Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of the meeting is to meet the Garda Inspectorate to discuss a number of issues, including progress in the review of Garda oversight and accountability since the joint committee's report and recommendations in December 2016, the inspectorate's recent report on responding to child sexual abuse and the views of the inspectorate on the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill 2017, of which the committee will conduct further detailed scrutiny next week. It is a Private Members' Bill sponsored by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan.

From the Garda Inspectorate I welcome Mr. Mark Toland, chief inspector; Ms Pauline Shields, deputy chief inspector; and Mr. Hugh Hume, deputy chief inspector, to all of whom I offer a sincere apology for the unfortunate circumstances in which we had to let them go on a previous occasion, about which we are very sorry. The business in hand became quite detailed and, unfortunately, we were unable to facilitate them in appearing before us on that occasion. We thank them for their patience and appearing before the committee today.

Members should be aware that, under the salient rulings of the Chair, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Mr. Toland to make his opening statement.

Mr. Mark Toland:

We thank the joint committee for inviting members of the Garda Inspectorate to attend the meeting. We fully understand why we were unable to appear before it on the last occasion. I am the chief inspector and accompanied by my two deputy chief inspectors, Ms Pauline Shields and Mr. Hugh Hume.

The Garda Inspectorate is a statutory body that is independent in its operation and functions. Our main goal is to try to ensure An Garda Síochána uses its resources efficiently and effectively. Representatives of the inspectorate last appeared before the committee in October 2016. We welcome the recommendation made in the committee's subsequent report that the inspectorate be provided with a statutory power to conduct unannounced visits. The inspectorate notes that the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill 2017 contains such a provision. However, we believe the requirement to obtain the approval of the Minister to exercise this power should not be included. Following a request from the Policing Authority, the inspectorate is conducting an inspection of the delivery of police services to local communities. We are also in the final stages of completing an advice paper for the Minister that is looking at opening up entry routes into An Garda Síochána.

"Responding to Child Sexual Abuse" is a follow-up review to a previous report published in 2012. For the first time, we forensically re-examined a previously inspected area to assess progress in implementing our recommendations. The review also examined joint working arrangements between An Garda Síochána and Tusla under Children First. Since the 2012 report, there has been a considerable increase in the risks posed to children by the Internet and social media and the volume of online child abuse material is growing exponentially. This area was also examined in the review.

Child sexual abuse is one of the most serious types of crime with which gardaí will ever deal. The review found that 66% of all recorded sexual offences in Ireland involved a child victim. As part of the inspection, the inspectorate critically examined 211 child abuse cases to assess the quality of Garda investigations.

This analysis identified that the age profile of victims in these cases ranged from as young as three years of age and that only 5% of suspects were described as strangers. Since the publication of the original report in 2012, only 45% of the recommendations can be considered fully implemented. Processes in place between An Garda Síochána and Tusla for managing child protection cases are inefficient. Despite some progress in joint agency working, many barriers still remain. Joint agency meetings to discuss serious cases do not always take place and decisions are often made separately. We found that other jurisdictions have more structured and dynamic processes for making decisions in these types of cases. While the 2012 report recommended multi-agency specialist child centres to provide medical examination, victim interviewing and therapeutic services, there are no such centres in place.

There are still delays in recording crimes on PULSE. Some Garda investigations were conducted expeditiously and to a high standard while many others drifted with significant delays in taking victim statements, arresting or interviewing suspects and sending cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Inexperienced gardaí are still investigating child sexual abuse. This is not good practice. Joint interviewing of a child victim by gardaí and social workers is not in place. Victim support organisations, however, reported that the relationship between victims and An Garda Síochána has improved.

Not all convicted sex offenders who should be monitored by the multi-agency SORAM process are subject to those arrangements. This review examined 2,000 referrals of child sexual abuse material sent to An Garda Síochána. We requested an update on these cases. Despite repeated requests, 12 Garda divisions did not provide updates for some of the cases. We found significant delays at all stages in processing these cases. There was an insufficient online Garda presence at the time of the review. Other jurisdictions have a stronger online presence to target those grooming children and those accessing child abuse material. There are still very long delays in the forensic examination of computers and other devices. This is an organisational risk. Technology that provides real-time intelligence on those accessing child abuse material was available to An Garda Síochána but was not activated at the time of completing this review. The inspectorate was recently informed that it is now in use and that additional online Garda resources are in place. Like other jurisdictions, prosecution and conviction rates for child sexual abuse cases are low and long delays in conducting investigations do not help.

The inspectorate welcomes the creation of a Garda national protective services bureau and the roll-out of divisionally based protective services units that will have specially trained staff. These units have the potential to professionalise the investigation of child sexual abuse and provide better victim care. To address the findings on joint agency working, the inspectorate believes that all relevant Departments and agencies need to work together to reduce the risk of child sexual abuse and exploitation and make the physical and virtual worlds safer places for children. An important part of the review was the engagement with two adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Their testimonies gave an insight into the difficulties victims sometimes endure once they have reported abuse. The inspectorate is very grateful for their contributions, and the changes recommended in this report are designed to improve services for all victims.

There are 24 new recommendations in this report. They include developing a national strategy for child sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation and online risks to child safety; that An Garda Síochána and Tusla develop a more dynamic and structured approach to managing child protection cases; developing multi-agency specialist child centres and ensuring joint interviewing of a child; urgently addressing the backlog in forensic examination of computers and other devices; adequately resourcing and completing the roll-out of all divisional protective services units by the end of 2018; and ensuring that sufficient Garda resources are in place to provide a strong online Garda presence.

In November 2017, the inspectorate made a submission to the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. This is available on our website. We firmly believe that there is a place in the oversight architecture for an independent inspectorate that is focused on conducting inspections, audits and examinations to ensure that Garda reform is progressed and at pace. As a new team and having examined most aspects of policing, the inspectorate is in the process of developing a strategy and action plan for future work. We are proposing to approach this on a risk basis so that we inspect areas of most relevance and impact having regard to any human rights issues that may arise. In this context, the power to initiate our own work, which was included in the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Act of 2015 following a recommendation by this committee, will be most useful. While our work to date has mainly been large-scale thematic inspections, future work could include post-implementation reviews, compliance audits and cyclical inspections. The inspectorate has declared an interest to the Department of Justice and Equality in participating in the inspection process that will be required following the ratification of the operational protocol to the Convention against Torture. This would involve conducting visits to places of detention maintained by gardaí.

