Ms Mary Dunnion:

It is fair to say there is a resource issue. However, a lack of resources is not a total determinant of a poor service. As we find in all our reports and inspections, what is important is what a child experiences and receives from the person looking after him or her. The people in charge must ensure and have controls in place to see that this happens. It is that circle which makes it work. While there may sometimes be a lack of resources, the importance of which I would not underestimate, I re-emphasise the importance of ensuring that the experience of a child as determined by those who deliver the service is monitored by those who have the responsibility of oversight. That is where we see significant gaps and where we talk about leadership management and governance as a particular requirement and focus.

When we talk about formal regulation, which Deputy Neville asked about, we would never be regulating the individual child. Regulation of foster care services, which we hope happens, means looking at the system in place to ensure that the child is being placed in a timely manner, that foster carers have been assessed as to their competence and confidence to be a foster carer and that controls are in place so the carer receives adequate training and obtains information in a timely manner. As Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, there should be a proper communication system. There should be proper recruitment processes and if someone leaves the foster care service, there should be a capacity to analyse why and what we can learn from it. It is about looking at the totality of arrangements in place to ensure there is a safe service. As such, one is never going down to the individual child, albeit one will engage with the individual child because that is who will tell one the story. What one is looking at in regulation is what system is in place to ensure this happens.

That brings us on to the point that the risk with regulation is that it can stop being dynamic. The model of regulation is determined by the legislators. Good evidence of this is in disability and older person services where there is a regulatory model determined by a building and the care. As such, it is the designated centre and the care. However, we advocate that the regulatory model should be about the service. That would allow a different approach to be taken to regulation which is based more on cost-benefit. It would allow providers to be more dynamic in the services they provide.

We welcome regulation but we see that it must be dynamic and changing and we ask that legislators take account of this in their thinking about regulation.

Garda vetting should not be a problem. The system has been streamlined. Several years ago, it was difficult for any employer to get timely Garda vetting in respect of a prospective employee. It now takes, in essence, two weeks, so there is no issue with people being Garda vetted. What really concerns me is the thought process to the effect that it is not seen as one of the single easiest pieces to ensure safeguarding for vulnerable people. The safeguarding is the process but it is not high on the agenda of a manager or employer to ensure that employees have Garda vetting. We have seen this right across social services, not only in children's services. I can happily report that there has been a sea change, to which, I believe, regulation has contributed. When we carry out an inspection and discover people without Garda vetting, the employer must take them off the roster. If they are caring for the most vulnerable of people, they must have Garda vetting. Faced with such a risk, requiring the employer to take the relevant employees off a roster is one of the actions we might take.