Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

I will answer each question individually but I will start with what I would see as my key recommendation, which was summarised by Deputy Conway. My key recommendation revolves around the imposition of an absolute ban on alcohol sponsorship of sports events. I share Deputy Conway's views, as I do those of Deputy Troy and Senator van Turnhout, on the issue of alcohol.

In the context of chairing the child death review with my colleague, Ms Norah Gibbons, a key concern is that alcohol was not seen as a risk indicator. Children were left in highly vulnerable environments because social workers failed to act. What I found most troubling about the child death review was that, at the outset, I thought the most troubling cases were going to be the children in the care system, but it was not them but the children who were known to child protection services. It was the failure of the State to act.

This ties in to Deputy Troy's first question on the Roma case. I publicly defended the role of the Garda and the HSE at the time, and I was unapologetic about it in that I feel our history is a chequered one in terms of the failure of the State to act. What I thought was the major shortcoming following the review of in excess of 500 files was a failure on a part of social workers to act. Deputy Conway mentioned the word "systemic" and I think this is systemic. It comes back to social work training. Social workers need to be told that alcohol is perhaps an even more corrosive substance than heroin.

I accept the Chairman's remarks not just on alcohol but on general substance abuse, which we need to tackle. It is easy to blame Government when, in fact, it is a society-wide problem that needs to be addressed. My experience is not just in this jurisdiction but also in the UK. If we look at the difference in approach in this jurisdiction versus the UK, and Deputy Conway will have seen this, alcohol would immediately be perceived to be a risk indicator in the local authority system in the UK. I hope this new agency will prioritise education because, when we try to change practice, education is the gateway to achieving that change of practice. I hope that, if there is anything the committee members listen to today, it will be the clear message that, having reviewed in excess of 500 files, there has been a failure to tackle alcohol at an early stage. That will remain with me as the abiding message from all those reports.

To come back to the questions, I will begin with those of Deputy Troy on the Roma children. His first question touched on whether there was a need to change the legislation. I often feel that, as a society, there is a knee-jerk response and, in any case, the immediate response is that we must change the legislation. Sometimes the problem is more nuanced. In this case, we do not know. Rushing to judgment or to blame the Garda and the HSE would be a mistake. What I will say on the record is that there are 700 notifications under section 12 of the Child Care Act. To explain briefly the pathway of a child coming into the care system, the Garda has the power in exceptional circumstances to take a child to a place of safety where there is an immediate threat to the safety or welfare of the child. That power is absolutely necessary. To come back again to the child death report, there are many instances of cases where I felt gardaí should have acted and did not act. There is nothing to suggest we should remove that power in the context of two cases, when there are 700 cases a year, which is 7,000 notifications over ten years and 14,000 notifications over 20 years. We have yet to receive a report from the Ombudsman for Children on the matter and I have absolute confidence that she will be in a position to identify these issues.

I am not suggesting that everything was done in the correct fashion but that there is a process. I am not privy to all the facts of the Roma cases. In general, the next stage in the process of a child coming into the care system is that the case is brought before the District Court within three days. In terms of checks and balances, a further check is that, under section 13 of the Child Care Act, it is up to the District Court to determine whether an emergency care order should be granted. It is my experience that District Court judges frequently grant an emergency care order for much less than eight days and in some cases for a matter of hours. It is a power that is used very sparingly and the checks and balances exist. One has to bring a case before the District Court and prove to that court there is an immediate and serious threat to the safety or welfare of the child. The District Court judge will then make a determination whether to grant that order where the threshold has been reached. It is not just the Garda and the HSE as one must present the case to the court, which is a further check.

If I am being asked what this and other cases might highlight, while I do not want to pre-empt what the ombudsman might find, it is the issue of inter-agency co-operation. This is why I feel the Children First legislation will be key, and we have to ensure it works properly. It is very important that the Garda and the HSE work together in a timely fashion. To suggest the problem is in the legislation is a failure to understand the nuances of the child protection system. I would like to put on the record that I think the Garda does a great job, as do social workers in the system. What we have failed consistently to do in this country is to bring ourselves to a position where professions work together. What we have seen is professions operating in silos, without regard to the best interests of children. Nobody has an exclusive preserve in respect of determining a matter for children. The real challenge for the child protection system is to ensure the agencies work together and the real challenge for this new agency will be that case-----