Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

I thank Deputy Funchion very much for her questions. The broader issue was raised by Deputy O'Sullivan on the terms of Signs of Safety. We need an honest discussion on the issue. In fairness, while I cannot comment on the individual case what we need to do is take a positive approach to child protection. All I can tell the Deputy is what the State's obligations are. Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provide that children are entitled to be protected from harm and ill treatment. It is a mandatory obligation to protect children from harm and abuse. That is the standard. That is reflected in our domestic legislation. The Constitution also provides for that. In implementing Signs of Safety, Tusla must have regard to that. It is not just a passive approach. There is a legal obligation on the State to be proactive in protecting children. That is why I think we need to look at the policy which is Signs of Safety, alongside the legal obligations that exist. Deputy Funchion has raised a really interesting question which deserves an entire discussion because if the future of child protection is going to revolve around Signs of Safety, surely that demands a national discussion around this issue? It is a very important issue.

The second issue the Deputy raised concerned repeated removals. The difference between this research and other pieces of research is that it was a very active piece of research. I travelled around the country with a small number of colleagues, Cian O'Connor, Hilary Coveney Nash and Dr. Imelda Ryan, who is a child psychiatrist. We met with individual gardaí. We are not cub researchers. We are very experienced professionals looking at this issue and what we were getting from members of An Garda Síochána is mystification as to what happened next. I share Deputy Funchion's response. It is all down to inter-agency communication and co-operation. That ties in with what Deputy Rabbitte said. I asked why the information cannot be shared. The perception of the Garda is that there is a data protection issue. I cannot see how there would be a data protection issue in having a case conference at the end of the year, going through a number of cases that occurred during the year and examining what happened next. That is why I passionately believe that the next phase, looking at section 13, is important, so we get the complete picture. As I outlined this morning, I believe that co-location will provide a very real and meaningful impetus for change. That is why this needs to happen within a specified timeline. I am talking about the big picture issue, namely, broad structural change. We need to reimagine our child protection system where all agencies work together to protect children. There is a saying that it takes a village to rear a child but it takes all agencies working together to protect a child.