The objective of the inspectorate has always been to help make An Garda Síochána a better service - better for the public, for victims of crime, for all the people working in the organisation itself and for the criminal justice system in Ireland. It has always been the inspectorate's view that implementation of our recommendations is the way forward to reforming An Garda Síochána but we are disappointed with the pace of change. I thank the members for listening. My team and I are happy to take any questions they may wish to ask us.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Toland for his submission. Deputies have indicated earlier the order in which they intend to ask questions.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Toland and the rest of the witnesses for coming before us this morning. I want to talk briefly about the inspectorate's review of child sexual abuse. Obviously, it is a matter of extreme concern not just to this committee but to all of the Oireachtas and all of the public. Two statistics are particularly worrying. The report found that 66% of all recorded sexual offences in Ireland involve a child victim, which is particularly worrying. The report contained a statistical finding that does not surprise me but is something of which we should be aware, namely, that only 5% of suspects were described as strangers. This reveals that in the vast majority of cases, abusers of children are people who occupy positions of trust. One of the findings in the report is that not all convicted sex offenders who should be monitored by the multi-agency SORAM process are subject to those arrangements. Will Mr. Toland tell us whether anything been done about that because that would be an issue of considerable concern to him and this committee?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We were also shocked by the statistic that two thirds of all victims are children. It is a crime that is under-reported. We also found that significant numbers of reports are made much later. In many cases, they are made a year or sometimes many decades later. This affects the Garda when it is trying to investigate it because it will have lost corroborating evidence and forensic evidence. The Deputy is right to acknowledge that the majority of people who abuse children in reported crimes are either within the family or people known to them such as neighbours or people in authority.

We looked at sex offender management. A good multi-agency process is in place. It has been a pilot for a long time and has not been officially launched. Agencies are coming together and dealing with some of the most difficult people to manage. There are some processes in the courts that we think need to be addressed. One of those is a pre-sanction report. Once a person is convicted and before sentencing, we think it should be mandatory for every adult to be subject to a pre-sanction report so that the Probation Service can present to the court its suggestions for the best way to monitor that offender in the future. Some of these people are very high-risk. We found that out of about 250 people who would go before the court, only about 160 would end up with a post-release supervision order.

If they do not have an order in Ireland, they will not be monitored by the SORAM process, and that is a gap that we think needs to be addressed.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there many sex offenders in the community today who are not being monitored?

Mr. Mark Toland:

If they are convicted of a sexual offence, they are all subject to notification requirements, so every single sex offender convicted in court is subject to some kind of monitoring. Only 15% of people on that register are subject to the multi-agency SORAM approach. Some of those sex offenders will be very low-risk. They are risk assessed to see whether they will reoffend. They are all subject to some level of monitoring. Even those who are considered to be low-risk will be subject to one of the agencies, usually the Garda Síochána, which will visit that individual to continue to monitor them for the entirety of the period in which they are subject to notification requirements. Everyone is still monitored, but only a small percentage are monitored by the multi-agency group.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland mentioned that one of the findings was that there was an insufficient online Garda presence at the time of the review. Obviously, it is very important to have an online Garda presence to identify crime taking place on the Internet. Has there been any improvement in this? What level of further resources would Mr. Toland like to see from the Garda online?

Mr. Mark Toland:

I must be careful not to disclose Garda tactics.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, of course.

Mr. Mark Toland:

What I would say is that when we conducted the visit, there were an insufficient number of Garda members assigned to those duties. We met a senior member of the national unit in November 2017 who informed us that a significant number of additional gardaí had been appointed into that national unit and had been deployed to things such as victim identification, which is looking at an image that the Garda receives to see if it can identify a child in Ireland that might be at risk. The Garda now have more members who are proactively on the Internet trying to deal with those who are seeking to groom children and those who are seeking to share indecent images with other abusers.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis na bhfinnéithe as bheith anseo. I apologise but I will have to depart in three or four minutes to take part in an interview so I will have to be very brief. If it is any consolation, as it happens, one of my priority questions for later concerns the updating of Garda IT systems with the specific aim of tackling child abuse online, so I will raise some of the issues in Mr. Toland's statement with the Minister.

I will ask just three questions. I would appreciate it if Mr. Toland could address them together insofar as possible and I will try to look back on the transcript for any of the other contributions. It is about 12 months, I think, since the publication of the section 12 audit carried out by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon. That report was very much of the view that individual gardaí were doing all they could and were very committed and professional but that there were systemic failings that related not just to An Garda Síochána but to Tusla as well. Will Mr. Toland give his view of the progress in this area, generally speaking? One of the recommendations in the report was the need for co-location in terms of multi-agency work. Will Mr. Toland comment on that? In addition, is he satisfied with the functioning of the protection services bureaux to date?

Mr. Mark Toland:

I will deal with the last question first. The Garda Síochána underwent a sea change in 2016 in respect of specialisation, which we welcome. The Garda had taken the view that any Garda member had the skills to investigate the rape of a child, which is not a view we hold and is not good practice in any other police service. We are delighted the Garda is introducing a protective services unit in every Garda division. There are four in operation. They will be properly trained, form a specialist unit and be a single point of contact for other agencies, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and Tusla. We welcome this. We are a little worried they will not be rolled out quickly enough because there will still be occasions on which inexperienced Garda members are dealing with child sexual abuse investigations, which is not something we would like to see. We also found a gap in local interaction between senior Garda managers and senior Tusla mangers. That gap has now been plugged, and the Garda has now introduced a formal process locally in every area across Ireland, where senior managers will come together. We think this is a good thing.

Co-location, in some aspects of this, is very positive but it still should not be a barrier to better inter-agency working. Some progress has been made between the agencies but they still have a very inefficient process for making notifications. The Garda Síochána's notification system is paper-based. We want to see an electronic version, which would speed things up. We also found that the two agencies tend to make decisions separately. We would like to see more of a coming together with the professionals to make decisions about child protection cases so the case proceeds much more quickly. In other jurisdictions - I know the Garda Síochána and Tusla have visited the UK - there are some good models that could be adapted to work very well in Ireland. We are not prescriptive about the model, just the way in which the Garda would operate and deal with the most serious cases. It should deal with them much more quickly than it does.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. It must be incredibly frustrating that so long after the inspectorate's original report, only 45% of the recommendations have been fully implemented. This kind of carries on from the inspectorate's previous very insightful reports on overall policing needs and targets. A minority of what it is recommending is being implemented. Does the inspectorate have the facility to raise this general issue and these concerns with the Minister or the Department? Frankly, it is just not good enough. My feeling is that the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland is just replicating the job of work that the inspectorate did a number of years ago. It is completely unnecessary, but here we have it again: work the inspectorate did not being implemented. Is there a forum for the inspectorate to raise this? Has anyone come back and apologised and said they were improving, or are we in a cycle on this?

