Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 May 2024

Review of Barnahus Model for Young People who have Experienced Child Sexual Abuse: Discussion

Apologies have been received from Deputy Sherlock and Senator O'Sullivan.

Deputy Coveney has been appointed to the committee; we welcome him on board.

I will read into the public record that all minutes of public and private meetings, previously agreed to date at private meetings, are considered the agreed minutes of meetings.

Our agenda item for consideration today is a review of the Barnahus model for young people who have experienced child sex abuse. We are joined, from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, by Mr. Des Delaney, principal officer, chief social worker and chair of the interdepartmental group on Barnahus implementation, and Ms Ciara Doyle, assistant principal officer, social work specialist and project lead for the interdepartmental group on Barnahus implementation; from Tusla, by Ms Kate Duggan, chief executive, Mr. Gerard Brophy, chief social worker, and Ms Clare Murphy, interim national director of services and integration; from the HSE, by Ms Helen Shortt, lead Barnahus model implementation; from Children's Health Ireland, by Ms Fiona Murphy, acting chief executive, and Mr. Stephen Flanagan, deputy chief executive; and from An Garda Síochána, by assistant commissioner Mr. Justin Kelly, organised and serious crime, and detective chief superintendent Mr. Colm Noonan from the Garda National Protective Services Bureau. They are all very welcome. I thank them very much for joining us.

I will go through the normal housekeeping matters and the statement on parliamentary privilege. For anyone joining us remotely, the chat function on Microsoft Teams should only be used to make us aware of any urgent matters or technical issues. It should not be used to make general comments or statements. I remind our 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. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In that regard, I ask anyone who is joining us online via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

In advance of inviting witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I advise them all of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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.

We will have a number of opening statements. I will go through the order and then call on members for questions. Mr. Delaney will start, followed by Ms Duggan, Ms Shortt and Assistant Commissioner Kelly.

Mr. Des Delaney

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the opportunity provided by the committee to talk about the extremely important development of Barnahus and its implementation in Ireland for children who have been subject to child sexual abuse. The Barnahus model in Ireland will ensure that children who have experienced child sexual abuse, regardless of geographical location, will receive a standardised response and ongoing support through an extremely difficult time in their lives. I also welcome members of the interdepartmental group, including members of Tusla, An Garda Síochána, the HSE and Children's Health Ireland, who have also been called to give evidence to the committee. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Doyle, who is assistant principal in the Department and a social work specialist with the unit.

The Icelandic Barnahus model is a child-friendly response model for the co-ordination of criminal and child protection investigations of child abuse cases, and provision of support services for child victims and their families under one roof. The Barnahus model was recognised in 2015 as a promising practice by the committee of the parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, or the Lanzarote committee. The model is replicated in Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden and is in the process of being adapted in more than a dozen other European countries. I recently had the opportunity to present at a conference in Montenegro organised by the Council of Europe and the EU Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, DG REFORM, on Ireland’s progress in its implementation of the Barnahus model to 46 members who are part of the Council of Europe states. I will report that Ireland is not doing too badly. We are probably at a middle-rank status among those countries. There is still a lot of work to do but we have made considerable progress in the past 18 months to two years.

The Barnahus model is in use across Europe. A strong network of support for research, training and best practice guidance is available to countries implementing the model. Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, is a founding member of the PROMISE Barnahus Network, which represents 36 organisations and individuals in 22 countries. The five core elements of Barnahus, which means children's house, have been identified as: a multi-professional approach; the one-door principle, meaning that a child has only to come to one centre; a commitment to avoid secondary victimisation, achieved through a joint child investigative interview that allows for multi-professional observation; a safe place for disclosure and a neutral place for professional interventions; and a broad target demographic and definition of child abuse.

Under this model, a child who has experienced and-or disclosed sexual abuse can come to a child-friendly location where gardaí, social workers, doctors, psychologists and other professionals can provide the services that may be needed. The aim of the model is to reduce re-traumatisation by reducing the number of times a child may need to describe their experience. That is a key principle of the Barnahus model. On-site forensic medical services are provided under the model, delivered by forensic paediatrician and nurse specialists, all at the same location. The model also aims to increase prosecution rates in cases of child sexual abuse before the courts. The model will produce high-quality evidence, gathered in a manner that focuses on avoiding re-traumatisation. The model will also assist and promote ongoing efforts to deliver child-friendly justice by supporting children and their families through the trial period.

Ireland has been party to the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, or the Lanzarote Convention, since 2020. It has undertaken to strengthen its response to child sexual abuse in line with the Lanzarote Convention, the EU strategy on the rights of the child, and EU directives on child sexual abuse - Directive 2011/92/EU - and victims’ rights. It has implemented promising practices from other countries on child-friendly justice. The need to improve services for children who experience sexual abuse has been highlighted in key reports examining State responses to child sexual abuse in Ireland, including the 2005 Ferns report, the 2009 Ryan report and the 2011 Mott MacDonald report. Recommendations made in these and other reports include examining how services to child victims can be improved, how trauma can be reduced through interagency working and how key agencies can be brought together to address the needs of children and families going through this very traumatic experience.

In 2018, HIQA was invited by the then Minister to investigate the management of allegations of child sexual abuse against adults of concern by Tusla. It brought a focus to the need for interagency working in respect of children in need of protection and therapeutic support. An expert advisory group, EAG, was established in August 2018. That group identified, among quite a lot of recommendations, the Barnahus model as a key recommendation in its final report, which was published in September 2019, to guide the development of a more integrated service in Ireland for children who have experienced sexual abuse. That recommendation 4.6 states: "Multiagency child sexual abuse teams will be implemented on a national basis. A pilot of the One House/Barnahus model will commence in 2019." This pilot commenced in 2019.

An interdepartmental group, IDG, is in place, led by the Department of children, which I have the privilege of chairing, with representatives from the Departments of Health and Justice, and key service delivery agencies, including Tusla, An Garda Síochána, the HSE and Children's Health Ireland. A Barnahus national agency steering committee, BNASC, is also in place, which is independently chaired by Dr. Imelda O'Reilly. It co-ordinates and oversees development and implementation of a national Barnahus service. In 2021, the IDG established the BNASC to co-ordinate and oversee the development and implementation of a national Barnahus across three regions.

These are the east, west and the south. BNASC comprises representatives of Tusla, An Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive and Children’s Health Ireland. It has an independent chair, as I mentioned, Dr. Imelda Reilly. It reports to the IDG for the purpose of co-ordinating the efforts of the agencies. Dr. Reilly also sits on our IDG.

Since its inception, BNASC has led the development of key national priorities and service enablers including inter alia the definition of a national Barnahus vision; the development of an overarching interagency agreement; national service criteria and a national referral model; forensic medical examination service specification for children and adolescents following concern or disclosure of sexual assault or abuse; a national Barnahus therapeutic framework; and the development of the joint specialist interview protocol.

With two of the three centres now operating and a third under discussion for the east - I am glad to report that the south went live in May and the pilot has been operating in Galway since 2019 - the BNASC is focussed on implementation and scaling-up of Barnahus, on communication with stakeholders nationally, and, in collaboration with the IDG, on ensuring effective multiagency oversight for Barnahus in Ireland once all regions are established and operational. The interdepartmental group has agreed and adopted a roadmap for the development of a national implementation plan based on what has been learned from the development and implementation of the initial Galway project.

As part of national implementation of the Barnahus model, a pilot project was launched in Galway in 2019 and has been receiving referrals since November 2020. The centre has, at one specially designed and equipped location, a child-friendly interview suite, a child-friendly forensic medical examination room and secure evidence storage, and is co-located with adult sexual abuse treatment unit, SATU, services. It is a fantastic centre. An appraisal of the pilot was completed in 2020 and the recommendations from this were adapted into a roadmap for national implementation. The 29 recommendations in the 2020 roadmap were extracted from the report of the 2020 appraisal, which was commissioned by the IDG to examine and evaluate the pilot Barnahus-One House service provision model in Galway and to identify issues which might be associated with the scaling-up of the project in terms of the two other sites identified in the country, that is Cork and the east, in Dublin.

This year the IDG put out for commission a more recent evaluation. It is going through a research tender process. We expect to have another evaluation completed some time this year. That will greatly inform the learnings from Galway. There is quite an extensive waiting list for therapy and that will really inform the implementation of the model.

As well as Barnahus West being fully operational, the Barnahus South began operating on 1 May. It is intended that the east will open soon and all will provide national coverage and access for children and families in the east. As the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, through Tusla, and the Department of Health, through the HSE, have shared the costs in respect of the capital build of Barnahus West, it hoped that this principle in respect of shared capital costs will carry forward in respect of a new location that is required for Barnahus South in Cork and also Barnahus East. Through the respective Departmental budgetary process in 2023, separate business cases were made for additional posts to expand services provided in Barnahus West and Barnahus South. These business cases will be made again as part of the budgetary processes in 2024.

Additionally, Barnahus was mentioned in the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman’s performance statement to Tusla for 2024 with funding identified of €1.2 million. It has been agreed in principle that the Department of Justice is to cover costs by An Garda Síochána relating to interview suites as needed in each centre. However, the majority of the costs will be borne by the Departments of children and Health.

The IDG and the Department of children have completed a draft memo to the Government for a decision on Barnahus implementation and it is hoped that the memo will be submitted by June to the Cabinet for consideration. The IDG will continue to oversee the development and implementation of the governance structure to support national implementation of the Barnahus model for children who experience sexual abuse and their families. The structure consists of: a formal three-departmental agreement between the Departments of children, Health and Justice; the continuation of the IDG and also the BNASC national agency steering group committee. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth secured funding and consultancy support under the technical support instrument fund of the EU DG Reform, in the EU Commission and Council of Europe. The technical support instrument provides on-demand tailor-made technical expertise. It was launched in January 2023 at Farmleigh. I draw the committee’s attention to a briefing document that has been provided by the EU and Council of Europe today. It outlines very clearly a very strong work plan with policy reviews and the remaining work that will be covered by its support up to November this year. I would like to pay tribute again to the their involvement. It has really progressed the pace of implementation.

The Council of Europe is the implementing partner providing project management support to this initiative. The project was launched in January 2023 by the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman and the covering Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris. We hope to mark the end of the EU-Council of Europe involvement later this year. The project will run until February 2025. It will address key areas such as data sharing under the model, the development of pilot training on trauma-informed care and the development of a communications strategy and action plan. Two working groups have been established: one to develop an operational strategy and action plan to scale-up services and the second to work on activities relating to addressing issues identified on data sharing under the model. As well as these working groups, additional work is underway to develop a training plan on trauma-informed care and also to review the 2003 good practice guidelines relating to specialist interviews. The Council of Europe is getting behind that with the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána. That is a really important development. We have forwarded for the committee’s attention a document from EU DG Reform. The work has progressed rapidly over the past 18 months.

We thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about Barnhaus and we are open to any questions from members.

Ms Kate Duggan

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear. I am joined by Clare Murphy, interim national director of services and integration and Gerard Brophy, chief social worker. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the Barnahus model today.

