forward to report abuse. We also had policy issues in 2022, following a very large stakeholder engagement, both public and internal, with our own staff and externally. Dr. Joe Mooney, who has been mentioned, very much contributed to that. We took a wide range of submissions from across NGOs that work very closely with people who have experienced child sexual abuse and other abuse. From that, we implemented the child abuse substantiation, CAS, policy that we have in place.

On having consistency of response, again we have been open about it being a challenge for us to ensure, for example, that somebody is responded to in County Kerry in the same way as in County Donegal. We have an oversight governance body within the organisation to oversee the implementation of the new CAS policy. We have CAS workers within the organisation who have received specific training. We have ongoing training in the interviewing skills required under this policy. The governance oversight group is in place to oversee how implementation is going. We have developed communities of practice to bring practitioners who deal with this work together on a regular basis to share learning and thereby promote consistency.

Deputy Patrick Costello

When did the CAS policy commence?

Ms Patricia Finlay

In 2022.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Was that towards the end of 2022?

Ms Patricia Finlay

It was at the end of June.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Is there a plan in place to conduct reviews of the CAS policy to see how it has functioned and operated? If so, what does it involve? I believe this committee should keep an eye on this area and invite Tusla back to discuss it, particularly when a review has been done.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Ms Kate Duggan

Mr. Brophy will update the committee on the external person who is supporting us with that review.

Mr. Ger Brophy

An external review is ongoing. Again, that is through Dr. Joe Mooney, who was involved in that previous research and established an expertise around this. The stakeholder engagement that we have done in preparation for this and its launch was extremely extensive. The engagement was very helpful to us as it provided an insight. We realised that we did not have a regulatory framework around this, which we needed at the time. A framework would have proved helpful and might still be helpful to us at this stage. The CAS is the result of discussions with external stakeholders, listening to all the High Court judgments and then putting all of that together and assessing how best we can provide it in this environment.

Mention has been made of support for victims and anyone who has been abused. We are engaged with One in Four. We have provided some additional funding to One in Four in the last while in terms of dealing with waiting lists that it has and supporting One in Four to develop new ways around that. We are also actively engaged with the National Counselling Service, which is an extremely important service for adults who have been abused as it provides extensive supports to people.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Ms Finlay mentioned that CAS workers have received appropriate training. How many people have completed the specialist joint interview training with An Garda Síochána? Does the training work? My experience is that many of the people I know who did that, and they were excellent social workers, never did a single interview and have since left Tusla. So a lot of money has been spent on a very important thing but it has been wasted.

Mr. Ger Brophy

I might join that to our proactive duty. In this space, we are being extremely proactive by introducing the Barnahus model in Ireland. We have three centres which are in the west, east and south. Key to all of that is the partnership between the HSE's medical forensic service, ourselves in terms of child protection and An Garda Síochána, and Children's Health Ireland, CHI, in the east. Specialist interviewing is really important in the midst of that. We have 12 people training in this country but we need more people. The Garda recognises that it has a challenge around this as well. There is joint training going on at the moment. Again, 12 people have gone through the most recent batch of training this year. We hope that they will qualify as joint specialist interviewers. That would mean we will have the ongoing training and support, which is required, later this year. We are actively looking to get more people trained, for the rest of this year and into next year. There is quite a big programme. Recruitment and retention is challenging but we are actively working on that.

Deputy Patrick Costello

I would love to talk more about the Barnahus model but if I did, the Chair would have to stop the meeting.

An Cathaoirleach

All of our questions have been dealt with. Senator Seery Kearney wishes to come back in and I ask people to be brief.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I thank the delegation for their answers. It defies belief that any organisation or individual engaging with children at this moment would not have a culture of child protection first and foremost. I am shocked that we need to discuss this matter in terms of any organisations in existence since the 1980s. It is mind-blowing that organisations would not go to such a place.

Great procedures have been mentioned. Without doubt, there have been some nuggets in this debate from which I have taken great heart. However, for Tusla to have boots on the ground depends on whether we are talking about a Tusla-funded organisation or a non-funded organisation.

There is mandatory reporting. I think I heard that if a statement which is made to Tusla contains an express statement that makes allegations around the management of an organisation, you have the ability to go to the Garda and to say you need to go in and investigate more than just the individual, who is the alleged perpetrator, but beyond that. If there is not an express statement, however, you are limited to the allegations around an alleged perpetrator and then it is investigated by the Garda in the main. On this side of that, there is a safeguarding statement, which could be a cut-and-paste job that is lifted from some website somewhere, but there is no requirement of evidence of implementation.

I have practised in the area of privacy law and the general data protection regulation, GDPR. If I work with a organisation to put in its GDPR principles and privacy statement, it is way more than a statement - it involves every member of staff and everybody involved in that organisation absolutely understanding and challenging the culture and the work practices, etc. I have evidence of that if the Data Protection Commission arrives in. We are talking here about child protection, which is even more important because of its lifelong consequences. There does not seem to be an analogous power in a non-funded organisation and I contend that there should be. According to the Minister's speech in the Seanad in response to a recent motion on this issue tabled by Fine Gael, Tusla has a child protection enforcement unit. That sounds fantastic but enforcement means actually being able to enforce by shutting down an organisation in the same way as can be done in the childcare sector. It is right that Tusla should have those powers.