Mr. Mark Toland:

If I may give a little context, to be fair to the Garda Síochána, some of the recommendations in the original report were not its sole remit. They included other organisations. This is why we have included a recommendation in this report for a whole-of-government approach that needs to bring the key agencies together. The one that sticks out for me that was not implemented is child centres, specialist centres of excellence, where a child victim can be taken immediately to have medical services, to be interviewed and to have the therapeutic needs of the child dealt with. That needs more than the Garda Síochána to come together. We were disappointed to see some of the recommendations that were within the gift of the Garda either took a long time to implement or have not been implemented.

What I would say about the conclusion of this report is that for the first time the Minister has brought together an implementation group. That is different language. It has an independent chair bringing together those agencies to try to drive not only the recommendations from 2012, but also the new recommendations in this report. The Policing Authority has filled a gap in ensuring that our recommendations are implemented, and we were delighted that it received a previous report, Changing Policing in Ireland. There are some matters in this report that could go to the Policing Authority - that decision has not yet been made - but a different language is being spoken at present. A lot of work is going on to try to address some of these recommendations. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has been looking at children's centres. There is a lot of activity to try to address these recommendations, but we do not want to go back in two or three years and find that change has not happened.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Garda national protective services bureau has been set up and localised and so on. Is that purely for investigative purposes? What is the difference between that and the multi-agency specialist child centres? Should there not be an overlap there, or would the bureau not be envisaged to be in a Garda station setting? I know it certainly should not look like a Garda station, but what is the crossover between those two bodies? Should they not be developed-----

Mr. Mark Toland:

The Garda national protective services bureau is the Garda Síochána's national unit that covers such matters as child sexual abuse, domestic abuse and other vulnerable victim crimes. They are the national unit and they devise policies and directives. What was missing was something locally, at a Garda divisional level, a smaller version of a national unit that investigates the crimes. Each of the 28 Garda divisions should have an investigation unit, which will be called a protective services unit, and they will be working, it is to be hoped, consistently across Ireland to investigate child sexual abuse.

The child centres are a separate entity. In the case of a child who is a victim of child sexual abuse, the centre is normally sited within hospital grounds.

It is a separate building, a purpose-built facility. It takes into account the needs of a child and the family. We went to Norway and Northern Ireland to look at two centres. They are fantastic facilities. The child will go there immediately and be assessed by medical professionals to decide whether he or she needs to be medically examined. That examination will take place at the venue. The child will be interviewed and the centre will co-ordinate the interview. The centre has proper specialist interview facilities. The centre will also examine the child's emotional and therapeutic needs. It is all co-ordinated. There is usually a multi-agency set-up. It is a purpose-built centre for looking at the needs of the child. Some of the centres cater for adults as well. The Northern Ireland model takes adults as well as children.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Garda would be based there as well. The Garda would conduct the interviews and be based there as well. Is that correct?

Mr. Mark Toland:

It is not a prerequisite. We went to Norway, where some of the investigators are based at the centre, but we also went to Northern Ireland, where there are not. It is not a deal-breaker. The idea is to have specialist gardaí who would come in and, jointly with a social worker, conduct the interview in that location. I do not think co-locating gardaí there is a deal-breaker. It is an option. I do not believe it makes a great deal of difference whether we assign gardaí there full-time or simply to carry out the interview. Anyway, the facilities are excellent. We were disappointed that no pilot is in place and no trial centre is in place.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is regrettable since Mr. Toland recommended it so long ago and things have moved on so much. Of the 28 divisions, a total of four are operating with the national protective services bureau. Is that correct?

Mr. Mark Toland:

There are three divisions and four units. One of the Dublin divisions has two units. We have given them a tough, but what we believe to be manageable, objective, which is to try to roll out the units this year. The intention was-----

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that apply in all 28 divisions?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Yes, we have no wish to see this go on year after year. That would mean inexperienced gardaí would still be investigating child sexual abuse. That is not a good position to be in.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Toland confident the target is deliverable? Is the Garda on target?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We are waiting. The implementation group is due to meet in the coming weeks. It will be for that group to decide whether it can force through the target. That is what we have set. We know it is challenging but we believe it is crucial. We do not believe a child victim should have to go a Garda division later this year where there is no specialist unit.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What dialogue has the Garda Inspectorate had in pursuing the implementation of the report? At what level does the Garda Inspectorate engage? How regular is that contact? I am somewhat shocked but only in the sense that nothing has changed by this. It seems 12 divisions out of 28 did not even bother to reply to the inspectorate. That is scandalous but it would indicate that perhaps nothing has been learned from the past years. Is that still the case? Do they all come on board eventually?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We have been told by the national unit that eventually those 12 divisions gave their responses. We waited five months, a period we believe was far more reasonable than would have been expected. Non-compliance is an issue for the Garda Commissioner. The most important thing is that the 105 cases need to be investigated properly and progressed. We met the acting Garda Commissioner and his top team recently to talk about all our work, including our work on child sexual abuse. We have regular meetings now with the Policing Authority. The authority asked us to give an opinion on whether recommendations have been implemented to our satisfaction. We believe that is a good process and we are fully involved in it.

We do not know how the implementation group will interact with us on this child abuse report but we are keen to offer our services and opinion on whether something has been implemented. This is the first time that we have gone back and forensically looked at a block of work. We believe it gives a good flavour of the position of An Garda Síochána and Tusla. We believe this is a good approach that we should undertake in future.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the 24 new recommendations altogether new? Has time moved on so much that some of the original recommendations are outdated? In that context, we had a discussion last week about the growth in online behaviour and the concerns of the inspectorate about the lack of monitoring. I am unsure whether the inspectorate was involved in the digital age of consent issue. Did anyone ask for the opinion of the inspectorate? I am curious about that.

Mr. Mark Toland:

We were not asked about the digital age of consent. We do not comment on Government policy but we were not asked. European countries are looking at different ages.

The 24 recommendations are brand new. We have restated some that were not implemented. We did an assessment of the previous recommendations because time had moved on. We still believe they are valid recommendations but we can see that they could be changed somewhat in order that they are fully up to date. We have accepted that while the recommendation from 2012 on the question of child centres was good, it could be adapted to have a slightly different centre but with the same principles.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two final questions. It is probably an unfair question – if it is Mr. Toland should say so – but it comes from my experience. Perhaps it is not about apportioning blame. It relates to liaison between the Garda and Tusla. From what Mr. Toland has said, it continues to be problematic. I do not mean to overstate that. I understand that at the top level those involved are beginning to come together. It is precisely as a result of the Geoffrey Shannon report that the disconnect still seems to be there. How long has it been since those reports were published? That was a key body of work. How is that going to be unlocked? Is it a matter of political will? Is it at the top of those organisations? Is it a lack of prioritisation of this issue? It is simply people working in their own way? What is at the root of that? I really do not get it. It seems to be behind many of the issues. There seems to be a mismatch of communication and decision-making.