As outlined, Barnahus is the leading European model of a child-friendly, multidisciplinary response to integrate health, medical, child protection, therapeutic and policing services for children and adolescents where there is a concern of or disclosure of child sexual abuse. The key components of the Barnahus model are child protection services, forensic medical services, specialist interviewing and therapeutic services.

To give some context, in 2023 Tusla received a total of 91,924 referrals and 5,467, just 6%, of these related to sexual abuse. Referrals relating to sexual abuse are prioritised by Tusla social work teams for a response. Each incident of alleged abuse is a traumatic event for the individual child or young person and their family. When such reports are made to Tusla we respond sensitively, and with care and concern, in liaison with An Garda Síochána and the HSE medical forensic services, as appropriate. Tusla’s approach is one where the child’s safety is the first concern and support is provided based on each child’s individual needs.

A number of agencies may be involved in any response, including sexual assault treatment units, SATUs, child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, and Barnahus, among others.

Barnahus was first piloted in Ireland in the west in 2019 and is now established and operational in a child-friendly premises in Galway. Barnahus West offers an interagency response, incorporating Tusla, the HSE and An Garda Siochana, to child victims of sexual abuse and their families throughout the west, from Donegal to Limerick. Since 2020, Barnahus West has provided services to 446 children and their families. It has facilitated more than 350 interagency meetings, 234 specialist interviews and 296 forensic medical examinations. Recent initiatives within Barnahus West have led to an increase in the number of children and families accessing therapeutic interventions under the Barnahus model, such as the funding of two additional therapy posts, via Children at Risk in Ireland, CARI, to offer an additional and early therapeutic intervention. Barnahus West is also piloting a number of initiatives, such as a peer support group for the parents of children who have experienced online sexual abuse, and teaming with colleagues in Sweden to pilot a youth advocate role in Barnahuses in Sweden and Ireland. Entering its fourth year of operation, Barnahus West has achieved much, but challenges remain in respect of staffing, geography and the consistent implementation of interagency responses for children.

A second Barnahus is under way in the southern region, centred in Cork. The Barnahus South referral pathway opened in recent weeks. The Tusla staff complement is in place, including a manager, administrators, a senior social work practitioner, a social worker and a senior clinical psychologist. The social workers and senior clinical psychologist have undergone specialist training in the two agreed trauma-focused interventions for Barnahus. A framework for parental support, psychoeducation and crisis intervention for families when referred has been developed. The next phase will see the service expand throughout the south east to include a wider catchment area of Cork, Kerry, south Tipperary and Waterford, and the final phase will see it ultimately operating from a child-friendly "one house" co-located premises in Cork city, similar to Barnahus West.

A third Barnahus centre is planned for the east and will be centred in Dublin. Discussions with partners in CHI and the HSE are at an advanced stage, with an interim agreement on Barnahus East being prepared while we await the construction of a building similar to that planned for Cork and available in Galway.

Tusla is committed to working with all Departments and agencies to play our role in ensuring the full implementation of the Barnahus service across Ireland. As we progress the implementation of this child-friendly, integrated model, and better understand the immediate and ongoing therapeutic needs of children and young people who have been abused and their families, it is important the additional resources required for the full implementation of this service be allocated by the Government to enable the best possible outcomes for these children, young people and families.

I thank Ms Duggan and invite Ms Shortt to deliver her opening statement.

Ms Helen Shortt

I thank the Chairperson and members for the invitation to meet the joint committee to discuss the review of the Barnahus model for young people who have experienced child sexual abuse. I am joined by my colleagues Fiona Murphy, interim chief executive, and Stephen Flanagan, acting deputy chief executive, Children’s Health Ireland, and I am presenting this opening statement on behalf of both the HSE and CHI.

The HSE and CHI are two of the agencies involved in the multiagency approach to implementing the Barnahus model of child sexual abuse services. Specifically, the HSE provides medical and forensic medical services within Barnahus for children under the age of 14. As each of the Barnahus services is set up, medical and forensic medical services for children provided by the HSE and CHI will move into the Barnahus but will continue to be managed by the respective agencies. HSE paediatric medical and forensic medical services have moved into Barnahus West, Galway, and are fully embedded in the multiagency approach.

Paediatric medical and forensic medical services in the south have been strengthened by the appointment of two additional consultant paediatricians-forensic examiners at Cork University Hospital, CUH, who provide medical and forensic services at the children’s forensic examination suite at St. Finbarr’s Hospital. Services in Galway and Dublin also each received two additional consultant paediatricians-forensic examiners as part of the 2022 service developments, and each of the three services also received two additional clinical nurse specialists.

Sexual assault treatment units provide forensic examination for children older than 14. The Galway SATU is co-located with Barnahus West, and this co-location ensures children of all ages access child welfare, trauma-informed therapy and medical and forensic examination in one place, as envisaged by the Barnahus model. It is planned SATUs will be co-located with both Barnahus South and Barnahus East. In the south, the Cork SATU is located at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital and, as part of changes agreed in late 2023, also provides a joint nursing service for the forensic examination of children and adults. In late April 2024, Barnahus South commenced operating as a virtual service. This required the co-operation of CUH and the South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital, working closely with Tusla and An Garda Síochána, with support from the HSE. It is envisaged Barnahus South will operate as a virtual service until a purpose-fitted-out and refurbished building on the St. Mary’s hospital, Cork, campus has been approved and completed. Support for the building is a joint initiative of the HSE and Tusla.

The Barnahus model includes the delivery of a trauma-informed approach to therapy within the Barnahus. Tusla will deliver this therapy in Barnahus West and South. Recently, CHI has confirmed it can provide accommodation that will enable the commencement of Barnahus East. The CHI space is not large enough, however, to also accommodate a SATU and, as a result, it is envisaged the Rotunda SATU will participate in multidisciplinary team meetings with Barnahus East on a virtual basis, pending the availability of a building that can accommodate all the services. The HSE is working with its capital and estates division to determine the location of a building for Barnahus East that will accommodate all the services.

As part of the HSE’s participation in the multiagency approach to implementing the Barnahus model, it has participated in the development of various joint documents to guide the development of Barnahus, as well as in the joint European Union-Council of Europe project for the implementation of Barnahus in Ireland. CHI is a member of the Barnahus national agency steering committee and is one of the agencies identified to deliver the Barnahus model in Ireland. At present, CHI provides paediatric medical and forensic medical services and therapy for children. CHI will take the lead on planning and setting up the interim Barnahus East service, working collaboratively with the other agencies to ensure alignment with the national model. Services in CHI will transition into the Barnahus model as planning for Barnahus East progresses.

I thank Ms Shortt and invite Assistant Commissioner Kelly to deliver his opening statement.

Mr. Justin Kelly

On behalf of the Garda Commissioner, I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to them today. I am the assistant commissioner with strategic responsibility for tackling organised and serious crime. One of the bureaus under my remit is the Garda National Protective Services Bureau, GNPSB. Our organisational response to sexual crimes against children is the responsibility of this specialist unit. My colleague Detective Chief Superintendent Colm Noonan, who heads up that section, joins me today.

Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is one of the most important undertakings placed on society and, as members may know, "Keeping People Safe" is the mission statement of An Garda Síochána. Considerable work is being undertaken within Tusla, the HSE, Children’s Health Ireland and An Garda Síochána under the Barnahus project. An Garda Síochána is a committed partner to the implementation of the Barnahus model. We have representatives on the various Barnahus governance and oversight committees. A senior Garda officer, a detective superintendent, sits on the Barnahus national agency steering committee; a highly experienced detective inspector sits on the Barnahus interdepartmental group; and a number of knowledgeable detective inspectors represent An Garda Síochána on the various regional steering groups.

The principles of the Barnahus model have been operating in Galway since its launch in September 2019. The Barnahus West centre became fully operational at its current permanent location in Galway in January 2022. The Barnahus project team holds twice-weekly multidisciplinary case review meetings to triage, allocate and discuss cases. Key professionals in child protection, healthcare and An Garda Síochána meet regularly to review cases of child sexual abuse and plan the steps that need to be taken. Currently, a sergeant performs the role of Garda liaison to Barnahus West and is a core member of the team there.

The development and implementation of the Barnahus model of service in Ireland is a cross-government, multiagency project that is a significant initiative to help victims and survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

The development and implementation of the Barnahus model of service in Ireland is a cross-government, multi-agency project, which is a significant initiative to help victims and survivors of childhood sexual abuse. As the committee has heard, the national roll-out of the Barnahus model of service involves four agencies that are involved in the delivery of services: Tusla, Children's Health Ireland, the HSE and An Garda Síochána. Also involved are the Departments of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Health, and Justice.

The introduction of the Barnahus model into Ireland, adapted from Iceland to an Irish context, aims to strengthen our response to child sexual abuse by placing the best interests of the child at its centre, ensuring greater interagency collaboration and case management, and ensuring the removal of undue delays. The overarching aim is that all children who are victims in such cases, and their families, benefit from child-friendly access to justice and healthcare. One of the pillars of the Barnahus model is to enhance interagency co-ordination. This gives rise to the appointment of dedicated Garda personnel as regional co-ordinators to each of the three Barnahus centres. These role holders will be required to be the dedicated point of contact for our partner agencies within Barnahus. They will attend the Barnahus biweekly meetings, and at these be in a position to provide an update regarding ongoing Garda investigations and the specialist interviewing of children. A key role for them will be their liaison with child specialist interviewers to ensure that the key task of interviewing children coming under Barnahus is managed efficiently. An Garda Síochána is currently in the process of finalising role profiles in order to advertise internally for gardaí to be attached on a permanent basis to each Barnahus location. While this will be a draw on resourcing given the increasing and competing demands on the policing service we provide, these will in our view be vital positions to ensure the efficient operation of the project. An Garda Síochána is fully supportive of the Barnahus project, and is playing an active role in the current locations and the future planning. I welcome any questions committee members may have for Detective Chief Superintendent Noonan or me.

I thank the assistant commissioner very much. I also thank all the witnesses for their opening statements. It was a lot of information but it is very important that we hear from all of the key stakeholders. I will open up the meeting for questions. Senator Ruane is first.

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations on such an important topic. A couple of years ago I did a lot of research on the model, especially in relation to vulnerable witnesses and the courts procedure. I produced a report on it and it might be useful if I send it on to others on the committee.

I have a lot of questions so I will probably come back in on the second round as well. I might aim the first few questions at Mr. Noonan or Mr. Kelly. There was mention in the opening statement of the process for appointing personnel to each of the centres on a more permanent basis and that it would potentially draw on current funds given the demands on policing.

I was hoping to get a bit more insight into the role that Garda personnel play at present within the centres. I know this is something on which the Garda engages a lot in terms of the vulnerability of the witnesses. I would also like to speak about how the gardaí are chosen. Even with the best intent and will in the world, it is a very particular subject to have to engage in. Recently, I did a bit of work, for example, on the coroner system and mothers who have been bereaved in particular ways, such as following an overdose or in violent circumstances. Even though the gardaí who have been appointed are said to have some experience in this area, they become forensic in their language over many years from being in the culture. They may not even realise what kind of language they use. Some of the mothers I have worked with said that when they received the information that their child had been found dead, they were told "We have found the remains" or "We have to move the body" from a place. All of a sudden, this person who was alive in someone's mind is "a body". That is not due to any intent of the garda to add that level of trauma to a person who is already receiving information. What is the contact like at the moment? How are people trained? If there was an ongoing presence in a situation, would the garda be without a uniform? How do we assess what things act as barriers in such situations?