There should be an ability for our child protection agency to go in and shut down any organisation, however formal or informal, if it does not have child safeguarding at its heart. Am I correct in what I have heard about an express statement, when it comes to the management of an organisation, in that Tusla needs that level of a statement to engage with An Garda Síochána? With regard to enforcement, how do we go to a place where there has to be evidence? Culture should be changing. Anybody who really cares about children and engaging with children should be paranoid about having proper culture in place.

Ms Kate Duggan

I will talk about the question around enforcement. It is important, more for public reassurance, that a safeguarding statement will not be deemed compliant if it appears to be cut and pasted, because it certainly has to reflect the organisation, its duties, what it does and the types and mitigation of risks. Every parent should understand he or she can ask to see a copy of the child safeguarding statement. I will not go into it now, but results that have come from that public survey show the need for greater awareness with regard to what all of us can do as parents, individuals, organisations, communities and a State to make sure we are creating that culture. Mr. Corcoran will talk about the current powers.

When we talk about an organisation being Tusla-funded or not, if we have a concern about any organisation that is State-funded, either about the safeguarding statement or if our children first officers, who are proactive, have a concern, whether it is international protection accommodation services, IPAS, disability centres or many organisations throughout the country, we will always escalate that concern to the relevant funder or parent Department with regard to the sectoral leads. The vast majority of organisations receive some element of State funding. We have powers to share our concerns with State funders, whether that is to leverage funding or with regard to the overall sectoral responsibility.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

Here we have a nationally-known organisation-----

Ms Kate Duggan

It is not funded.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

-----none of us have watched, that is not funded. There are many other organisations of that size or private entities that are not funded.

Mr. Mike Corcoran

The Senator is correct in what she is saying. We do not have an inspectorate body that goes in to any service providing services to children, other than services that are subject to regulation. Our current powers with regard to the child safeguarding statement compliance reflect our ability to compel an organisation to give us a statement and that statement to be assessed as meeting the expectations of what is set out with regard to the criteria for what should be in that statement. The next piece of it is down to the organisation, to implement that statement and all of the policy and procedures that should support it, in full, and actively engage with risk thereafter.

While we do not have those direct powers, it is not to suggest that we do not take actions where we can proactively do so. We actively influence organisations. We support them with regard to training and information to create proper well-informed child safeguarding cultures and environments. Deputy Costello's point is right in that active inspection focuses the mind with regard to what should be there. However, the important action all the time - I talked about complacency earlier - is to look at the spirit of children first legislation which says it is everybody's responsibility. The governance part about trying to turn everybody's responsibility into a set of actions day to day, week to week and year on year, is very important. Wider discussion is needed about how that will be achieved, whether it is simply through a regulatory inspection or regime, or whether an extension of the existing powers is needed to widen that out. It will be an important debate to have. I do not disagree with the Senator on that.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

A remarkable change in health and safety happened when directors of companies found themselves down in the Criminal Courts of Justice being prosecuted. That sharpened the mind with regard to responsibilities. I would dearly like to see that.

Mr. Mike Corcoran

Indeed. We were talking earlier about a comparison between the requirement to have a health and safety statement in the workplace and a child safeguarding statement. However, the difference with a health and safety statement is that there is a body that can come in to ensure the statement is implemented.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

It is perfectly analogous.

Deputy Chris Andrews

When I asked about Tusla's view of the current child protection standards in St. John Ambulance earlier on, I was told that everything from the recommendations of the Shannon report would be enacted. Is Tusla saying that St. John Ambulance is a safe place to send children to work?

An Cathaoirleach

We have gone through this already. St. John Ambulance is not here to defend itself or answer. Questions should be kept general.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I suppose that rules out my next question. With regard to the issue being flagged in 2013, it was mentioned earlier on that Tusla had power to intervene in cases where it has concerns and sees red flags. However, in 2013 a red flag was raised and nobody intervened.

Ms Patricia Finlay

I will correct that. In 2013, a referral was received, but the referral established that the person identified was no longer involved in the organisation and did not have contact with children at the time. Those steps were taken at that time. There is obviously a piece with regard to engagement with An Garda Síochána and its investigation role.

Deputy Chris Andrews

Notwithstanding that the individual was gone from the organisation, does that not raise concerns that there is serious concerns about the organisation? Surely that would initiate a review from the child protection agency or pretty intense scrutiny and investigation. That did not happen.

Ms Kate Duggan

The learning from this was referenced already. All of us have to learn. Investigations such as this come out and shocking findings such as this are made. We may receive an allegation. I refer to Mr. Brophy's description of the different types of abuse: organised, organisational or systemic abuse and the different things they mean. We may receive referrals for either current-day or retrospective abuse alleged against an individual and for the large part, all of those individuals work somewhere. We have an initial screening to do to identify whether there are any child protection concerns today. If there are such concerns, we are able to share information, as relevant. We did that then and we continue to do so now. However, we have also established a working group with our parent Department, to reflect on some of the questions members raised today to look at what constitutes risks or risk factors. I do not like using the terms "early indicators", "early warning signs" or "red flags". However, as an organisation, we need to make sure we respond to them in an appropriate way, if we think there is any risk of abuse within an organisation. It can be difficult at a point in time, when it is one referral received against one individual. What is it we have to do and should be doing to make sure we are at the earliest point possible in not allowing such a situation to repeat itself, when something went on for a number of years? That is certainly a learning we have taken from this in trying to move forward.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank all our members and everybody from Tusla for their engagement and answering all of our questions. We just need agreement to publish the opening statements to the Oireachtas website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.09 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 May 2023.