Mr. Mark Toland:

There are a number of barriers and we have articulated them in the report. We believe it would make them more efficient. One is simply the governance structure from the top, where the two organisations come together. They have good policies. The Children First guidance is an excellent document. It is a question of making those policies live on the front line and in front-line services. We believe there was a gap between the governance of the two at a national level and in the delivery of local services. They have, to a certain extent, plugged that gap with the introduction of a new formal structured meeting process that will bring together local senior managers to ensure that Children First guidelines are delivered on the front line. Numerous committees are in operation. We simply comment on ensuring that the national committees ensure that policy is delivered on the front line.

Tusla is still a relatively new organisation. It came into existence in 2014. The structure of Tusla is different to An Garda Síochána. Tusla has 17 areas while the Garda has 28 divisions. It ends up with managers having to deal with more than one Garda division. Those systems do not help. There is little co-location of staff. The joint interviewing was disappointing. They need to train more social workers to participate in those interviews. We made several recommendations that we believe would help those two organisations to work more effectively and to be more dynamic. Certainly an electronic system of passing information between those two agencies would really help.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is somewhat surprising. My instinct is that Tusla is probably a greater part of the problem, although it may sound ironic for us to say that.

Two others issues arise that are not linked to child protection. One relates to the report being prepared by the inspectorate on entry routes into An Garda Síochána. Is that at all levels? Does it apply to promotional grades external to Ireland? Is it linked to civilianisation? It is to overcome the process of having to join and go up? In that scenario a person cannot come from another police force?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We are doing a paper to the Minister. We hope to hand it over shortly. We are looking at how to open up entry routes into An Garda Síochána. We have a view on civilianisation and we have expressed that in previous reports. First, the Garda needs to decide whether the post needs Garda powers or whether it could be performed by professionals who need not be trained as police officers. That is the starting point. This is very much looking at how to bring in people at garda level right up to Commissioner level. We hope to give that to the Minister shortly. Many people are very interested in that report. We hope to get it done in the coming weeks.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been trying to follow developments with the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, OPCAT, in recent times.

Mr. Mark Toland:

Similar organisations in the UK provide this facility and are involved in this process. We think we have the skills and expertise to visit Garda stations and look at places where people are detained, and ensure their rights are being communicated appropriately. It would be a multi-agency task. There is a new inspector of prisons who is coming to meet us shortly. We think there is a place for us in the inspections process which is why our independence is so important. We think we have the skills and expertise. We go into custody facilities at the moment. The only thing we do not do is talk to people who are currently detained in Garda stations to ensure they have been dealt with appropriately and that their rights have been properly communicated and adhered to. We already look at lots of aspects of detention and how suspects are dealt with when they are brought into a Garda station. We have a role in that.

Ms Pauline Shields:

The OPCAT does not necessarily require a single organisation inspecting all places of detention. As the Deputy pointed out, they include healthcare settings as well as places of detention operated by police or prison services. A model that appears to work quite well is the one involving an overarching co-ordinating body for the national preventive mechanism and then a number of other organisations which inspect within their areas of expertise. Coming at it from that perspective, the inspectorate has the independence, knowledge and experience to examine places of detention where gardaí detain individuals. That would then feed into a co-ordinating body which would, in turn, report through official channels on the operation of the protocol in Ireland.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Office of the Inspector of Prisons potentially has its eye on that job as well. As for additional resources, anyone would need them for that work.

Ms Pauline Shields:

We would not underestimate the level of work given the number of custody facilities within the Garda estate. Resources will be needed to carry out a baseline assessment but an ongoing programme of inspection might require a lower level of resources over time once the initial baseline is there. It is something that could be done jointly or in collaboration with the prison service or as a report to the prison service as the co-ordinating body.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a good point. There is a gap anyway with or without OPCAT, which should have been signed ages ago. The inspection of Garda stations is necessary and it should not be contingent on that. I thank the witnesses.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. It has been informative. We have been monitoring the inspectorate's work for a number of years and have always been impressed by what it does. We are also probably as frustrated as the witnesses.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not often said by the Deputy that he is impressed. The witnesses should take that and pocket it.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the Chairman does not find me overly critical but part of our job is to hold people to account.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We try to do that as well as we can.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the Deputy does.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The lack of implementation in many areas must be frustrating for the inspectorate. A number of questions arise from the witnesses' contributions. The 2012 report recommended multi-agency specialist child centres to provide medical examinations, victim interviewing and therapeutic services. However, no such centres are in place. The witnesses pointed out that there are very good models which we could replicate if we cared to look at them. It is six years since 2012. Given the level of public concern in this area, what in God's name is wrong that after six years no centres have been provided? Why is that?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Some of it is relates to funding. Capital funding is necessary and locations must be identified. It involves more than just An Garda Síochána but includes the HSE, Tusla and other organisations which need to come together to agree where the centres will be provided. We envisaged and recommended in 2012 that two pilot projects be commenced and we were disappointed that not even one pilot scheme has been done. We are frustrated but there is a great deal of activity to get those centres up and running quickly. Existing facilities could be used in the interim to at least bring services together so that a child needs to attend only one location. It is not right that a child or adult victim of sexual assault must travel to different locations for different services. Parents and guardians from other jurisdictions are happy to travel longer distances to a specialist centre where they know they will get a really good service. It is not the case that they need to be located all over Ireland. The minute a child comes forward with his or her family to report child sexual abuse, there should be a dedicated centre to which the child can be brought rather than having to ring around to find a hospital or paediatrician that can see him or her. Sometimes children have to travel all over the country. It is an unsatisfactory outcome but there is a commitment to get the centres up and running pretty quickly.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the inspectorate communicate directly with the Department of Justice and Equality in this area?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We have met the Department a significant number of times to talk about the findings and the final report. We have met the Minister twice to talk about this. The Department's decision to establish an implementation group is a significant step for us. Under an independent chair, that will bring all of the relevant organisations and Departments, of which there are a significant number, together. For example, the online threat brings in the Departments of Education and Skills and Communications, Climate Action and Environment. A national approach is important. A national strategy is required to deal with the threats to child safety.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was stated that an electronic system was essential in this area. I am sure the inspectorate is well aware of the many failings of the PULSE system. We have been highlighting the huge sums the Garda spends on IT in return for a very poor service. The Garda does not even follow procurement guidelines. It has been a horror. Has the inspectorate an input into how this should be done in future? If the system set up in this context is a mere add-on to the current arrangements with the likes of Accenture, we are looking for trouble. Has the inspectorate an input in this area?

