Mr. Páraic Walsh:

It is a good example of how our threshold works, in terms of what we might look at. We have had complaints about living conditions, diet, access to education and so forth but because the complainants are in direct provision, their environment is unique. It is not the same as someone raising a complaint to mum or dad at home and having that space to do so. We would always try to engage early in such cases and make sure the complaints are dealt with at a local level. To date, the issues have been addressed but these would not be matters that we would see as heading towards an investigation.

Other issues of a more serious nature would relate to child protection and how concerns in that regard are dealt with. Irrespective of any view held about our remit, we would see us as having an absolute remit in that regard and being involved in such cases, regardless of whether there is Tusla, or formerly the HSE, involvement. That would not have been the intention of the good people of the Legislature when they drafted our governing Act in 2002 in terms of what actions would be excluded.

It relates to the administration of law regarding naturalisation and citizenship, but it would not relate to child protection or welfare. That is not the intended outcome. If one takes a purposive approach to what was meant, that is the space we are working in as regards the legislation. We continue to push at that but, as Dr. Muldoon stated, there is a barrier. There is a definite need for signposting.

One question referred to parents being natural advocates and asked for further details. In some circumstances there is a natural barrier, concern or impediment to bringing complaints forward for fear of affecting decisions. Not only should there be clarity in terms of the remit, but we need to take on some work to make sure people feel able to bring complaints and concerns to our attention.