Mr. Gordon Jeyes:

Obviously there may be some overlap in the issues raised by members. I will try to deal with some of it thematically, but no doubt I will be taken to task if I miss any points.

Deputy Troy began on the issue of investment and quite rightly identified that there was some catch-up in the second year of our establishment but not enough and, therefore, further adjustments had to be made. I have told voluntary and community sector organisations that provide vital preventative work that they will remain vulnerable because if I have to fund more foster carers, I am going to do that, if I have to make sure there are allocated social-workers, I am going to do that, and, therefore, the bits of the budget that are more vulnerable will be cut if there is insufficient money to meet our existing level of service.

In terms of investment, we have made reductions this year in the region of some €10 million. We have closed the gap, but we have not done so sufficiently, and some of the savings we are making, not least through rigorous vacancy management on non-front-line posts, are not sustainable, that is, they will not recur next year. Therefore, taking some recent Labour Court rulings regarding sleepovers and other matters into account, we are talking about €25 million or so merely to stay where we are. I am not saying that will be our end-of-year position - far from it - but that is when one takes into account unsustainable amounts and the fact that more children will be appropriately placed in foster care placements next year. However, statistics show we have managed to improve performance in that because of people's goodwill, professionalism, dedication, and a better approach to prioritising. We can evidence that and it is shown in the majority of - I accept not all - HIQA reports.

The other bit about immediate investment, which comes through other questions raised by Deputies, relates to capacity. There is now clear evidence that we have insufficient capacity to do what is expected of us. That is why, having looked at "measure the pressure", we have audited it further and I will come back to that, because Deputy Troy raised that later on. All those issues relate to investment.

It is interesting that Deputy Troy's next question was about legislation, because if the Dáil passes legislation, that needs to be looked at to see its financial or priority implications. If we are to do this and it is statutorily required, we must ask where it is funded from and what we are not going to do. Much work has gone into preparing for Children First. Child protection is everyone's responsibility and that is emphasised in terms of the organisation. It is about spreading it. Yes, there has been a detailed programme of us working with the health service, education, and local government, the major people who also work with children, and prioritising that work to ensure they are playing their part. We are in correspondence with the Department and have been since the start of this. It has a detailed submission for us to start up. Clearly there will be an increase on the current 43,000 referrals we get and how we are staffed to ensure that is filtered and an efficient, effective and proportionate service is provided. Yes, we can be ready for Children First. The common societal commitment to child protection is welcome, but it comes with a modest additional resource tag on top of the standstill and capacity issues.

I apologise about anyone ever having to use a freedom of information request. We do not want that. If the information is there, we will make it available as quickly as possible. By way of excuse, all I would say about "measure the pressure" is that we have been working on it to ensure it is validated and to ensure this estimate for staff is completely authentic. We have produced a detailed audit of that to ensure the naming of the parts and the way in which we are measuring that intake system is the same throughout the country in order that the figures make sense. We have completed that work. I did not want to drown Deputies with paper, but if any Deputy wants a copy of that completed audit, they are welcome to it. We now believe "measure the pressure" can and should be shared because it is validated, but I would not have said that before. It is a lower figure than was previously reported for a variety of reasons - valid case closure, diverting it into community support and looking at things more carefully - but it shows we can now measure a capacity gap of around 5,000 cases. We can state that it is insufficient. It is not that nothing happens to them. They are held by social workers on duty in intake. They are monitored and prioritised, but there is still a gap. I cannot deny that. As a result of the work we have done with the trade union regarding a caseload that varies according to the type of work and the complexity of the case, there is a need, if we merely addressed it in the traditional way, for 220 to 250 social workers.

With regard to making information available, the fully integrated report for quarter one is published on our website today. I will look into the issue of making more information readily available on the website in the normal way. It is there and we would want to make it accessible.

I understand that whether it is being scrutinised here or in the media, there is an interest in knowing whether people are being held to account. They are being held to account. There are limits to transparency and sometimes sharing these things. We believe in high support and rigorous challenge. I have worked with groups of staff where disciplinary procedures have been put aside if people are prepared to engage in deep learning and acknowledge and sign up for responsibility. What went wrong becomes a matter of learning. Merely reverting to discipline is an easy way out; discipline would be too quick a solution. The issues that went wrong in Laois are complex and many and to say it was just because of this or that, would be too easy. Work continues on that and the initial emphasis has been on putting it right.

A number of members have mentioned ICT and I welcome the opportunity to speak about this. It has already been picked up by Deputy Mitchell O'Connor and others that the in-house capacity for ICT is two staff, which is what EWS had. There are approximately 250 to 260 staff in HSE-ICT but we never got any disaggregation from that figure. The theory was that they would continue to provide us with a service, which they do, in terms of keeping our network going and putting the necessary Elastoplast on it. However, in terms of developing the service and bringing up the strategy, it is wanting. Both the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs are sympathetic but we need first of all, because it is an ICT expenditure, to get their permission to go to the market to get more support, such as ICT architects and others. I believe we will get the investment and that is not my quibble, rather, it is about getting the specification right because getting it wrong can lead to further difficulties in getting sufficient resources to get on the front foot.

I do not want any of that translated as being critical of the HSE. It has a very significant change agenda of its own in introducing e-health and other matters but inevitably, because our shared services are not in a customer relationship, I do not have cash or shares that I can trade in and it can all too easily look like a grace and favour relationship which, therefore, varies across the country.