Mr. Mark Toland:

PULSE is not the issue in the context of the electronic transfer. The issue is transferring it through an encrypted service to Tusla. Part of the problem is that Tusla has five or six different IT systems, not a national IT system. PULSE now includes a facility to allow for the electronic transfer but the movement from An Garda Síochána to Tusla is the difficulty.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland made the point that Tusla had 17 areas while the Garda had 28, making it problematic. Has he any recommendation as to how that should be addressed or will it be resolved over time?

Mr. Mark Toland:

It is not unresolvable but it is one of the issues senior managers in both organisations raised as a barrier to more efficient working. We have commented in our report on other jurisdictions and how they get around it. In Northern Ireland, the protective services of the police have reorganised themselves to fit into health authority areas. That is one way of dealing with it. In the UK, there are centres where one will have social workers, police officers and health professionals all in the same building. This is a multi-agency hub at which conferences can be held. We watched one and it looked very professional. They come together immediately. The three organisations in the UK share information about a child and make decisions. That is a good model which could be replicated in Ireland. One could have a model which deals with rural parts as well as the cities. We give options for a better system than is currently in place.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the 2,000 referrals of child abuse material sent to the Garda Síochána, the inspectorate requested an update on these cases but, despite repeated requests, 12 divisions did not submit this. Has the inspectorate the authority to name these 12 divisions?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We named them in the full report. It is not in the executive summary which the committee received. We do not particularly like naming and shaming. However, we felt it was so significant in this case that we did.

The issue of compliance is one for the Garda Commissioner. Again, as I said earlier, the most important point is that those 105 cases are investigated and progressed because there could be images of a child who needs to be rescued today. The image points the Garda to an address. It needs to go to that address to see if that child potentially is at it and needs rescuing. It is an important piece of work.

In the future, all of these cases will go to the protective services unit. At the moment, they go to a division which allocates them to a variety of different people who may have had no training in how to investigate that type of crime.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Geoffrey Shannon told the committee he found the Garda was doing its best in this regard and performing well, despite a significant lack of training and education. The lack of training and education in all of these areas must be the largest factor, apart from funding. Is there a will there to address this deficit and change that dramatically?

Mr. Mark Toland:

In my opening statement, I said it is one of the most serious crimes gardaí will ever deal with. Apart from a homicide, it is probably the most serious crime. One cannot expect an organisation to train 13,000 members to investigate that type of serious crime. We hope that it will have a protective services unit and train the members of this unit to a high level. They are starting to do the training. That is where we would like to see investigations sit in the future. It should not be for any of the other 13,000 Garda members, just those specialist officers.

Another piece that is missing is that Tusla and the Garda Síochána did joint training between social workers and Garda members when Children First was launched. That was a good piece of training. We have recommended that should be replicated.

The protective services unit will become a single point of contact for Tusla. At the moment, a Tusla senior manager has to contact several Garda superintendents across various districts. The new system will mean the Tusla senior manager will go straight to the head of the protective services unit. A much more linear communications train, rather than the current system, will be in place. That will help Tusla rather than having to work out in what area has a crime taken place and to which superintendent does a Tusla manager need to talk.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland said people are slow to report such cases but that is understandable as well. There is a need for general education around this area for the public. Many people do not know how to react if their child has been abused. It is an incredible challenge for them not to report for 12 months but not surprising. Is there any general effort to educate the public in this area?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Schools play a big part in education. Children do not always understand they have been a victim of crime or what has happened to them. Sometimes they are embarrassed. There is a real challenge around teenagers, particularly boys who do not report offences. In our report, we have looked at online child exploitation. Children do not want to tell their parents that they have shared an indecent image of themselves with an abuser on the Internet. Schools could play an enormous role around the online piece.

There are some good websites to assist parents. For example, CyberSafeIrelandis one we quote in our report. It gives advice to parents on what steps to take if they find their child is engaging with a stranger online and having inappropriate conversations. It is important that, if they have protective service units locally, they can publicise them with NGOs and support organisations. NGOs have been vocal and have noticed a change in how Garda members deal with them on this issue, particularly over the past several years, which is positive. Local support services can direct victims, particularly parents, in a very difficult decision.

The important point is that it is reported. Whether they want it to go prosecution is another issue. I would always encourage parents to come forward. If they are dealt with by specially trained Garda members and social workers, they will tell other people it was professional and they were dealt with appropriately.

We have, however, given testimonies in our report of two adult survivors who said they would never go back into the criminal justice system because of the way their cases were investigated and what happened to them. In one of the cases we cite, a relative of the complainant decided not to come forward because of their experience.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the implementation group set up in response to the inspectorate’s review? Has it started yet? Is the new independent chair in place? Has it had any meetings?

Mr. Mark Toland:

The independent chair has been appointed and the membership has been arranged. Its first meeting is scheduled for either 12 June or 14 June. It has terms of reference. It will examine the recommendations we made and how they can best take them forward.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their attendance. I have a few questions for the witnesses although most already have been asked.

In terms of joint agency meetings, Mr. Toland has said they are inefficient and incorrectly managed. Has the situation improved? He also identified serious weaknesses and mentioned that other jurisdictions have more structured and dynamic processes. Can he give examples?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Yes.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland has identified a very serious matter. A joint agency approach should be able to streamline processes quickly. When does he expect that to reach his desired standard?

Mr. Mark Toland:

When a serious crime takes place, such as child sexual abuse or the rape of a child, agencies need to come together to decide on the next steps to take, to share information and assess whether the child is in immediate need of protection. That is an occasion where the agencies need to physically come together. As the Garda member investigating the crime might be on night duty or might not be in a specialist unit, he or she is not always available to go to that meeting. Sometimes the investigating Garda member is not available and sometimes conversations take place on the phone. I think it is a commitment to the process that one physically turns up and something is lost if the people are not in the same room. People might have had a conversation over the phone but it is important that the agencies come together and for each agency to provide information that it has got on its systems about the family and the suspect.

We went to look at UK models. We went to Scotland and to the West Midlands - to Birmingham city centre - in the UK and while they operate slightly different systems, they are all co-located. A notification comes in that it is a serious case, it goes to a social worker, the social worker carries out an immediate assessment, and then the social worker arranges the meeting. We sat there and watched the meeting. The agencies are in the same location, they come together, they share their information and they make what I would call executive decisions. These are all trained personnel - a paediatrician, a highly trained police officer and a highly trained social worker. They predetermine what happens next such as whether the child will be medically examined or will be interviewed, the dates of those examinations and the interviews. This is all done before a police officer has been told that he or she has been told he or she is investigating the crime. So the police officer investigating is given the crime and already important things have been done. The process is just much quicker and more dynamic plus highly trained people make those decisions. That is a model that we really like. In Scotland, they do a similar thing but information is shared online at the start. Sharing data is a major barrier in Ireland but it did not seem to be a problem in the UK and Scotland, where they shared the data and willingly gave all of the information they had. We found reticence here about sharing data in the fear that it would be disclosed to a third party. We have recommended that this issue should be addressed.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are different processes in these areas. Are the processes haphazard, depending on the district? Have the agencies adopted agreed guidelines? Has that been established yet? Should statutory guidelines be applied whereby, if a particular allegation is made, X, Y and Z agencies, health bodies and Tusla must come together within a particular amount of time in a certain way at a designated location like what happens with some of the statutory health processes? Would my suggestion improve things or is it too rigid?

