Ms Mary Dunnion:

In the context of enforcement models, one would look at whether the person providing the foster care service is fit to do so. That would be a type of licensing of foster care services. It would look at the fundamental structures that the service has in place to ensure a safe foster care service. That is the baseline. In terms of enforcement powers, the least attractive is to close a service. That is not where one wants to aim. It is desirable that, where risk is identified, there is an immediate action to respond to it and there is a statutory power to ensure that that happens. There are different models which can be used. It can be stipulated that service can only be provided on conditions. That is the type of area that would be considered in that context.

It is our experience that many children have fared extremely well in services spanning child protection, foster care, residential care and detention because that is the spectrum of areas that we monitor. Any dealings we have had with Tusla have been positive. There is always a healthy tension between a regulator and the people who provide a service. That is just the nature of regulation. HIQA has had a healthy engagement with Tusla. It has responded where we have identified risk. We recognise that Tusla is on a journey, that it has not existed long and it has a number of processes in place, and Ms Boyle alluded to some of them. We identify risk and escalate it, accordingly. We have a positive working relationship with Tusla.

In the context of Garda vetting, we are talking about where employees or the first group have not been Garda vetted. We have insisted that Garda vetting is secured before people can continue. In cases of foster care, we ensure that arrangements are in place to ensure that foster carers have completed their Garda vetting. We have seen an improvement in the situation across our regulatory fields. It was an area of significant concern to us when it was not evident that it was a process.