Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

Yes, it would be very helpful. If I can start with the last question, I made extensive efforts to consult with Tusla prior to the audit commencing. That dates back to when Gordon Jeyes was the national director. I sent what was then the proposal to Gordon Jeyes. Once Fred McBride was appointed chief executive officer I sent a copy of the framework to him at that stage. As this was an audit of the exercise by members of the Garda Síochána of their child protection powers, it was looking at it with that lens.

In response to Deputy Ó Laoghaire's question, I had suggested that we needed that complete picture. There has been much discussion around the 91 cases and whether there should be a further review. If I can I will use take this opportunity to say that I have written to members of An Garda Síochána who have asked for my view on this and what I say is that it is nowhere suggested in the report that those cases are either all examples of problematic cases, since they are not, or that they are exclusive examples. I say that the cross-section of these instances was used to reflect the themes arising in the course of the audit and, for example, to illustrate the grounds pursuant to which section 12 was invoked. I say also that a further examination of these particular examples set out in the audit would not be helpful or appropriate in the context of all other cases which arose, and that there are data protection issues as well. The data provided from the PULSE review is only one of several bases of research set out in the audit to include interviews with members of An Garda Síochána, reviews of questionnaires and other documentation on focus groups. I say that I believe there is little or no purpose to further examining these historical cases, which have already had the benefit of a thorough examination, and that I would respectfully submit that the interests of children the subject of section 12 orders would be best served by enabling the previously proposed contemporary review of section 13 cases to proceed as speedily as possible.

What I wanted to do was look at the system as it operates currently. It is all very well to say that these were historic concerns. We need to look at whether there were contemporary concerns. I had prepared a detailed proposal, which I had sent to Tusla. Issues emerged regarding the in camerarule and to sample. There were a number of females with Tusla in August of last year, but suffice it to say that conducting this further stage of the audit was a lengthy process.

What I wanted in regard to section 13, if it were possible, is that it would mirror the same size and the scale of the Garda audit in order that we could have a broad systemic review of the system as it operated but difficulties were identified. I am not going to get into the nature of the correspondence but suffice it to say a number of emails were exchanged and some time was spent developing a proposal. I made every effort to consult with Tusla on this project in so far as it was relevant because we were looking at what happens when a child is removed under section 12. The sad reality is that in some of these cases Tusla has a very minor involvement because the children, in some cases, were brought by members of An Garda Síochána to a private provider, the Five Rivers organisation. I want to state publicly that I found no fault with the Five Rivers organisation. I will address later the point Deputy Ó Laoghaire mentioned, and I share his view on the State outsourcing its child protection responsibilities to anything other than a State agency. I have said publicly, not only in this but in other forums, that I have a big difficulty with this. We know what happened in the past when the State outsourced its services. If there is anything we have learned from the past it is that the State must take responsibility. It is very similar to the question Deputy Jan O'Sullivan raised regarding the fact that the State has to assume responsibility in this regard.

I received a letter from Mr. Gordon Jeyes's successor, Mr. Fred McBride, and I will read extracts from it. It stated that Tusla has welcomed the strong collaborative approach I took to our shared agendas. It also noted that as stated previously and publicly, the report has provided very important insights into the child protection system in Ireland and provided Tusla with a greater impetus to address the challenges. It further states the media statements made by Tusla were simply an attempt to clarify that the audit was solely focused on a review of section 12, as undertaken by the Garda Síochána and that my findings were based on information obtained through what it calls my detailed and comprehensive review of information obtained from the Garda. It references stage 5, which is what I had hoped to do in regard to section 13, which would have been a further stage of the audit. It states that other than the basic information provided to me on the emergency out-of-hours service, the audit did not review any file material. The audit could not review it because the intent of the review was to look at section 12. I wanted to look at section 13, and I am not going to go into the detail of the correspondence, but I wanted to do it at the same scale and with integrity. The reality is that there were difficulties on who would fund that process.

I am an independent person in that if I prepare a report, I would regard it as not being subject to review by any third party. I produced the report as it appears. That would be a key feature in my becoming involved in any such process. Mr. McBride's letter stated that this was in no way an attempt to undermine what he called the rigorous research I undertook. It is important to note he also stated he was equally aware that I had met the interim director of policy and strategy and the head of legal services in November last year, when I read sections of the draft report to them and outlined some of the key legal issues from the audit, including the need to review the contract with Five Rivers. I had identified at that stage that there was no reference in the contract with Five Rivers to the foster care regulations, a key part of best practice in the area, and my understanding is that Tusla may have changed the contract in the intervening period. We also discussed the need to expand the emergency out-of-hours provision and the need to address the challenges of suitable placement for children with complex emotional behavioural difficulties. The members can see from that the engagement I have had was appropriate and I made every effort, in so far as it was appropriate, to consult with Tusla on this project. I acknowledge the programme of reform being undertaken by Tusla. Everybody wants Tusla to succeed but what we need to do is to have an honest conversation. This report shines a light on an area that, to date, has not received much attention.

As for children with emotional behavioural problems, I was deeply troubled by the finding that children who presented to the private provider did not receive a service because there was a suspicion that the young person had consumed alcohol or drugs. In those circumstances, arguably, I would submit that it is more important that they would receive a proper service. I read the Minister's statement this morning that there would be a review of the legislation as to whether there are legislative issues to be dealt with in the context of this issue. It is deeply concerning that children would end up in Garda stations or in hospital beds because there is not a proper service available to them, not least because this has an impact on the criminal justice system and the health system because a young person would be taking up a hospital bed or depleting Garda resources sometimes in areas where those resources are challenged.

My view on outsourcing is very clear. We should have a seamless social work service and we need a comprehensive social work service. We should be in no doubt that co-location involves investment. It involves a Government commitment and such a commitment needs to be given. If we want to have a comprehensive child protection system, it will involve a cost. If our greatest national resource is our children, surely it is worth spending that money because it will reap rewards in terms of better outcomes for children upstream rather than having to deal with problems downstream. I hope I have answered Deputy Ó Laoghaire's questions.