Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

I will commence by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to articulate the findings of the audit. The measure of any democracy is the manner in which the needs of the most vulnerable are considered and met. What I propose to do is not to read through the opening statement which members have before them but to outline in summary form the issues I have addressed so as to provide sufficient time for me to answer questions on what is in the audit report.

It is my view that when a child is taken into the care of the State, the State is saying it can do a better job than the parents, and if the State fails the child a second time, that can have devastating consequences for the child involved. What the audit provides is a unique window into what happens when parents fail children, when the State fails children and children are allowed to drift rudderless. Child abuse can often be invisible to families and their communities. What the audit does is to shine a light on unpalatable truths for society about how life is lived by some of its members. The audit also indicates that the prevalence of domestic abuse - it may not necessarily be physical violence - it is sad to say, has not abated.

The audit was commissioned by the Garda Commissioner in the aftermath of two cases which were the subject of much discussion in the public domain involving the removal of children in Athlone and in Tallaght. I received commendable levels of co-operation from members of An Garda Síochána in the conduct of the audit. The audit is unique in its comprehensiveness as a systemic review because it is the first audit on a worldwide basis to look at the exercise of emergency child protection powers by a police force.

It provides us with very valuable insights.

In terms of the international approach, I have spent virtually every weekend over two years looking at this at a practical and theoretical level. I had the audit peer reviewed, which is something I normally would not do. Given the significance of the audit, I wanted to make sure it was internationally validated. To give the committee a sense of what people have said internationally, I will cite Professor Laura Hoyano from Oxford who said it breaks new ground in empirical techniques in the field. I have gone through the complete document. She talks about the audit employing very sound empirical methodology and says it was carried out with admirable thoroughness, is very well written and the findings are all borne out by the data reported. The other reviewer talks about it being an outstanding piece of work and an extremely well written and careful report. In terms of the report standing up internationally, I am told it is the largest worldwide audit on the exercise by a police force of its emergency child protection powers. In that case, the findings are more important and more significant.

The overwhelming finding was that gardaí commit great efforts to treating children sensitively and compassionately when they exercise their section 12 powers. The audit demonstrated numerous instances of Garda members staying long beyond their rostered hours to organise the care of a child removed under section 12. One of the principle objectives of the audit was to examine the proportionality, appropriateness and legality of section 12 removals. The audit found that members of An Garda Síochána exercise their powers following a period of careful consideration of the circumstances and available evidence. The most frequent circumstance encountered by members of An Garda Síochána requiring section 12 removals is some form of failure by a parent. Gardaí demonstrated a significant degree of critical sophistication when exercising their section 12 powers. In all of the cases examined, the audit found appropriately restrained use of section 12 powers.

The audit found no evidence that racial profiling influences the exercise of section 12 powers. That said, this finding must be tempered by the finding that certain ethnocultural demographic information does not appear to be routinely documented on the PULSE system. I found the PULSE system not to be reliable in terms of the data that was documented. I outlined the methodology for the audit because I tried to examine the PULSE data relative to an independent method of collecting data, which was conducting a survey. The methodology for the audit involved first a forensic examination of the PULSE data. With the focus on 2014 and 2015, the years in which the Roma and Athlone cases occurred, I looked at over 500,000 fields of PULSE data with a number of colleagues, one of whom, Cian O'Connor, is present in the Gallery. That shows the extent of the scale of the audit. Having then drafted and circulated a questionnaire to members of An Garda Síochána who exercised their powers in 2014, it was possible to compare the results from the questionnaire against the data gathered on PULSE. That was very instructive in shining a light on inadequacies in the PULSE system. It is commendable that I got a full response rate from members of An Garda Síochána for the 2014-2015 period, which makes any finding even stronger. I then randomly selected cases from September 2015 to get a contemporary understanding of how the section 12 power was being exercised. We then interviewed a large number of gardaí throughout the country. It was an opportunity to look at the environment faced by children when subject to section 12 powers, while very strongly of the view that no child should have to spend a lengthy period of time in a hospital or Garda station, because we associate Garda stations with criminality. Finally I undertook some focus groups with senior and junior members of An Garda Síochána. The committee can see the multiple methods employed: examining 5,000 fields of PULSE data, full questionnaires from 2014-2015, followed by a random audit of September 2015, followed by interviewing the gardaí to get an understanding of why they exercise their powers, and then focus groups to further drill down into that information. That is the methodology.

One key finding is there is no routine gathering of ethnic data. In the aftermath of the audit, I had correspondence from Pavee Point expressing strong support for the recommendation in the audit on the need to have an ethnic identifier in order that we know definitively what the position is relating to children subject to section 12 powers. I reiterate there was no evidence of racial profiling from my extensive review. In the future, what we need to do is definitively have an ethnic identifier.

One of the biggest challenges facing Irish society is the adverse consequences for the welfare of many children posed by alcohol abuse. This is something I addressed before the committee on the last occasion. Drug and alcohol abuse by parents has a very damaging effect on their ability to consistently parent their child. Failure on the part of Irish society to comprehensively address the alcohol problem as a major threat to the proper functioning of individuals and communities leaves the child protection system dealing with insurmountable consequences. Anyone who reads chapter three of this report will be struck by how prevalent a feature is alcohol abuse. It is a call to action on the part of the Government. There has been a certain degree of delay in legislating in this area. I wonder if that is influenced by vested interests in the area. When one looks at this report it is very clear it is a call to action to deal with this issue.