I might ask one or two more questions before a response is given. Is there a role for An Garda Síochána in liaising with the specialist interviewers? I would welcome more information on that. From the research I have done, I know there is an Icelandic model. It uses the evidence-based protocol whereby a clinical psychologist formulates questions based on judicial approval. I wonder what the process and protocol are here and what the experience has been with that so far. What changes are made when the victim is perhaps more susceptible to harm? I think of younger children and children with disabilities, children in care or those who do not have an existing support structure.

The Department mentioned that a review of the guidelines is under way. Perhaps one of the witnesses from the Department could highlight the key aspects that this review might focus on in that regard.

This is my final question for Mr. Kelly or Mr. Noonan. One of the aims of the Barnahus model is to increase the rate of prosecution. I wonder if this has been assessed since Barnahus West became operational. If they do not have it, perhaps one of the other witnesses might have figures to hand on the prosecution and conviction rates since the Barnahus model was introduced. I know it is still early days but I am interested in hearing if that kind of data is being kept.

I have one question for Ms Shortt. She mentioned the virtual service. I wonder if she could talk a little bit about that. The instinct is to look at how trauma-informed and beneficial a virtual service is compared to an in-house service. Physical structure plays an important part in terms of what is around you, what you are looking at, and what you are sitting on - all of those things. I wonder how a virtual service is integrated into a model like this to make sure the same level of care is provided. Obviously there is a level of care being provided but I am interested in that extra layer in terms of understanding the environment and surroundings that may impact on a young person's engagement.

Mr. Justin Kelly

Senator Ruane wants me to go through a lot of issues so I will start and Detective Chief Superintendent Noonan may come in. She spoke about resourcing and staffing and I might give her an idea of exactly how that works at present and what our plans are. Any of the victims and the crime typology that we are talking about are all investigated by divisional protective services units around the country. An Garda Síochána divides the country into 21 divisions and in each of those divisions we have a dedicated protective services bureau. The actual investigations are dealt with by highly trained people that we spend a lot of time and resources training. That is the first thing.

Moving on to the interview process, we have 95 specialist interviewers trained around the country. All children under 18 who are the victims of sexual crime will be interviewed. The only people who interview children who are in these terrible and awful situations are these specialist interviewers. Again, the process for selecting and training them takes about two years.

Senator Ruane makes a really good point around making sure we get the right people to do that. We spend a lot of time and effort and we have a lot of processes in place. We probably do not have time to go through it here today about how we pick those people. The people who do that are hugely dedicated. As Senator Ruane can imagine, the type of work they are dealing with is really challenging. We have to put a lot of supports around those gardaí who are doing that type of work.

To go back to Barnahus West, in 2023 - the last year for which we have full figures - we did 56 interviews there. All of the interviews we do around the country – Senator Ruane might know but not everybody would know this – are not done in Garda stations; they are done in specialist interview suites that are child-friendly. They are in locations that are very much anonymous and are not associated with An Garda Síochána or the State.

On her question about whether uniforms are worn, the answer is "absolutely not". These people are all working in plain clothes. The people who do this type of work are handpicked.

On the point the Senator started off with around the liaison persons that we look at for this work, at the moment we have a sergeant who is acting as the liaison person. Again, it is a very experienced person. It is really working out well in Barnahus West. I am sure some of my colleagues here today would agree with that.

What we are looking at, as I mentioned in the opening statement, is what we would describe as "running a competition" to get the people in for this. We will regularise that position in Galway and make that a full-time permanent position and the one in Cork the same. Then we will get the panel in place of people for the one in Dublin when that comes to be set up. I have had a number of meetings with Mr. Noonan in the past few weeks finalising the numbers that we will have for that. Like all these things for us, then it goes into a business process where we get them approved at executive level. Once they are approved, we will run the competitions.

For something like this, it will be a process where we are looking for people who will have the proper experience. We run competency-based interviews. Only people from Mr. Noonan's unit or DPSUs around the country will sit on the interview boards that we will put in place for that. The people that we bring in for those undergo a probationary period.

I hope that gives the Senator some reassurance around the people who we pick for that. She made a good point. They have to be the absolutely right people for that type of work. That is an indication of the personnel.

I do not have that data on prosecution rates with me but I can certainly get that for the Senator. Was there anything Mr. Noonan wanted to add?

There were the specialist interviewers as well. I am also referring to the clinical psychologists who are drafted in at the court process. I do not know how many times it has happened so far in Ireland. If a child who is in front of the court as an underage witness in terms of the abuse against him or her, what is the protocol? I do not know if that question is for someone else later on.

Mr. Justin Kelly

On the prosecution process, our primary function in An Garda Síochána is to gather the evidence. We will gather the evidence. The interview of the child and how we do that in a child-friendly manner is important in the context of today, but all that evidence that we gather is one part of the evidence. Everything we do we send to the DPP. As for the prosecution of the cases, all of these cases would dealt with at the Circuit Court level. The counsel who is assigned in those type of cases will really be the ones who are driving what type of witnesses they want to call and what expert evidence they want to call. It is not really a matter for us in An Garda Síochána to decide. It will usually be the prosecution team, between the Chief State Solicitor's office, the DPP and, usually, in cases such as this, senior counsel, that will decide on the witnesses they want to call to bring forward the best evidence in the case.

I might turn to Mr. Noonan, if I have missed anything around those issues.

Mr. Colm Noonan

I thank the Senator. One very important point is that the liaison sergeant's role is critical because the Barnahus locations will go across a number of Garda divisions. Rather than us having investigating gardaí attending those biweekly meetings from various parts of the country, we have one person who co-ordinates that. We have that relationship that is built up that we see functioning in Barnahus West at present but, certainly, the Barnahus South one will cover many counties and many different Garda divisions. We need that role. We need that person to function as the liaison between us and the organisation in the Barnahus centre.

There is a huge amount of focus on how we can better do the specialist interviewing and how we can better support the child through that process but there is no hard-and-fast rule around how that is best done. Each case is assessed individually and the timing of that interview and the supports that need to be provided for that child are assessed. That is the focus of Barnahus West. It is the focus of all the Barnahuses. Certainly, the fact that we can tailor, adapt and roll out that interview in a very specific way for that child at that time is one of their key functions.

I thank Mr. Noonan. There was a question for the HSE as well.

Ms Helen Shortt

I thank the Senator. All the services needed for Barnahus South are in place but in Cork, there is the sexual assault treatment unit in one place, there is the forensic medical suite in St. Finbarr's Hospital and there is a child and family centre on the St. Finbarr's Hospital site. I use the term "virtual" because the process that will be adopted by the various agencies is to collaborate and to work together even though they do not currently have a physical location for everybody to work together in. They have done that very well, because everybody has been involved in setting up the Barnahus, understanding what the model is and collaborating together in the design of their new building. We are waiting for approval of the HSE's capital plan. The building that will be Barnahus South is in the plan. Once that is approved, we would hope the HSE estates people, working with the Tusla estates people, will move forward very quickly on that because the team who are involved in Barnahus south have done all the preliminary design for it.

So it is temporary.

Ms Helen Shortt

It is only temporary, unless my colleagues from Tusla wish to add anything to what I have said.

I thank Ms Shortt.

Was that all those questions for now? I think Senator Ruane will come back in.

Deputy Costello is next.

I thank the Chair and welcome and thank our guests. I have nothing but positive things to say about Barnahus. It is an excellent, much-needed and long-overdue service. It is an excellent service development. The DPSUs have been an excellent service development as well. I am really excited about being able to role this out.

That said, when I look at how the Barnahus or the children's advocacy centre in America that Barnahus is based on is rolled out, there is a huge difference in the catchment areas, the numbers of centres and the number of centres they cover. Norway, which has a similar population to ours, has 11 Barnahus centres or one centre per 500,000 people. Sweden has 34 or one per 300,000 people. In America, there are approximately 900 children's advocacy centres or one per 380,000 people. Cyprus has a population of 1.2 million. It also has three Barnahus centres or one per 402,000 people. We have one per 1.6 million. To get that same kind of coverage, we would need anywhere from, say, ten to 15. Even if one is looking at ten, one would be expanding it to Waterford, Kilkenny, Drogheda, Sligo, Limerick and numerous other places, and taking what is an excellent service and making it much more widely available. If I have any concern or complaint, it is that we are not doing this big enough. I did not hear or see anything in the notes about that expansion. Is there a plan to expand it? I am looking here at the Department. Given how successful and how important this model is, we should be looking to expand it to the levels that other countries are using it at.

My next question relates to Dublin, which Barnahus east will cover. Currently, we have St. Clare's and St. Louise's. Will it just be one centre or will it be Barnahus East based across the two of these? What will that development in the future look like and will this entail a reduction in service provision in Dublin? Understandably, these are two national agencies essentially and some service reduction is understandable if there are others opening up, but I ask them to speak to that because it is, for me, about those gaps that we are leaving there.

Another issue I talk about a lot in this area, which would be a way of trying to fill the gaps and hopefully be a step to developing Barnahus in other areas, is a colocation of duty social workers in the district protective services unit. I have said this on a couple of occasions, both at the committee and in the Chamber. We talk about how the importance of the Barnahus is that the coworking or multiagency working comes organically from people being in the same building. We had a recent Policing Authority presentation on the oversight of the policing response to child sexual abuse and it highlighted that interagency working is a key area where continuing challenges present. We have these excellent services in the DPSUs and we have quality social workers in Tusla - not enough of them but the ones that are there are good.

Why are we not colocating even one day a week to build up the organic connections the witnesses have said are important and arise naturally? I will leave it there. I have a few questions on specialist interviewing, the joint interviewing protocol between Tusla and An Garda Síochána and how that works but I will come back to them in the second round. It is also part of filling the gaps.

Are the Deputy's questions mainly for the Department?

My question for the Department was on whether we are going to see increasing numbers and coverage, which we absolutely need. My question for Tusla and the Garda was on colocation and what is going to happen with service provision in Dublin.

Mr. Des Delaney

The current plan is to have three regional Barnahus sites: Barnahus West, Barnahus South and Barnahus East. That was a recommendation the operational committee, BNASC, made to the interdepartmental group. A number of factors were taken into account in that recommendation. These included the geographical accessibility of each centre to families and children. I fully agree with the Deputy regarding the Council of Europe, the EU and implementation across Europe. There certainly seems to be a more extensive network of Barnahus sites in Council of Europe member states. However, we have not yet reached a point at which those three centres are operationally live. The IDG is fully open to future suggestions from BNASC to extend the number of potential Barnahus site but, at present, our focus is on getting these sites operational and up and running. As has been outlined by the HSE, Children's Health Ireland and Tusla today, there are ongoing discussions with CHI and the HSE, particularly with regard to making the centre in the east of the country operational. Our focus comes from that BNASC recommendation to the interdepartmental group but I would never say never and I am not disagreeing with what the Deputy is saying.

