Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I join with Deputy Buttimer in welcoming the delegation to this meeting and thanking them for their thought-provoking contributions. I would like first to address the contribution made by Dr. Coulter. I have looked at the second interim report. One of the striking messages from the findings thus far, bearing in mind the final report has yet to be presented, is the inconsistencies in the system. There is little consistency either in preparation, presentation or the decisions made and outcomes. The situation across the State in regard to the matters reported on is varied.

I note from Dr. Coulter's report a categorisation of what is viewed as the most prevalent or strongest underlying issue, with the result that some of the information is a little skewed in terms even of the HSE's acknowledged position with regard to neglect. Reference is made on page 4 of the report to cognitive disability-mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse. Many, if not all, of the situations reported on would have one underlying factor. Perhaps Dr. Coulter will comment on the need for a more scientific approach, such as multi-categorised assessments in terms of court observations rather than cognitive ability, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse, some of which can be multi-present. Neglect is a consequence across all areas. According to HSE data in this regard 28.6% of the cases relate to children in care yet according to the data compiled in the context of Dr. Coulter's report neglect arises in only 12.6% of cases. Perhaps when responding Dr. Coulter will comment on whether a more multifaceted methodology would be more informative in this regard. I am not questioning the value of what has been researched and presented. It is hugely important and I welcome it. However, I wonder if a little tweaking might give us a clearer picture of the multidimensional reality of many of the cases that present.

I welcome Dr. Buckley back to the committee. She has posed to the committee a very difficult question to answer. We all agree with her on the need for more social workers within Tusla and the Child and Family Agency. Dr. Buckley made the keen observation that there is a point where this can tip, by which I was taken. Prior to this meeting I had read her pre-circulated submission and was taken by the case she makes. There is an optimum position, which is quite difficult to measure. Dr. Buckley is correct that with the advent of the Children First legislation will, presumably, come a significant rise in reporting and as a result a greater caseload with which to cope. Perhaps Dr. Buckley would advise on how one can measure the right point for which to pitch in this regard. I agree with her - as I am sure will the committee - that this is not about a fire brigade reaction in response to the problem but rather an address and elimination of the problem at its genesis. This is, of course, rooted in poverty, marginalisation and social exclusion. Dr. Buckley's closing commentary that the provision of early intervention and services, including social work service to children and families for whom difficulties emerge, is necessary. I agree with her that this is exactly what needs to be done. All the Tuslas in the world will not properly address, eliminate or eradicate the core causes.

I would like finally to comment on and thank Ms O'Callaghan for her contribution. I am surprised to hear that only a year into the process assessments are being outsourced to private providers. State agencies appear to fall into bad habits quickly. In regard to Ms O'Callaghan's statement that more often than not this is the case, perhaps she would elaborate further. I would have hoped for more from the Child and Family Agency despite the difficulties for it in terms under-resourcing in the current year, etc. Can Ms O'Callaghan offer any additional information in this regard? It is an issue about which I would like to question the agency.

Ms O'Callaghan statement that social workers are not proficient in carrying out evidenced-based assessments is a very important point. Some social workers might take offence at that, or maybe not. Nevertheless, Ms O'Callaghan makes the distinction between specific roles. I would welcome further elaboration from Ms O'Callaghan in terms of her paper, which I have read and very much welcome.