I have been watching some media over the last number of days. We talk about it in an adult context but it has absolutely devastating consequences for children. We, as a society, need to address the issue robustly. Allied to that is that the audit shines a light on a truth with which Irish society is somewhat uncomfortable, which is that some parents for various reasons fail their children. It is then the responsibility of members of An Garda Síochána to protect those children. That is why I strongly argue that the section 12 power is an essential tool in the broader child protection infrastructure. The audit found inadequacies in the operation of the Garda PULSE system. The Garda PULSE system was not in a position to provide a clear and accurate picture of the use of section 12 powers by members of An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána has confirmed that systemic reform of PULSE is under way and this process of reform is clearly to be welcomed. It is important that when An Garda Síochána exercises what is an exceptional power without warrant and without court oversight that the process is accurately documented on the system. The audit suggests a template for how the PULSE system should be redrawn, ensuring these data are entered accurately. The audit found little evidence of discrete training on child protection. We found a deep-seated culture of privileging on-the-job training and learning over and possibly to the detriment of formal training. As Irish society changes, it is of enormous importance that our gardaí are fully trained on the changing nature of Irish society.

This is not confined to issues relating to children but applies generally, so that we understand the changing nature of Irish society and that policing reacts to that changing nature.

It is also essential that agencies operating under the umbrella of child protection services can share information relating to vulnerable children and their families. We found in seeking the data that confidentiality is sometimes used as an argument for not sharing information. That can be a bogus barrier. The audit found poor inter-agency communication and co-operation. It found inter-agency co-operation overwhelmingly inadequate. It is essential that children do not slip through the net and get lost; it is essential to pull them back from the brink. There must be much greater co-operation between agencies. This requires fundamental reform not just of the policing system, but also of the child protection system. I will turn to that in the recommendations. The key recommendation relates to co-location. We must start co-locating agencies so they can co-operate with each other rather than inhabit silos. This report demonstrates poor inter-agency co-operation, and this is common to other reports. That co-operation exists, if at all, within the higher echelons of the individual organisations and bears little reality at the coalface.

The other issue that emerged was mental health. Next to alcohol abuse, mental health issues feature prominently. The system fails many children experiencing psychological or mental health difficulties. The failure to recognise mental health issues at an early stage can have a profound impact on the family. Warning signs must be treated with sufficient seriousness and referrals must be timely and appropriate. If there is no seamless co-operation between agencies, a child's diagnosis gets delayed and that can have profound consequences for the child. The critical theme that emerged repeatedly throughout the audit is that notification is not communication. The fact that one fills out a form and passes it on does not mean that one has satisfied the duty to co-operate. It must be far more robust. We examined a number of models. I visited a state-of-the-art centre in the Bronx which has introduced a cutting edge method of dealing with this. I also looked at the English model in Oxfordshire and the multi-agency safeguarding hub, MASH, in Manchester. There is also the role model in Belfast, a number of miles up the road. We can embrace a number of models of co-location. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone, has issued an implementation plan for the report and I understand she intends to visit some of these centres. The key reform this report points to is co-location. That involves fundamentally changing our system.

Another issue to emerge is the lack of out-of-hours service provision. It was the subject of considerable criticism. Child protection is a 24-7 function, not a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. function. The audit pointed out that many children suffered because a service was not available. Children had to be criminalised or pathologised to avail of the necessary welfare and support services. I acknowledge the fact that a new out-of-hours service has been established since 2015 but my view is that it continues to be systemically inadequate. We need a service available throughout the country that is accessible to every child. The response to the audit has been that the service is available where the demand exists, but that has the potential to create geographical injustice. A child living in a less populated area is entitled to the same service as a child living in a more populated area. If we are committed to the principle of equality and treating all our children equally, one is entitled to get the same service regardless of where one lives, who one is or the social stratum one comes from.

The audit found very positive evidence on the operation of the specialist child protection units in An Garda Síochána. That supports my thesis on inter-agency co-operation and co-location. When one locates agencies together, one builds up trust. That is what we must seek for the future. Nothing predicts like the past. Those who are not aware of history are bound to repeat it. One of the key messages to emanate from the almost 100 reports published over the past 20 years is the lack of inter-agency co-operation. I am hoping this will be the last report in which this issue will have to be highlighted. What is required now is fundamental reform. When a child is the victim of abuse or neglect, it is incumbent on State agencies or statutory services to provide a timely and proportionate response. We see that the system fails children with emotional or behavioural problems. Those children are perhaps most in need and that is why we must prioritise them. Intervention, when it arrives, must not be too late to vindicate the right of the child to have his or her welfare secured.

Many challenges remain to be resolved before we can say we live in a society where our children's rights are fully vindicated. It is always a work in progress but it demands new perspectives, such as what I have outlined on co-location, renewed efforts and real energy. A system designed to protect children must do that. The system must be accountable, consistent and always strive to minimise the risk to the welfare of the child. The right service at the right time is crucial. We must get it right for every family and child. I always conclude by saying that the manner in which society treats its vulnerable citizens reflects not only its qualities, but also its sense of social justice, its commitment to the future and its ambition to enhance the human condition for the next generation.