Does Ms Duggan want to come in?

Ms Kate Duggan

I believe Mr. Brophy will address the co-location question.

Mr. Gerard Brophy

I have discussed colocation with the Deputy before. We are concentrating on the Barnahus model at the moment. The colocation is slightly different. As our colleagues in An Garda Síochána have pointed out, getting specific gardaí appointed to the Barnahus is really important. It creates that multidisciplinary team. To go back to what Senator Ruane asked about psychologists, because this all comes together, we have a different legal system in Ireland from the rest of Europe. In Iceland, where this was developed, and in the many other European countries that are doing it, it is done as part of an investigative legal process. The court process therefore kicks in much earlier. In Ireland, we prepare the cases for court and the court process comes later. The key to Barnahus working is having a really early multidisciplinary meeting with gardaí, social workers, the medical forensic team and other associated personnel such as an advocate for the child or family or a therapist. That is where the psychologist comes in, although other therapists may be involved.

In some cases, that meeting might include intermediaries who are to be appointed by the court. The intermediaries Act has come in. A second cohort of intermediaries has qualified in Limerick and they are going on the register. The Courts Service is working through a process to make them available. They will be key in understanding children, particularly children with disabilities. Many children who have been sexually abused have multiple vulnerabilities. It is about facilitating them to regulate themselves and to provide evidence in a constructive and open way that is open to cross-examination at a later stage. If you get a really good video in the beginning, hold that clear multidisciplinary meeting and make a good plan, the interviewers will be well equipped going in and the quality of the evidence will be better.

In other parts of our services, we have not been able to have such an integrated service across three different agencies, or four in the east. It is a high priority for us to get this model to work and to expand it; it is working in the west. Co-location might come later but we have partial colocation already with gardaí, social workers and HSE medical forensics, which is a bonus. The Deputy will probably agree that it is a very significant win in its own right. Once we have that set up, we can evaluate it and see how best to develop it. We can also see how best to develop it for other forms of abuse. I am very conscious that, in the beginning, the IDG made the decision to limit this to child sexual abuse but there is nothing to say that children who have been physically abused, neglected or emotionally abused could not benefit from it. We often find that children first come into care due to neglect or emotional or physical abuse but we subsequently find out they have also been sexually abused. There is a complementarity in these things but this is a key building block in protective services for children.

Mr. Justin Kelly

I have a couple of things to add to that. An Garda Síochána and Tusla are obviously extremely close partners in this area of work. A full-time senior member of Tusla is embedded in the Garda National Protective Services Bureau, which Mr. Noonan is in charge of, working with him and his team on a number of joint projects. We have that in place. At a strategic level, once a quarter, Ms Duggan from Tusla and I jointly chair a strategic meeting, bringing together all the senior leaders of Tusla and An Garda Síochána who work in this area. There is a work plan beneath all of that. At the local level, senior management within the Garda divisions I spoke about earlier have regular meetings. They are monitored by Mr. Noonan's unit and the Tusla personnel attached to the GNPSB. The part that is probably most important is the on-the-ground level and the divisional protective services units the Deputy referred to. He mentioned engaging once a week but some of these DPSUs interact with their Tusla colleagues every day. They know the people in their local areas extremely well. They all know each other. There are really good working relationships. At the strategic level, we are working on things like data sharing agreements, joint specialist interviewing and all of these really important areas. On the ground, the operational work and interaction between gardaí and social workers is absolutely excellent. They are getting the job done in really difficult circumstances. Even without a full-time social worker embedded in those units, the work is getting done really well.

Deputy Costello may want to come back in during a later round.

I thank the witnesses very much for the opening statements and the evidence thus far. I congratulate them. This is an exceptional model that is worthy of being followed and adhered to in Ireland. I have a couple of questions. It was mentioned that a memo was going to Cabinet. From everything that has been said, it would appear that the decision to scale this up has been made so I am curious to know what is in the memo to Cabinet and what has yet to be decided. That is just a functional question.

I suspect it will relate to funding.

Yes, I suspect it will be motivated by budget. That is what I wrote in my notes. I have been on the prosecution side of child sexual abuse cases and seen them. Because they are held in camera, they are not out in the public and not seen. As a result, I have seen this specialist Garda interviewing and it is exceptional. That is going back 12 years, when I was last involved in such cases. Where does it differ? I want to slow this down. Everybody in the room assumes everybody will understand what this is about. Perhaps we can slow down and say how it is different. I have seen the child interview model. Doll's houses and things like that have been used to assist children is describing what has occurred. I would like to discern the difference under this model.

For my second point, I will raise a concern I have. If we only have three centres in the country, will the same people be dealing with cases? If the intention is to elicit better evidence and to bring prosecutions home, is there any risk or danger that the presumption of innocence will be undermined? How is that safeguarded within the model? If a child is referred to the service and this model is deployed, does any risk arise? I am sure there are safeguards and that this has been well thought through. I am just anticipating things that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and others might bring up in due course. It would be good to think about that.

On the process, at what point is the model engaged?

We have forensic and medical. Is that at the point when a child contacts the Garda station? What are the mechanics of how this rolls out and the experience of it?

I will leave it there. If there is anything else, I will come back in the next time around.

Is the Senator asking that to anyone in particular?

The Cabinet. Is it straightforward? I would imagine the answer is the budget, as my learned colleague already knows.

Mr. Des Delaney

The memo was forwarded last year in September. We got to the point prior to the budget where it did not proceed any further. As the Senator would be aware, it is related to other Departments, including the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. We hope the Minister will get to approve the latest draft of the memo. It is negotiated with the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. As to what it outlines, the Cabinet has never received a memo related to Barnahus. This is quite an innovative model that absolutely should be shared at Cabinet level. The memo will explain the Irish context, which I just went through in my opening statement. There is definitely an Irish context in terms of the HIQA 2018 inquiry and the expert advisory group that was set up, which recommended Barnahus as a pilot model. We also have EU and Council of Europe commitments. As I mentioned, there are 46 countries within the Council of Europe that are all implementing this model. It is fantastic to sit around a table and hear from countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Montenegro as to how they plan to implement Barnahus in their own country. We must align ourselves with the Council of Europe commitments but also it is an important child-friendly model that has to be rolled out. I agree about the scale and the committee’s concern that the scale might not be big enough at this point. However, we have to get this operation in those three sites as a starting point. That is the context of the memo. Clearly, it has not gone to Cabinet. I cannot share the details at this point in time. That is outlining the purpose of it - having Cabinet support. On a three-departmental level in particular, we are working hard to develop this model now.

Does anyone else wish to come in on any of those points?

Mr. Justin Kelly

I will address a couple things. On the presumption of innocence, as the Senator well knows, everything we do in this area is governed by legislation. The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 was amended, and we work under the good practice guidelines, which were drawn up under a Circuit Court judge. That is what we work under. Those are from 2003. Everyone who does this is highly trained and highly selected. As the Senator referred to, many cases have gone through the rigours of the trial process. On the presumption of innocence, I do not see any risk around that.

The Senator asked specifics around the interviewers. Forgive me, we take it that people understand this. In An Garda Síochána, we have a thing called the Garda Síochána interviewing model. There are four levels of that, and it is all regular interviewing of people. When you start out, you start at level 1, which is the basic interviewing of witnesses and suspects. Level 2 is a bit more advanced crime. Front-line officers are able to do that type of interviewing. Level 3 is homicide and organised crime – that level of interview. Level 4 is our top level of interviewing, which is around co-ordinating multiple arrests for, for example, organised crime, complex homicides and that type of thing. We do a whole separate stream of interviewing for non-child interviewing. On the child-specialist side, as I said earlier to Senator Ruane, that is a whole other area. We have a whole specific area. The crime training faculty in our Garda College deals with all this. They are the only people to do the training. We have spent much time, energy and resourcing on international best practice around all this type of work. All the training manuals, procedures and policies are in place for all of this. We have a robust system. I take some comfort in that many of these cases have been through the trial process and we have many convictions of perpetrators in this area.

Just to clarify, I am not casting any aspersions on that. I have seen it. I have seen the videos of the interviewing of witnesses and have always been struck by just how forensic, detailed, considerate and caring it is. There is no leading or anything like that. It is eliciting the witness detail in a very considered way. That is what I have seen in prosecutions that were brought forward, and guilty verdicts were found. I am curious as to how this is different. Will anything be different now?

This is not really a concern but I am just thinking about angles that are or are likely to come at us. If there are 95 specialist people around the country but there are children coming through a particular model in a concentrated place, is that the same people rather than the 95 specialist Garda interviewers? If there is a much smaller number, are we leaving ourselves in any way open to an accusation of undermining the presumption of innocence? There are people who are then vested in improving. I know the limitations and guidelines and how carefully thought-out they are, so I am not for one minute casting any aspersions on the Garda. I am just wondering whether there is danger of “Oh, well these people were going to lead” or anything like that because we are now concentrating it. I presume it will all be done under camera anyway, so there will be that verification. However, have these considerations been made?

Mr. Justin Kelly

I did not think the Senator was casting aspersions and forgive me if I perhaps did not quite understand her question. To give clarity around that, say the Barnahus centre is set up in Dublin and it is covering Wicklow, and the crime happened in Wicklow and the victim is from Wicklow. The interviewers from that area will go to the centre and do the interviews.

So the 95 will be involved.

Mr. Justin Kelly

The 95 will move through those three centres. We will not have that issue where it will just be, for example, two people doing all the interviews. It will be the people from those divisions. They will be investigated in those divisions by those DPSUs I spoke about earlier. The interviewers will come from those divisions. Even as it is now, the way it is around capacity, often we will have interviewers from one area go to another area to do interviews. They move around depending on capacity. We never have the issue where it is the same two people doing everything for one particular area.

On the specialist interviewing, we might touch on this later but the absolute best model for us is joint interviewing with ourselves and Tusla. That is best model for us and what we are working towards. When everything is up and running, that is where we should be. To give an indication around the numbers, in 2023 in Barnahus West, of the 56 I referred to, 43 were Garda interviews and 13 were joint interviews. We need to get to the position where we have 56 joint interviews. Ms Duggan and I are of the absolute same mind on this, as well as all our senior management. For us, it is about getting joint training in place and all the protocols and policy around that. We are moving in the right direction. In September this year, we have a joint training course being undertaken in the Garda College where 15 members of An Garda Síochána will be trained with 15 members of Tusla. That is 30 new people, but we have work to do in that area. That is the direction we are going with it.

My other question was at what point is it engaged. A parent, child or someone calls the Garda, presumably to report a crime.

Mr. Colm Noonan

It is exactly that – at the report stage. The child has to be under 18 and currently it is in respect of sexual crime. If that report is made and the Garda becomes aware of it, then the Barnahus kicks in. The investigation commences. The Barnahus is one of the first stages in the investigation. Equally, if concerns are brought to Tusla’s attention, then that same process kicks in. It is specifically for children where sexual offences are alleged.

I know that. So I do not go to Terenure Garda station, rather I go to whatever the designated east premises will be? How is that?