Mr. Mark Toland:

They have the national Children First guidelines.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Mark Toland:

Within that they have developed a protocol between Tusla and the Garda Síochána about what should happen next. The Deputy has hit the nail on the head. We have found inconsistencies across Ireland about how that operates. We have found that in some places there is a very good contact between Tusla and the Garda Síochána but there is an ad hocor unstructured approach in other places.

Many of the Garda members that have been given liaison roles with Tusla have other jobs. They might be a community policing sergeant who also has to liaise with Tusla. That means he or she is not always available and it is not his or her full-time job. That is why we think a dedicated specialist Garda unit in a local division that covers a county should be a single point of contact for Tusla. The establishment of such a unit will address many of our concerns. Those specialist officers will then be available to attend meetings where they will discuss serious cases.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there rolling external oversight in this regard? Obviously the inspectorate has conducted a look-back. Are there ongoing checks to see if this is happening or to assess whether the situation has improved?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Tusla has its own equivalent of us. The organisation is called the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, and it carries out examinations. We were quite keen at one point that maybe we could conduct joint inspections. That is something that we would like to consider in the future. We want to go back now and conduct more inspections and not compile big reports. We want to go back and check to make sure that our recommendations have been implemented. We think that we could work with other organisations like HIQA and examine the whole process. We have no remit to examine Tusla's case files and processes but HIQA could do so. We think, in the future, that we should have a multi-agency approach to check and ensure that things are happening on the ground floor.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be interesting. For example, in the case of the Mental Health Commission, as part of the Mental Health Act, if a process is triggered and there is a notification, there is automatic external oversight that is then reviewed on an ongoing basis.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could learn lessons from that in terms of how to incorporate the recommendations that have been made. However, we must ensure there is constant oversight and, as Mr. Toland has said, ensure that is done on a multi-agency basis.

Mr. Toland also mentioned the delays in recording crimes on PULSE. Does he believe that the PULSE system will ever be functional? PULSE has been a theme at all of our meetings.

Mr. Mark Toland:

PULSE is a database. It is a good system for recording lots of data but it does not allow one to record the investigation of a crime. The PULSE equivalent that operates in other jurisdictions allows one to record everything that has been done with a crime. Recently attempts have been made to enhance the PULSE system but we feel it should be replaced with a system that is built around case management and crime investigation.

PULSE in itself is not the problem with recording; the problem is a Garda member not putting an entry on to the PULSE system. That is the problem. Once a crime is recorded on PULSE, one can supervise and monitor it. If a Garda member makes an arbitrary decision not to record a crime on PULSE then that is a major issue. We have recommended that the Garda Síochána check its call recording systems so that if someone has rang up to say he or she has been a victim of a sexual assault then the authorities should check to make sure there is a corresponding PULSE record in place. Let us say someone walks into a Garda station and reports child sexual abuse, if that Garda member does not record it immediately then the only two people who know about the abuse are the victim who went to the station and the Garda member. That is a weakness in the system. PULSE relies on a Garda member recording a case immediately. The PULSE system also needs good supervision to make sure that that is done.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland has mentioned that Tusla has five or six different IT systems.

Mr. Mark Toland:

Yes.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is incredible that we still allow State bodies to develop different IT systems when we can see the necessity to adopt a multi-agency approach. Is there anything happening to encourage the adoption of a unified IT approach for these cases?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Tusla is trying to develop a national system but that will be a challenge as it has five separate IT systems. The situation makes data monitoring and the accuracy of data extremely difficult. At least PULSE is one system that we can go to but it is not easy to extract information from same. We mentioned in our report that we had difficulty in correlating or reconciling Garda figures with Tusla figures for notifications. We found that there was an enormous difference between both figures. We have recommended that this matter is examined in order to makes sure that things are not lost.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of the ongoing commission and the future of the policing in Ireland report, will the inspectorate remain completely separate from the Policing Authority? Will the inspectorate play an integral role within the authority? I would like to hear the views of the witnesses on these matters.

Mr. Mark Toland:

We have given the matter serious consideration. We see that we should remain independent. Every jurisdiction that surrounds Ireland has an independent inspectorate. We are very clear that we should not be doing academic pieces of work and research pieces of work because sometimes we are given such work. We think other bodies could do that work and we should carry out inspections, go back and check to make sure things happen and focus on implementation. We have had these enormous reports that we have been asked to complete. There is no need for us to go back and do a whole-of-organisation report in the immediate future. Instead, we should be going back to check whether previous recommendations have been implemented.

We recognise that we need to provide a service to the Policing Authority and we have had a number of meetings to discuss how we can operate.

Ms Shields is doing a piece of work for the Policing Authority currently and this is the first report we will do for the authority. We believe we can provide it with our expertise. The problem we would have in the future, if we became part of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, or the Policing Authority, is around the level of trust we have when we conduct inspections. When the Garda Síochána Inspectorate conducts investigations it is not responsible for investigating complaints and is not responsible for Garda members' promotion. We are seen as an organisation that can help them. People trust us and they provide us with information. When one considers the level of detail in our reports, and the accuracy of what people are telling us, I believe that people would be afraid to engage with the inspectorate in the future if it was attached to the Policing Authority or another organisation. It would damage our relationship. We say it as it is, we do not pull any punches - as members will see in our report - and the richness of our report comes through our interaction with reserves, civilians and Garda members. It would damage this relationship and make it more difficult for us to get to the root of what the problems are.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Garda Síochána Inspectorate like to have an enhanced statutory role in real-time oversight rather than retrospective oversight, for example, as with the Mental Health Commission? Does Mr. Toland see this as a possible future role for the Garda Síochána Inspectorate? Would the inspectorate like to extend its remit into public hearings?

Mr. Mark Toland:

In our submission we have said that we would like to look at really high risk areas such as human rights. Some of this might involve turning up and doing on-the-spot inspections. We would like the facility to be able to go to a Garda station unannounced to do checks, to get a reality check and a real life check. We can see the sense of doing this in the future. We would like to do more of that. We want to do what it says on the tin, namely, inspect. We are an inspectorate and we see it as our function to do that. The Garda Síochána Inspectorate needs its independence to do that. It is a small organisation and we believe we can produce work much quicker if it is more focused and bespoke. We can do more work, but some of the reports we have done recently have been on enormous topics and thematic reviews. We want to go back now and add value. We have a responsibility to help An Garda Síochána to implement recommendations. We do not want to just hand over a report and recommendations. We want to work with An Garda Síochána to try to make sure its members fully understand the recommendations and we want to help An Garda Síochána to implement them.

Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Toland for his presentation thus far. Understandably there has been a lot of discussion around the identified deficiencies in the collaboration between Tusla, An Garda Síochána and the other relevant agencies on this very serious matter.

Mr. Toland referred to the North and a particular facility in the North. Given the nature of our society and of cross-Border movement, and with regard to the victims of sexual abuse and exploitation and the perpetrators, is Mr. Toland content with, or has he looked in any great detail at, the level of co-operation and information sharing that exists between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, An Garda Síochána and the other associated bodies with responsibility in that area? With the current set up, does Mr. Toland foresee, or wish to comment on, any difficulty arising in the existing arrangement as a result of Brexit? If Mr. Toland has a view on this, has he seen any evidence that the Garda or the PSNI are planning for the future in the context of Brexit to offset any difficulties?

Mr. Mark Toland:

We went to the Rowan Centre in Northern Ireland, which is attached to a hospital. There are security issues in the North around police officers being located full-time in that centre and this is one of the reasons it does not happen. The level of interaction is very different. We found that the services appear to work very well because different organisations come together at the centre. At one point I believe that Tusla and An Garda Síochána were looking at whether they could actually use the centre for victims of crime, especially those from Donegal or northern counties. That has not been agreed but it is an option that would perhaps save some families and victims having to travel to other centres.

Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How advanced is that?

Mr. Mark Toland:

It is not advanced. We went to the centre and saw the facilities there. We then met with senior managers from Tusla and An Garda Síochána. Whether they could get access to that facility was one of the aspects they had considered. Obviously it would need to be agreed with the facility in Northern Ireland. It is a wonderful purpose built facility that provides a very good service.

With regard to Brexit we have not really been involved in that process. The Garda Síochána Inspectorate has its own view on the implications and on a hard border.

Mr. Hugh Hume:

I will address the point made by the Senator on information sharing. In my previous role, before I was lucky enough to take up this one, I oversaw the unit that was responsible for exchanging information with An Garda Síochána and the PSNI on suspects of sexual crime I can reassure members that the information sharing was dynamic, very operational and practical based. It was unencumbered by any concerns other than those of potential offending. It was an excellent relationship covering everything from preventing the movement of people for sex tourism right through to those people who pose a risk to society. It was a first-class operation.

On Brexit, I am aware that there is significant planning going on within policing to try to ameliorate any risks that arise around it. I would not be up to date on where these are at this stage, unfortunately.

Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the witnesses could clarify the Garda Síochána Inspectorate's responsibility on the civic dialogues held by the Government. Were there any submissions by the Garda Síochána Inspectorate or has it been afforded the opportunity to make submissions if that is appropriate? The witnesses can tell the committee if they believe this is not within the remit of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. I contend that it would be a valuable input to have but I am curious to try and tease this out. Much of this boils down to the mechanics and I want to steer clear of the bigger political dynamics at play, because we all know the difficulty therein. I take Mr. Hume at his word about information sharing and if that is the case, when we get down to the nuts and bolts of this, we do not want anything to happen to damage or undermine this relationship. The inevitable question is, if the information sharing is of such a high standard, what good is it if it is going to one of the bodies and not dealt with appropriately as evidenced by some of the problems the witnesses have identified with information sharing and other related matters within the Garda also. I would like to get the other views on Brexit and the current status on information sharing.

Mr. Mark Toland:

We have not been officially engaged. We are about to go to Northern Ireland to meet our counterparts to talk about how we will work together in the future and what the implications are. This is one of the items on the agenda for discussion. We are very keen to do work with our counterparts. When they do an inspection they quite often come to the South to look at issues here, and we go to the North, because it is the nearest border. There is good learning to be had in both jurisdictions. We want to maintain that relationship. We are happy to give our professional advice. One of the things the Garda Síochána Inspectorate can do is provide advice and we should do it more often for the Policing Authority. Recently the Minister asked us to look at entry levels and in this case we are giving advice to the Minister rather than an inspection. We believe that our policing skills add value. We also look for international best practice. If a measure works very well somewhere else it might be possible to transfer to these shores and be implemented here.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland made the point about the need for the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to be an independent body and not to be amalgamated into GSOC or the Policing Authority. Does Mr. Toland believe there is a threat of this happening? The witnesses are probably aware that some Members felt the setting up of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland was really just a duplication of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. We thought it was more of a political stroke than a measure with real substance. What is Mr. Toland's view on this?

Mr. Mark Toland:

I will not answer the Deputy's second point but one of the terms of reference for the commission-----

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the witnesses were going to answer our questions today.

Mr. Mark Toland:

One of the terms of reference is about oversight. We have met with the commission formally to do a presentation. Ms Shields did this because I was at GSOC at the time.

We have been invited back to some of their subgroups, one of which was the subgroup on oversight. Clearly they are looking at how the Department of Justice and Equality, GSOC, the inspectorate, the Policing Authority and other agencies will work together to deliver better oversight. In January we kick-started an oversight forum with the Policing Authority and GSOC and hope to meet again next month. The aim is to avoid duplication of activity, co-ordinate how we conduct inspections and look at what themes GSOC and the Policing Authority have picked up. We need to develop our relationships with the other agencies. It will be positive in moving forward.

I was asked if we were in danger and the answer is I do not know. The commission will report in September and I hope we will continue to do what we do as the quality of our work speaks for itself. However, we recognise that we are only as good as our last report, but we think we have done some quality work. Other organisations have looked at things at which we have looked and not found additional items. The Policing Authority has commissioned work to look at areas at which we have inspected previously and we have not been found wanting. We identified a number of the factors which have ended up in tribunals and other areas. Our view is that if those issues had been addressed at the time, some of the tribunals might not have been necessary. We add value and would like to continue. However, we recognise that we need to have a different relationship with the Policing Authority and An Garda Síochána.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We dealt with legislation related to GSOC and the Policing Authority and were very disappointed that the potential to make them more effective was not exploited. We are very much against the inspectorate being dragged down into those pits, given that it is more effective than either GSOC or the Policing Authority.

Mr. Mark Toland:

We have looked at other jurisdictions because we are self-reflective and understand things must change to ensure Garda reform will happen. However, we have not found another jurisdiction around us that has put an inspectorate into a policing authority. There is another issue. Ms Shields is doing work and we are looking at areas in which the Policing Authority has responsibilities. We could not self-inspect if that was the case. As such, there are areas at which we are going to look in which GSOC takes people into Garda stations. One has to have that independence. For the Commissioner, the fact that we are independent has led to greater acceptance of the work we have given to the Garda. My ex-boss used to say we had no dog in the fight and were there simply to make policing better in Ireland. We are not aligned with any other organisation. As such, it would be a shame if we were to lose our independence as it would damage the quality of our work.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Toland.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I enjoyed that - "Dog in the fight" and "skin in the game."