Ms Clare Murphy

You might go to your local social work department, which would engage with Barnahus, or you might go to your local Garda station and gardaí would engage with Barnahus. Wherever the child or parents present, they would know the referral process to Barnahus. The Senator also asked what is different about this process and it is fundamentally different. A child is now coming to one centre rather than going to the local social work department, going to the local Garda station or, in the old days, going to the local hospital for a medical. All of those services will now happen under the one roof and that will avoid any retraumatisation of a child because the child would only have to tell the story or make the disclosure once. It is much more child-friendly and analysis and research have shown it is a better, more child-friendly and more appropriate approach. The process is quite different and better.

I wish everybody a good afternoon and I thank our guests for coming along and for all the work they do. I appreciate that they are trying to build something when we have had a culture of cuts and dismantling things for so long. I was struck by the process described by the assistant commissioner of going to the senior leadership team to try to get sign-off and liaising with Detective Chief Superintendent Noonan to identify staff. Some of my questions are about the creation of this Barnahus model. I will start with CHI and the HSE. A number of terms were used to describe the medical personnel who are deployed to the Barnahus centres. There was reference to a doctor and our guests referred to a consultant, a paediatrician and a forensic specialist. I would like to know whether they are child and adolescent psychiatrists with higher specialist training and if so, where do they come from? What is the nature of the qualifications and higher specialist training of the doctors? Clinical specialist nurses were also mentioned. What is the nature of their training? Are they psychiatric nurses or paediatric nurses? From what setting are they coming? Are they being taken from CAMHS teams to staff the Barnahus model? Where are they coming from?

In their evidence, our guests also mentioned that some of the therapists, counsellors and psychologists were being sourced from outside the HSE. Is that the case? Are the medical staff and clinicians full section 38 HSE employees who have permanent, pensionable jobs or are they coming from outside the organisation through, for example, section 39 outfits that provide these services on an annual bidding process?

Mr. Delaney mentioned the preparation of annual budgets. Are these centres now set up on a permanent and multi-annual basis or will budgetary approval have to be sought and a business case made on a year-to-year basis? What is the security or predictability of funding?

Ms Duggan mentioned in her evidence that Tusla received a total of 91,924 referrals in 2023, of which 5,467 related to sexual abuse. She said later in her statement that approximately 440 children were dealt with in Barnahus West over four years. The following is not a criticism but an observation, but that figure strikes me 100 children per annum. I know that is only in one sector out of a very high number. What are the criteria? How is triage conducted? Who is responsible for triage? An enormous volume of complaints of sexual assault are coming in but a tiny fraction are dealt with. I am shocked at the numbers. I ask our guests not to infer any implied criticism from my questions. If anything, I know it can be very stressful for those involved on the front line. There is vicarious trauma from unmet need and the knowledge that there are so many people who cannot be assisted or in whose case our guests cannot intervene. The question is whether the demand can be met.

Is there an equivalent Barnahus model for vulnerable adults? I have an interest in disability and know there have been some very high-profile cases of vulnerable adults who, very often while in controlled environments and State care, have been serially sexually assaulted. Is there a similar model for such people?

Our guests will have to forgive my ignorance as a layperson. Having gone through the process of the multidisciplinary approach, which is child-centred and trauma-informed, and all the protocols that are in place, if a case goes to prosecution, are the child and family bounced out of this very supportive environment and into an adversarial system? Do counsel for the defence also have access to these videos? How does it work? Is that information medical and in confidence? That is why I am curious about the qualifications of those involved. What is the nature of the relationship between the medical professional and the child? Is that medical interview in confidence or is that information shared at a later stage, if a case goes to prosecution, with a senior counsel who is involved in a prosecution? I would be concerned if that information were to be shared with the counsel for the defence in our adversarial process. Is there a risk that the child or family could be retraumatised? I know I have asked a lot of questions.

Ms Helen Shortt

I will talk about the different services within Barnahus. There are medical services that are also forensic medical services, and I will come back to that and give some more detail. There is a child welfare element, which is the Tusla service. It employs social workers and therapists because the trauma-informed approach within Barnahus needs a brief intervention and a trauma-informed approach. Our colleagues from the Garda also have a role. Through the HSE and the medical side of CHI, all children who come to the Barnahus have the services of consultant paediatricians who have a special interest in forensic medical services. They are specifically trained-----

When Ms Shortt refers to paediatricians, what does she mean?

Ms Helen Shortt

They are consultants who have trained as children's doctors and who have an added qualification specifically around conducting forensic medical examinations.

Where did they obtain those qualifications?

Ms Helen Shortt

Mostly in the UK.

CHI is a part of the HSE. Is that right?

Ms Helen Shortt

CHI is funded by the HSE.

I am aware that in other areas of CHI, for example, there are general paediatric surgeons who might not have higher specialist training in, for example, neurology. They might not have higher specialist training in complex spinal surgery. They are general paediatric surgeons but do not have the higher specialist training required to deal with some of the complex cases on the scoliosis waiting lists. Some of those cases, for example, are referred internationally to be dealt with by people who do have the higher specialist training. My question relates specifically to the paediatric doctors and consultants. Do they have higher specialist training in this area? Ms Shortt used the word "forensic". My understanding of that is based, for example, on forensic psychiatry. An adult psychiatrist who has training in forensics deals with offenders and perpetrators, not with the survivors or targets of such crimes. I am curious about exactly what Ms Shortt means by paediatric specialists.

What courses do they do internationally? Where do they get this higher specialist training? While a special interest is fine and I commend someone on having a special interest, I would not like to be in row 17 of an Airbus that is being flown by a very enthusiastic pilot who has an interest in Airbuses but who does not have the proper rating. There is a concern, which has been raised here and elsewhere, about the HSE appointing doctors to consultant posts who do not have higher specialist training.

Ms Helen Shortt

Forensic is used in the context of the examination of children within the Barnahus or, as we currently do not have a Barnahus in the east, within Children's Health Ireland, CHI, on the basis of being able to gather evidence for the criminal justice process. The child is examined and if there is any physical evidence, it can be collected.

Where do they get this training? Where do they get these qualifications?

Ms Helen Shortt

The first element of the training is that someone has to qualify as a paediatrician. That is the standard medical training that anyone who works within the Irish healthcare service and is eligible to be considered for a consultant appointment has to reach. There is then added training which all of the consultants who work in our forensic medical services attain. This is usually done through the UK because we currently do not employ a sufficient number of them to receive that specific training in Ireland. However, they undertake, as a group of clinicians, regular peer review particularly in the area of forensic evidence collection because, obviously, they must remain competent to be able to undertake that.

That form of continuing professional development in which there are journal clubs and peer reviews and people sitting around to discuss literature and research-----

Ms Helen Shortt

That is not what they do. They look at images that have been taken. They share experience-----

I am talking specifically about their qualifications and their higher specialist training. I appreciate they are undertaking this work, but my concern is around the higher specialist training and the medical staff and all of the allied clinicians and therapists who are there. Ms Shortt answered the question partially around some of them coming from Tusla. In her evidence, she also mentioned CARI or a section 39 organisation.

Ms Helen Shortt

That was Tusla. I do not have the information that Senator Clonan is looking for. I cannot say to him definitely that every one of the consultant paediatricians with a special interest in forensic medicine has higher training.

The sense I am getting from Ms Shortt's evidence is that when she refers to forensic specialists, she is talking about people who carry out medical examinations in order to either harvest evidence or to ascertain any evidence of injury or such.

Ms Helen Shortt

That is right.

As regards the specialist interviews and the trauma-informed child-centred interviews, which are carried out in a safe place consistent with the five principals set out, is there a psychological input there? Are there psychiatrists involved or is it a psychologist?

Ms Helen Shortt

I will ask my colleagues in Tusla to answer this.

Ms Clare Murphy

Specialist interviews are carried out by a professionally qualified social worker who is specifically trained in specialist interviewing. However, he or she is not a psychologist.

Tusla does not have any psychiatric input, such as child and adolescent psychiatry input, at this level. Is there any liaison with CAMHS?

Ms Clare Murphy

Yes, there is. The actual specialist interviewing involves professionally qualified social workers and members of An Garda Síochána working together. There is often liaison with CAMHS if the case merited it or if the child was attending CAMHS. A child who is subject to a specialist interview is not necessarily referred to CAMHS by virtue of being subject to the interview. The child may have a prior relationship with CAMHS or may be accessing CAMHS for a service. In that case, CAMHS would, of course, be involved in the whole referral, but not in the actual specialist interview.

Does Senator Clonan wish to speak to the other questions? There were a number of other questions he asked.

As regards the section 38 and 39 organisations, is Tusla outsourcing some of this work to section 39 organisations?

Ms Clare Murphy

We are outsourcing therapeutic work to CARI, the Children at Risk Foundation. We have funded two therapeutic post for Barnahus West.

Why is this not being provided by the State? Is this impacted by the recruitment embargo in the HSE?

No, that is through Tusla.

Ms Kate Duggan

Tusla does not have a recruitment embargo. We have always, even prior to the establishment of Barnahus, funded CARI. It provides therapeutic and counselling services for children who have been sexually abused or for their family. The feedback on that model is really good and very much valued. Tusla employs its own therapeutic staff to provide supports and that is supplemented by CARI.

Certainly, one of the issues or challenges that we have to respond to in the coming years is the Barnahus model and the joint interviewing and all of that. While great progress is being made, I refer to the ongoing therapeutic needs of children and families and looking at a kind of hub-and-spoke model in which the therapeutic interventions, post-assessment or post-prosecution, can continue to be provided to those children and young people closer to home so they do not have to travel back to a Barnahus centre. For us, that is nothing to do with the embargo. Tusla does not have a recruitment embargo. It is to do with the fact that there has been an expertise built up in CARI. We are very much working in partnership with it to extend therapeutic services, particularly in the west. We do not want people from Donegal having to travel back down to Galway for their therapeutic intervention when they have completed their training.

Is there a recruitment and retention issue with those kind of staff? I know that in other areas, such as in CDNTs, physiotherapists, occupational therapists or psychologists cannot be gotten because they all go. That is in a section 38 environment. They do not want to work there and are going elsewhere.

Ms Clare Murphy

We have more vacancies than we can fill in relation to speech and language, occupational therapy and psychology.

They are outsourced to section 39 organisations.

Ms Clare Murphy

No.

Ms Kate Duggan

No. First, it is important to say that Tusla is almost at its funded workforce, generally. It has seen its retention figures rise in the past year. Certainly, this recruitment and retention of staff is a good news story for us. We have a challenge around the supply of social work staff in the context of qualifications and the number of people who are qualifying at third level. However, we have seen great progress in this regard with the support of the Department of further and higher education. Last week, we launched a new masters programme in social work with TUS to provide the first training of its kind in the mid-west. Later this week, we are launching, in partnership with UCC, both a masters programme through apprenticeship in UCC and a tertiary apprenticeship programme, again with the support of the Department of higher education. That is from the supply side.

We have now put in a therapeutic team to support children who are coming into the care of Tusla who have been abused to inform their care plan. We have six of those teams. Certainly, in small pockets, we have been challenged to recruit. As Ms Murphy said, posts remain vacant in the areas of speech and language and occupational therapy.

I thank the witnesses. I have one outstanding question. How does Tusla triage? Who is the responsible person? Who decides who goes to Barnahus and who does not?

Ms Kate Duggan

I will let Mr. Brophy take the Senator through that process.

Mr. Gerard Brophy

We have worked really hard. It builds on the work of Children First and the reporting mechanisms which we have for mandatory reporting. Reports are made, either to An Garda Síochána or to ourselves, and we communicate with each other. If there is a forensic medical, it is reported to us and we report it to An Garda Síochána as well, and likewise with any other voluntary organisation or anyone else. Those reports are coming in really early. We are able to get them in early and Tusla is triaging those. As they are coming to Tusla, at the same time, they are coming to Barnahus. They might come to medical forensics or to An Garda Síochána over the weekend. They will also be dealt with in Barnahus, knowing that a mandated report has already been made.

The Senator referred earlier to the low numbers we have. While we have a large number of reports, which are classified as sexual abuse, often that is a concern that comes in from the referrer and they are classifying it as sexual abuse as they come in. We may, over a period of time, see that it is actually not sexual abuse. It may be neglect, emotional abuse or maybe physical abuse. That can be dealt with and triaged at an early stage.

We know that one of the challenges in every system in Europe, particularly in Ireland, is very low numbers coming through to criminal prosecution. Even at the end of that, we probably have only 2% coming through to criminal prosecution and a very low number of those are actually successfully prosecuted.

That is because the perpetrator may be innocent or otherwise. That is our justice system. We are trying to identify how we can raise that number, and that was referred to earlier. A primary motivating factor behind Barnahus is how we give children access to the justice system so that those crimes can be vindicated and followed through.

I thank Mr. Brophy for the clarity. I have one outstanding question. Are these families and children bounced from the security that you are providing them into an adversarial prosecution? When it goes to prosecution, are they bounced into an adversarial-----

We are going to come back to that because I want to get everyone in once and then I will go back to a second round.

Unfortunately, I have to discuss some amendments in the House.

Okay. I will allow Mr. Brophy to respond briefly.

Mr. Gerard Brophy

There is a group. I know the Garda is involved in this in terms of the Central Criminal Court. We are looking at how these cases are being processed through the courts. We are anxious to use the videos that are done in a child-friendly environment. The use of intermediaries is key in this as well. I referred to that earlier. The Garda has been very supportive in getting hearings at an early date in the District Court in order that intermediaries can be appointed and disclosure can be done early. Again, we have a real child-friendly approach to justice. In the last year, we have had two cases go through Barnahus west. They have been able to give video evidence from a distance from Barnahus west. This allows the child to take a break, as appropriate, managed through the judge and the court system, and to be able to regulate themselves. This approach is much more child friendly and appropriate to their age and stage of development.

I thank Mr. Brophy.

I welcome and thank those present for coming in for an extended session. I have just a few questions because a lot have been answered. Clearly, this has now developed as international best practice. We are looking to apply it here, particularly having run a pilot project in Galway for four years. I would like to understand something about the Galway Barnahus pilot, which is now going to be mainstreamed. Was that operating in parallel with the old system for cases, where child sexual abuse may have been reported and where people may have gone to a Garda station, or have all serious cases for the last four years effectively been funnelled through the Galway system? If it is the latter, do we have any data in relation to increased rates of prosecution, which clearly is one of the expected benefits of this system? Obviously, the other benefits include treating children with a lot more care and appropriate support, treatment and therapy and so on. I presume there is some data to understand this.

I have a second question relating to the model. Following all of the presentations, the only real concern I have regarding the model is that the implementation of it is a challenge, as it always is when you have multiple different departments and agencies trying to work together. That creates challenges in Ireland. We know that the agencies represented here are trying to address that through an interdepartmental group and a steering committee. It is clear from what we have heard today that there is a lot of co-operation. I am surprised to hear that designed into this system is effectively a form of co-location whereby children who may have been abused sexually are telling their stories in an appropriate environment of care and therapy and support while adults could be in the room next door. It is a strange conclusion to draw that it is appropriate to have children and adults in the same building, given that we are trying to avoid the retraumatisation of children. We are trying to ensure that they have to describe what happened to them just once, or the fewest possible number of times, and that they and their families get the supports they need medically and from a therapeutic perspective. I would like an explanation of that. I understand that from the perspective of providing services, there is duplication and crossover in terms of social workers, doctors, psychologists and other professionals for someone in their 20s versus someone in their early teens. If one is trying to create a child-friendly environment, potentially having adult trauma in the room next door or in the same building seems to be a strange mix. I may be misreading that, but I would like to get an explanation of it.

I would like to comment on the practical side of making this happen. I suspect that what is coming to the Government is a memo for information, in effect. I suspect this has already been decided upon and rightly so, given all the work that has been done to date and the international best practice that is clearly there. What is the actual ask in terms of budget to make this really work? The only figure I see in the presentations to date is €1.2 million. The Garda will pick up the tab for its section and I presume the HSE will pick up the tab for some of its section. There is a capital cost required in terms of turning a virtual unit into a real unit in Cork and to do the same in Dublin. My fear is that we will have the right design in theory, but when we actually try to put the system in place, we will find we do not have the staffing complement that is needed, the budget that is needed and the clarity that is needed in terms of finance to be able to make this happen within the timelines we are all hoping to achieve. I agree with Deputy Costello's point that it is a long way from Donegal to Galway, from Wexford to Cork, or from Monaghan or Cavan to Dublin, when a child who may be traumatised is being brought to one of these facilities. If we are trying to implement what is now accepted in an increasing number of countries as best practice, the budget is not going to differ enormously depending on whether we have six centres or three. The budget will be slightly more if we have six, but in the bigger scheme of things, this country unfortunately has a lot of evidence and reports over the last 20 years of sexual abuse across Irish society, which is still there. If we are trying to get the response to this right in terms of supporting children and families, increasing the number of prosecutions, encouraging people to come forward and ensuring the Garda is linking in with our health and therapy systems in the way it should, I would not have thought that the first concern here would be the budget, especially given the scale of spend across the three Departments we are working with here, which have a combined budget of a considerable amount of money.

My core questions refer to co-location of adults and children, which is a concern that I would like addressed, what we are talking about when we discuss budget and who is paying what. We should have the facts. Maybe they need to be outlined to the Government before they are discussed at committee level; if so, fair enough. If those numbers are available, I would be interested in them. I have also asked for the available data for the last four years. It is impressive that we are moving at such a pace that we are trying to open facilities in Cork and in Dublin by the end of the year. This is a concept that we have been committing to and getting our heads around for the past five years. Given the importance of this issue, I would like to see the data linked to Galway in terms of the measurable improvement that this new model is delivering for children, for example relating to prosecutions or to the care of children. In other words, what have we learned from the improvement in the model that we are now looking to back in terms of budget, staff and so on? There are other issues which Senator Clonan has touched on. We all have experience of the pressure that is faced by all the Departments and agencies with which the witnesses work.

I refer to the pressures experienced by CAMHS in Cork or in terms of Garda numbers and Garda resources or in respect of therapies and skills and recruitment challenges not actually linked to money or embargoes but in respect of the challenge to get the skills that are needed. I spent quite a lot of time with HSE south yesterday in relation to disability services and the challenge of recruitment for special schools, for example, in terms of some of the therapies we are talking about delivering here. It is really important that we understand the difference between what this should look like in theory and the practical challenges there will be in implementing it on the ground. I hope it will be less about budgets and more about co-ordination, partnership and getting the people and skills that are needed to staff these units.

I thank the witness.

I thank the Deputy. Will we start on Tusla regarding the operations and so on and then we will go to the Department?

Ms Helen Shortt

I will take this one, Chair. In response to Deputy Coveney, the purpose of the co-location is from a medical point of view. Paediatricians who undertake the forensic examinations and a medical examination of children can do it in a particular way because the child has not reached puberty. Once the child has reached puberty, it is more appropriate for the sexual assault treatment unit services to undertake the intimate examination. Because the model is for children up to 18 years, it made sense to consider the co-location of the sexual assault treatment unit with Barnahus.

In the design of the building for the west, and Mr. Brophy will come in on this further, it is designed to have two separate entrances and for the Barnahus to be separate from the sexual assault treatment unit. I appreciate what the Deputy has raised but the practical application is just that. Certainly, we will keep thinking about it, if it is occurring to those listening to us that it sounds a little strange.

I hear what Ms Shortt is saying but it is important that it is the experience of the child that comes through this structure, which is designed to be supportive. However we might design how staff are moved around in terms of co-location in order that we can get specialists quickly into the right rooms they need to be in, it is important that the experience of the child needs to be very much separate from that of an adult, perhaps on the other side of a wall, because of the need of co-location for staffing reasons. That is all I would say.

Mr. Gerard Brophy

On that point, the design is really important and was really important to us in drawing it up. We definitely wanted the adults and children to be separate. Absolutely, and that is the way it has to be. The adults come in an adult entrance to an adult reception desk at a different height, different build and different look. It is much more secure and by and large, they are in fear when they come in. Children are coming in, by and large, with their parents or others. They may also be in fear, coming into a new place, but the children's side of it is different. It would be really good for some of the members to come over and have a look at the centre in Galway. The children's side is much more designed for a child. It is much lower. There is real attention paid to having good light. The ceiling height has been brought down. We have child-friendly materials and the ability to plug in a phone or PlayStation. We had a group of children who were involved in this. We were really lucky to have a group of great young people in Mayo who consulted on this. A real part of the Barnahus model is that child participation.

When it comes to the services that are offered, the sexual assault treatment unit, SATU, also deals with 14 to 18-year-olds, as Ms. Shortt noted. While those 14 to 18-year-olds are children, they are older children. We really have three different ranges of people with which we are dealing, including those under 14. Even within that, you could subdivide it further. You are measuring the building, the reception you get, how you respond to those young people in different ways and then to those adults separately. There would not be a mixing of adults. Again, building design was really important. There is a different set of medical forensic rooms. They are right beside it but it is completely different. They have a different set of services that they attend.

We completely share the Deputy's concern and we are working really hard to make that the best and safest experience. The ability of children to self-regulate themselves is important. As they cannot talk about it like adults can, we are using a lot of soft furnishing, the availability of toys and a space where they can do that. Often I was trying to have that outdoor space as well. That regulation is really important. I absolutely agree with what the Deputy is saying.

Would Mr. Delaney like to come in on the budget issue?

Mr. Des Delaney

Yes, there is no permanent budget at this point in time for Barnahus implementation. I say that very clearly as to the question about the memorandum for Government. The memo is actually for decision-making purposes. That is a critical piece with regard to the expansion of the south and the west. There are 16 posts that are required in respect of Galway and Cork to expand those services to move from a pilot project to being fully operational. The interdepartmental group, IDG, has made available dormant account funds that were allocated to it last year and approximately €277,000 was made available to Barnahus West by the IDG in relation to the considerable waiting list for therapy for children. This is a critical piece and as the committee is aware, there is a procedure in seeking Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform sanction for posts and that is what the memo for Government is seeking. It will go through the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform again and we will seek a decision that we can bring to Cabinet for decision-making purposes.