Mr. Mark Toland:

That is what Bob used to say.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland said a number of things that most certainly struck a chord with me and, I am sure, committee members. The five-month delay in responding is interesting. The last correspondence the committee received from the highest office in An Garda Síochána was exactly five months after we had sought the information and, at that, it was anaemic. I can think of no other word to describe it. It is important to point out that the frustration is shared.

The inspectorate has conducted a review of child sexual abuse and issued a report. The committee is also in the process of conducting a review of its own oversight and accountability report which Mr. Toland referenced in his opening remarks, for which I thank him. There was only one recommendation that was specific to the inspectorate. I again note that the committee is very strongly of the view that the inspectorate should have access by way of unannounced visits. That is essential. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan did not ask Mr. Toland to elaborate on his second comment, but I would like him to do so. He referred to the Private Members' Bill, the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill, and the provision therein that ministerial approval would be required to exercise this power. That would not be my view and I doubt it is the view of Deputy Mick Wallace. I can almost anticipate from where he will come on the matter. We share a disposition on many matters. Would Mr. Toland like to elaborate a little on what he said? This series of engagements with GSOC, the Policing Authority and the Garda Inspectorate is taking place against the backdrop of the publication of our report and I would like Mr. Toland to give a little more information on same.

Mr. Mark Toland:

We are very grateful that the committee made it a recommendation. It would enhance our abilities and mean that we would not have to make appointments to carry out visits. We do not get the impression that our visits are always stage managed, but it is important to be able to go in and carry out real-time checks in certain areas. If we were to get involved in inspecting places of detention, it would be a prerequisite. One has to be able to turn up unannounced in that context. In a response in Parliament the Minister has said he does not think his approval is required every time we want to make a visit. It may just be the way it has been written, but to us, it seems impracticable that every time we wanted to make a visit, we would need ministerial approval which might be required if it was an issue of State security. It might be something that would need to be considered if we were to go into an area to inspect very sensitive material. However, we do not think we should need to seek ministerial approval in general before we visit a Garda division or region or most national units. I am not sure it was intended to be drafted in that way, but that is very much how we have interpreted the Private Members' Bill.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be addressing it next week with officials from the Department. The Ministers were not available. We will also be addressing it with the Policing Authority, representatives of which will be coming to engage in further scrutiny. I welcome Mr. Toland's further remarks on the subject.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For Mr. Toland's information, Deputy Clare Daly and I visit prisons a good bit. On one of the first occasions on which we sought to visit Portlaoise Prison, some serious opposition was expressed in terms of what the hell those people were coming down for and the question was asked as to why the hell we were being let in. It took an intervention by the then Minister, Alan Shatter, to get us in.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did he also support the Deputies getting back out again?

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. There is huge work to be done to change the attitudes prevailing in this area. As the report stated, we think the inspectorate should be allowed to visit as it sees fit. It will be a good day when we get to that point.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for being patient with us. Deputy Mick Wallace raised with them the recommendation made in the inspectorate's report on multi-agency specialist child centres. Mr. Toland referred to two pilot projects to be undertaken on foot of that recommendation. Was the inspectorate specific about the projects to be undertaken? Was it just a recommendation that there be two or did the inspectorate have a wider view of the cities that should be involved or whether it should be a rural pilot project? Were there other elements and dimensions to it other than a recommendation that there be two such projects?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Certainly, it was recommended that one of the pilot projects be in Dublin city centre. I cannot remember if it was recommended that both take place in cities, but it was felt we should start in a city centre because travel would be easier and it would be easier to involve the strategic agencies. I think it was envisaged that they would probably pilot the project in cities. It was about bringing agencies together in a single location with all of the services a victim of child sexual abuse needed. As far as I am concerned, existing facilities could be used while purpose-built facilities were being planned as that will take a period of time and require funding. Children have to travel to the interview suite looked after by An Garda Síochána and the place where they can be medically examined. They are separate locations and it is traumatic for a child to be brought from one location to another.

At the centres that we visited, the children are met immediately by professionals who explain exactly what will happen, which relieves much of the worry of parents. They explain what the medical examination will involve. What we found in the other jurisdictions we examined was that parents and guardians are more likely to agree to medical examination and to assist with a police investigation. In Ireland, we found that parents are often put off by the explanation and quite often refuse to allow a child to be interviewed or medically examined. As a result, the prosecution cannot proceed or is very unlikely to do so. We believe the proposed approach would encourage parents to come forward and assist with an investigation, whereas under the current approach parents seem reticent about allowing their child to be examined and do not always allow their child to be interviewed. That presents serious risks because the abuser is still a risk to other children.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I could add to that, a pilot project is most certainly required for a significant population catchment with a city base. However, I do not know if we would be able to extrapolate all of the critical information if both pilot projects were city based. Different circumstances and realities apply in rural Ireland. I have in mind travel time from various locations. People in a city location would have easier access to a cluster of these centres than people where I am from.

Mr. Mark Toland:

The discussion on potential locations focuses on having one centre in Galway, another somewhere in Cork and obviously a third one in Dublin. The indications are that there will be three or four centres. While people would still have to travel, the quality of service would compensate for the travel requirement. There are ten or 11 centres in Norway but many people still have to travel for two to three hours to access one. Parents and guardians accept that because they are coming to a centre of excellence.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will each centre deal with all of the requirements?

Mr. Mark Toland:

Yes. The therapeutic and ongoing support could be delivered locally by other services, for example, the provision of counselling and emotional support to children. The centre would deal with the medical examination and the interviewing of the child.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Toland's response indicates there will be a smaller number of such centres than I had anticipated on the basis of having two centres in the pilot. The number will be small, relatively speaking.

Mr. Mark Toland:

I expect there will be three or at most four centres.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had not picked up on that.

Mr. Mark Toland:

Northern Ireland has one purpose-built facility that is able to cope with the number of victims. The Northern Ireland model also deals with adults, which creates the option of having a centre of excellence for children and adults.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had intended asking a question on that issue but Mr. Toland indicated in an earlier reply that such an option was available.

We have only two members left standing, as it were, because of other business in the House. I thank Mr. Toland, Ms Shields and Mr. Hume for attending today and being so forthright in their replies to the committee. I reiterate my apology with regard to earlier missed opportunities. With nothing further to do, I will adjourn the joint committee until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 30 May 2018. Deputy Wallace will have an extra hour in bed next week. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.