I know Mr. Brophy has to leave and he had said that. I just have two really-----

Sorry Chair, on the numbers, what are we talking about here in terms of budget? For those of us who want to be helpful in terms of trying to push the thing along, it would be good to know what we are talking about.

Mr. Des Delaney

It is €1.2 million. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, put that in his performance statement to Tusla this year. That €1.2 million would cover those 16 posts required by Tusla. The HSE is seeking an additional six posts, which I think Ms Shortt from the HSE can speak to here today.

Ms Helen Shortt

We have not yet completed discussions with CHI, although those six posts have been identified. They are primarily to continue to support the evolution of the service in the south. It is not clear just yet as to what CHI might need, but it will be for the Estimates 2025 process. As someone mentioned earlier, parts of the CHI service may be going beyond its current geographical remit.

I will not come in again Chair but from the political system's perspective, if it is hoped to have a centre open in Cork and to have a footprint in Dublin by the end of the year, clarity around budgets is really important. What makes it difficult, of course, is that there are three different Departments and multiple agencies all pulling out of different Estimates and different pots. There are lots of people here who want to help the witnesses get this done. I think clarification on budgets would be helpful if they could send something to the committee about that in writing. It would be useful for us.

I think the Deputy's question was on how much would it cost to fund. For example, there are two centres and a third one opening, but is there a cost per centre? If we are arguing from a political perspective that we want three more centres, what is the cost? Am I correct in thinking that is what the Deputy is getting at?

I presume it is not just whatever Galway costs multiplied by three, because there will be some duplication in terms of referral processes and the Garda and so on. However, in terms of therapists, consultants, support staff, nurses and so on, what does it cost for this vision to be delivered? What does it cost for three centres, south, east and west, in terms of staffing complement and so on? I presume that clarity will be in the Government memo but it would be good for the committee to know that in order that we can push a Minister when he or she comes in before us in terms of trying to prioritise this. As there is a lot of consensus around this being the right model, we would like to see it happen.

Ms Clare Murphy

What is critical is the €1.2 million. We absolutely need that to move this forward. We would be very grateful for any support we could get for that.

That is perfect. I know Mr. Brophy needs to leave so he should go when he has to.

Mr. Gerard Brophy

Deputy Coveney asked about the data and I will answer it before I go. It would be great to see these figures coming through. Earlier Senator Seery Kearney referred to the High Court and going through the courts. One of the problems we have at present is that it takes up to seven or eight years for cases to get to the Central Criminal Court for prosecution. There is a long lead-in period. We are looking to cut this down and we are involved with the courts, the Garda and the HSE. There are significant problems with data sharing with regard to the time that disclosure takes. We do not have data after four years. We have now begun to gather data and baseline it with An Garda Síochána, working out what key metrics will give us the indication. It is not just about prosecutions. It is also about seeing children through it and then about how they get their therapy.

We are starting to gather these metrics and to have metrics between the three agencies. We have never done this before. We have never shared data at such an early stage before. We have a legislative basis to share it but we have never tried to do it this early. We probably need changes in the legislation, which the Department is working on with a review of the Child Care Act, to provide us with a clear legislative basis for this. A number of challenges are coming together that we can learn from and we are actively working on all of them. No more than from this committee, we are getting large amount of co-operation and success with it.

I want to ask about the Icelandic model with regard to the courts, which come in at a later stage here. Is it a better model? Perhaps it is an unfair question. With regard to what has been said about the waiting times, adults waiting for a case to go through the DPP can be very frustrated. How is it dealt with from a child's point of view if it is going to go on for years? A very young child will be at a different stage of life by then. I do not know whether it is appropriate for the assistant commissioner or Tusla to speak about this.

Mr. Justin Kelly

Several elements of prosecutions have been touched upon. We have special measures for court cases and the investigating gardaí, prosecution counsel and the DPP discuss these before any case comes to trial. These special measures involve screening, the use of videos, intermediaries and whatever can be done to help the child through the process.

With regard to prosecution rates, it is important to emphasise that one of the key points of the Barnahus project is the child's best interests, with regard to preventing undue delays and avoiding retraumatisation. Coming from the policing point of view, we want to see an increased level of prosecutions. The child's best interests is the primary part of the Barnahus project. Everybody knows about the low rates of prosecution for sexual crime generally and not just sexual crime involving children. There are multifaceted reasons for this and I am sure the Cathaoirleach knows many of them. An Garda Síochána is very well able to give statistics on cases that have proceeded, prosecution rates and conviction rates. We have started to do outcomes-based reporting and we are now digging into the reasons there are no prosecutions at scale. We started this in Galway. It is a very interesting project for us to get a better understanding of why prosecutions do not go ahead. The reasons for this are not just with An Garda Síochána but across the entire criminal justice system.

I am aware of the good work of the national protective services unit. My question is more from the domestic violence point of view. Where there are services and specialist training in local Garda stations, it makes a big difference. People always say they might have walked away from their case but they got talking to someone who understood where they were coming from. It is very important. I imagine the wait times with the DPP are as frustrating for the gardaí as they are for the people involved.

Mr. Justin Kelly

I apologise for interrupting the Cathaoirleach. I did not address the actual point she was making on the DPP. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not represented here today but it now has a specialist section dealing with sexual crimes. This was not always the case heretofore as the cases went in with the hoi polloi of all of the general crime cases. Now there are specialist people in the section dealing with all of these cases. The volume and capacity is not something I can comment on but I know that our investigators and some of Mr. Noonan's people know some of the people in the office very well and know their expertise. We share some training opportunities with them when we can. It has improved a lot with regard to the people involved in these cases. They really know what they are doing.

That is good to hear.

Some of my questions come from a lack of understanding of the process and I will ask them so it is clear for me. The Courts Service is not included in the steering group. I know Mr. Brophy mentioned some work is ongoing between An Garda Síochána and the Courts Service. I am thinking of all the work done until the point it reaches the courts system and access to the courts. I am thinking of the anonymised article from a few years ago about a girl who was the youngest witness in a sexual abuse case in Ireland. She was not even given alternative access and they had to fight at the front door. There was no room for her to watch the DVD footage at the time and they were wandering around trying to find a room. All of this work happens up to a point. How do we make sure the continuum of care is there?

Should the Courts Service be part of the steering group or the interdepartmental group to make sure there is a continuum of care? At present what happens? Is there space for the Barnahus model to exist at this stage of the process? Is a list of recommendations sent with the child? Does something flow from it when it comes to the court case? Earlier we spoke about how the supports can be tailored to the individual child's needs. Does something follow the child into the court system with regard to what that child and their family need when they get to court? Are there tailored recommendations? Perhaps the child has sensory issues. This is a missing piece that I am concerned about.

I am thinking of vulnerable witnesses but it ties into court access in general. The O'Malley report spoke about a rights-based approach and I am also thinking about the best interests of the child. I am going on a tangent. Prosecution is not the only driving force in the Barnahus model. It is about being able to look at the elements in parallel to one another. There is also the rights-based approach with regard to access to justice and the right of the child to be heard. Inherent in the right of the child to be heard and access to justice is that prosecution cannot be uncoupled completely. We do not want to overfocus on prosecution but it is very important. I hope all of these questions are tying together in the witnesses' heads in the same way as they are in mine.

Does the Garda and Tusla carrying out interviews together remove the need for separate interviews to determine whether there is a credible case for sexual abuse so they are all combined into one interview? This makes me wonder about cases in the Barnahus model that might be outsourced to the St. Clare's unit if Tusla does not have the capacity. At that point evidence is seen as opinion and it is not taken in court. Is there a case to be made that every case of child sexual abuse would involve interview by the Garda and Tusla to ensure it is not taken as opinion when it comes to court? We do not want to have a two-tier system whereby someone does not end up in the Barnahus model but the body they are referred to, which states there is a credible sexual abuse case, is not taken as a witness in court and its report is not shared with the courts. Should this be a mainstreamed process?

That is a very general question so whoever feels it is most appropriate can address it.

Mr. Des Delaney

I will intervene on the question concerning whether the Courts Service should be on the IDG. The Department of Justice representative on the group is liaising with the Courts Service. It was mentioned earlier that the good practice guidelines is the specialist area of the Garda. To explain further, however, there has been a recent agreement to update those guidelines, with the support of the Council of Europe. We are heavily involved in discussions with the Department around that undertaking.

Mr. Colm Noonan

In respect of the Senator's first question about the earlier involvement of the Courts Service, in the common law system we live in, the investigative responsibility rests with An Garda Síochána. As Assistant Commissioner Kelly said, the primary focus in the Barnahus model, and also where it does not exist for our specialist interviewers, is the welfare and care of the child because we may often not get to a prosecution. Oftentimes, the child or the family concerned is simply not be able to proceed but we will still engage with that child and the family. That is our first focus.

We are, then, also the sole authority that has the responsibility to get the investigation to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is where the Courts Service involvement kicks in and where our engagement in respect of special measures, protections and how the child is protected through the process kicks in. As Mr. Brophy said, however, we work with the Judiciary and the Courts Service on how we can get investigations to a prosecution stage and before the courts more quickly and to find where there are delays in the process. There is not a role for the Courts Service at the Barnahus stage. Taking into account the protection of the child and the role of An Garda Síochána to investigate criminal acts, we are the right agencies to be involved at that stage.

In respect of the last point raised concerning the review of the good practice guidelines, these go back to 2003 and there is a clearly identified need to update and review them. This request to review them has been formally made to the Department of Justice by An Garda Síochána. While we are a key partner in that review, it is not our document or our review. We work to it and this is one of the primary guidance documents relating to our structures, guidelines and interviews. The Department has the key role in getting these reviewed.

I take the point on bringing the Courts Service in too soon and that we cannot do so, but would a tailored recommendation or report go to the Courts Service regarding the child being engaged within the Barnahus model to ensure something follows them?

Mr. Colm Noonan

Yes, precisely. This kicks in even earlier than the involvement with the Courts Service. It kicks in between us, Tusla and the DPP, when we ask if special measures and special protections are required. The DPP then goes to the court and states what is required to protect a child. Mr. Brophy mentioned earlier that just in the past few months the use of the Barnahus facility with a live video link to the criminal court to allow a child to give evidence, take a break and get the necessary support. This is in the context of a live trial. It is a practical application of exactly what the Senator is talking about.

I thank Mr. Noonan.

Ms Fiona Murphy would also like to contribute.

Ms Fiona Murphy

Yes. The Senator mentioned the St. Clare's and St. Louise's unit. The Alders unit now, between CHI Connolly and CHI Tallaght, provides services for assessment and therapy for children who are involved. We also then have the Laurels clinic. The future role of CHI would be that we would be part of the Barnahus model and then that therapeutic intervention would occur at an earlier stage. There would, though, also be a piece where longer-term therapies would be provided by the CHI outside that model. I think that is what the Senator was referring to.

I was also referring to the assessment being made and if there were to be a credible case of sexual abuse, when those services are asked to make those assessments. Those assessments, then, are also not taken in court as evidence because they are opinions. If Tusla and An Garda Síochána in future will be able to do this, how will they then fit into the process?

Ms Fiona Murphy

That is the whole purpose of the multidisciplinary team meetings. These meetings would happen at a very early stage and the plan would then be put in place concerning what happens with the child and how the process proceeds.

In future, would the St. Clare and St. Louise unit not make those assessments?

Ms Fiona Murphy

It would be done through the Barnahus model.

It would all be done through the Barnahus model for everyone.

Ms Fiona Murphy

Yes. Those assessments will not be made independently. The Alders unit and CHI will be part of the model.

Ms Kate Duggan

It will be a joint venture and that is what we are aiming to get to.

I was just trying to clarify the process. I thank the witnesses.

Does Deputy Costello have more questions?

Yes. Senator Ruane asked about something I wished to ask about that ties in with the joint specialist interviewing. What is going to happen to children outside of these areas? If it were to be children in counties Wexford, Monaghan or Donegal involved, for example, are all these cases going to be referred into one of these centres or how will it work? Will there be gaps? That is, essentially, my blunt question.

Regarding the joint specialist interviewing, trying to get evidence up to the quality of a section 16 recording that can be primary evidence in the case is incredibly important for all sorts of reasons. I have tabled a few parliamentary questions over the years about the number of social workers who get training in this area. My experience previously as a social worker was that some of the best social workers I knew were trained as these joint specialist interviewers to do an interview in co-operation with the Garda at the standard that could be submitted into evidence. Those skills were then never used and those people left Tusla. I know there are people who are training now, but based on the responses to the parliamentary questions I have been asking, the number of trained people has been declining.

It is excellent that we are training people. It is excellent that all these meetings at an upper management level that were mentioned are happening. I also asked a load of parliamentary questions to make sure these were happening, so I apologise for doing that. The meetings and the joint working protocols, are there, they are happening and they are working. When it gets down to ground level, however, it seems there is a disconnect. There are social workers who are trained to a sufficient standard to conduct an interview suitable for evidence and no one is picking up the phone to them. The joint interviews are not happening, so what are the roadblocks in this regard?

Bringing people together via colocation is incredibly important because that creates organic connections. I know it was said that the work happens and these connections are happening, but it is much easier when the person is in the next room. I was at the opening of the new Garda emergency call centre down by Heuston Station. Much of the talk on the day was about it being great that people from the organisations involved were all sitting in the same building because it would allow them to work better. This is what I want duty social workers in the DPSUs to do.

Ms Clare Murphy

And we know that.

This will help to create these relationships organically and get past any issues. What is, therefore, going to happen to other people outside these areas? Where will these joint specialist interviews happen? Will they all be in the Barnahus context or is there an expectation it will still happen in the community services? What are the roadblocks to this joined-up thinking? My idea regarding the solution in this context is known to the witnesses.

While I do not necessarily have any concerns about the outsourcing of CARI, the role it plays and the excellent work it does, the whole point of Barnahus is that everybody is at the same table. Are representatives of CARI sitting at the table as well? This goes back to colocation.

Ms Clare Murphy

I might try to answer some of those questions. In relation to the geography, every child in the country will be mapped to one of these three Barnahus services. It does not mean that it will be near the child. For some children, there will be a considerable distance to travel. In an ideal world, we would love to be designing more Barnahus services than we are but we really need €1.2 million to get off the ground with these three. It can, therefore, be incremental, but, for now, though, we are trying to design three service areas and every child in the country will be mapped to one of these. Admittedly, there will be a distance involved for some children.

I know the Deputy feels very strongly about colocation. We looked at this issue about 18 months ago and decided it was not practical and feasible.

I do not believe that you have to be co-located to have good communication. There is really good communication. We started by having a principal social worker, PSW, co-located and our recently retired national manager was also co-located. It is something that we will very much keep in mind. I know the Deputy feels very strongly about it.

As for specialist interviewing, we have had issues in relation to social workers who trained as specialist interviewers being freed up to do so because of the demand on our system. We have addressed all of that and have plans in place for joint interviewing. The social workers we were training up to do joint interviewing will be freed up to do joint interviewing.

There was other question around CARI. I do not know the answer as to whether or not CARI will be involved with Barnahus West. I am sure it will attend some meetings. It will not necessarily be an integral part of the team but it certainly will be attending, I imagine.

Mr. Des Delaney

I have spoken to Tusla's area manager in the west and there is a service level agreement with CARI in respect of those two workers providing services. Those significant waiting lists for therapy are concerning and that is why the interdepartmental group has asked for that fresh evaluation of the service, which is literally happening. My colleague, Ms Ciara Doyle, is leading that.

Ms Kate Duggan

It is important to say that it is around recognising the waitlist for ongoing therapy. In terms of going through Barnahus and the assessment, some of these families were not living in close proximity to the west. We identified the need to increase therapeutic supports in a kind of hub model nearer to Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim and that they would work to the principles of Barnahus in terms of their therapeutic approach. That is where we are starting to see the gaps; it is that ongoing therapeutic need for the young person and his or her wider family.

Mr. Des Delaney

As for those 16 posts we are seeking, and the €1.2 million which was in the Minister's performance statement to Tusla this year, those 16 posts are to be divided between Galway and Barnahus South. It is hoped they will assist by way of additional staff that is needed for therapeutic supports.

From the perspective of the Garda, what are the roadblocks to more joint interviews happening? I appreciate that An Garda Síochána has a 24-hour schedule and Tusla does not, apart from its out-of-hours service. What are the other roadblocks? Why are these joint interviews not happening if we are training people? We are not doing the interviews or videos and we are not making things easier for the victims at the end of the day. What are the roadblocks?

Mr. Justin Kelly

The Deputy has rightly identified some of them. When you step back and look at this, An Garda Síochána has always been the sole agency that interviewed people for prosecution and gathered evidence in cases. To move from that and to extend that to another agency such as Tusla is quite a big step and is not straightforward. The people who we usually have involved in these types of interviews and work are already experienced police officers. They are not coming in with one or two years' experience. They are not new probationers but rather experienced police officers who already have interviewed many times on the investigative end. They are then moved into this specialist area and get all the training that I described earlier. We are trying to merge that with another body with a group of people who have a whole different set of skills. While they have interviewed people, they have not interviewed them in that context and therefore, we are trying to marry those together. That is not as straightforward as it sounds.

The Deputy rightly mentioned the 24-hour nature of this. Sometimes, there are situations in which we have to interview during out of hours or when it is late or at the weekends and stuff like that. Again, the Deputy rightly mentioned the difficulties around that but as the committee has heard, Tusla is stepping up in this regard. It is making sure these people will be freed up for us so when we look for them, they will be there. It is really easy for us to say that we can get people 24 hours a day. We can do that easily but it is not easy for every other agency to say that. As I said earlier, Ms Duggan and I are absolutely determined that we are going to get this sorted. To have 30 people training together within a couple of months is positive. We just have to get those numbers and get to a stage where all the interviews are done like that.

I appreciate that the marrying together is incredibly difficult but that is the beauty of the Barnahus model in that it provides a way of doing that which is efficient and child centred. That is why I want absolutely more of them. I know we talked about three extra but I am talking about ten extra. It is also why I think co-location is so important.

Does Senator Ruane wish to ask one last question?

I am actually curious about the combining of the two. In my head, I am thinking what will happen if one agency makes the other more like it. I do not know which direction would be worse.

(Interruptions)

It is a unique balance. This is more of a curious question and the witnesses will probably not want to answer it. Is there also a cultural thing there? I understand that people have been trained in a particular field and see themselves as having a wealth and years of experience. Is there a concern that people who are used to the prosecution end of this see the merging of the two as sort of undermining of the process which already exists in terms of prosecution and extracting evidence and all of that stuff?

As for the ones who are being trained, have they self-identified as people who are really open to the idea of a new way of working in that space? I refer to a new way of working which still ends up with the same aim but without the battle of egos and without people saying that this is how it has always been done as it gets what we want and need. The cultural aspect of the trauma piece must be brought in. I am curious whether the ones who are training self-selected. Is there pushback from people of the opinion that this is how prosecution and the gathering of evidence works and there is no room for anything that may jeopardise that? I am just curious in this regard.

I have one further question for Mr. Des Delaney. I do not wish to hold anyone up any more. Did he say that he is the chair of the steering committee?

Mr. Des Delaney

I am chair of the interdepartmental group.

Okay. Is the chair of the steering committee independent?

Mr. Des Delaney

Yes.

That is grand. That was a question just for my own information.

Mr. Justin Kelly

At the outset, it is important to say that everyone involved, be that the Garda interviewers or the Tusla interviewers, has the best interest of the child absolutely at the centre. However, the Senator is right; they are coming from two different cultures and two different ways of looking at things, as I said to Deputy Costello earlier. That is why the training is really important for us in order that both sides get a real understanding of what the other side is trying to do. Obviously, for us, it is about gathering that evidence to the highest possible standard that we can use in court cases. For Tusla, it is about gathering the information it needs.

When you think about it, the Garda specialist interviewers have been in place since 2008. We have had that system in place although we are introducing something relatively new into it. However, all the Tusla people are all volunteers and all want to do this type of work. Of course, it is only natural there will be some cultural things. There are going to be people with various ideas, around training and course content and stuff in particular but we have worked through a lot of that.

I will give a quick example to finish up. Our training, how we did it, our policy and procedures as well as our training course and the number of days people had to be on it, all have been set in place for many years. As I said to Deputy Costello, it is easy for us to say that people are going on a three-week training course and that they are going to be taken out of their station for that duration. It is quite easy for us to say that but it is not as easy for Tusla to take people out for three weeks. Now, we have broken up courses into different timeframes. We have worked on the content. We have amended the content so that it is more reflective of both organisations. We have done a lot to overcome some of those things. Naturally, with people from different organisations, you are going to have a bit of that and I am sure Ms Duggan will agree that we would not expect anything other than some of that. However, our role at senior level is to make sure that all those things, as Deputy Costello said about roadblocks, are all smoothed out.

Going back to what I said at the start, all involved in this have the best interest of the child at heart. It is our role to ensure that we smooth all of those things over.

Did they self-select at this point for the first training?

Ms Kate Duggan

Yes.

That is always a positive, considering the pile of stages.

Ms Kate Duggan

It is important to recognise and to put on the record that it is because of the leadership of Mr. Kelly, Mr. Noonan and Mr. Brophy in particular, and the area manager who works with him, that this has happened.

There has been phenomenal progress, particularly in relation to the training and the way in which it will be delivered. There was openness to adapting that and it is because of their leadership that we are where we are today.

That is great. I thank Ms Duggan.

I thank everybody. We had a really good discussion, which was good to have. Hopefully, it will help with the budgetary process when the witnesses ask for funding. Certainly, they have the support of this committee - very much so - in relation to that. I thank all the witnesses for coming before the committee and for their time.

I ask for the agreement of the members to publish the opening statements on the Oireachtas website. Is that agreed? Agreed. We stand adjourned sine die.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m. sine die.
Barr
Roinn