Mr. Brian Lee:

I will take those issues in reverse order. On the ongoing processes, if we have a particular concern with a service, as we have heightened regulatory oversight, that can take a number of different mechanisms. We could have conditions on the service and we would look for regular updates on what those conditions might be, but there would be an increased inspection rate. It is highly unlikely it would ever be weekly. There would not be any particular benefit in doing weekly inspections because the same things would potentially be seen repeatedly. There would be a period of time between inspections, but if new information came in during an intervening period, we would potentially inspect that service immediately. If it is in that heightened space where unsolicited information comes in today, we could be there tomorrow or even this afternoon if we could fit it into the schedule and if we were very concerned. During ongoing processes, if a child protection welfare concern that met that threshold came in, we would bring that to the attention of our social work colleagues in Tusla, and if it met that threshold, they would intervene immediately and contact the parents as required. We have an important balance in Tusla in that the regulatory response cannot necessarily operate as responsibly as the child protection side, for example. It has that power. There are a number of services on which we would have a higher level of scrutiny in how we would look at them. Each one is judged separately in that regard.

On the ECCE funding, that is more of a policy matter. That is the first I have ever heard of that particular issue and that would certainly be of concern if we had deregistered a service and the funding had not followed the child. That would be a matter for the Department and for Pobal, which is involved in the funding schemes behind that.

The Deputy made another point about the parents providing information to us. That is a really vital part of our work. We have an unsolicited information office. That is where parents, other members of the public and staff can bring concerns on a service or on children in a service to our attention. It is important to state it is not a complaints service because we have no statutory powers to process or mange complaints. It is the provider's responsibility to manage complaints itself. When unsolicited information comes in, it is assessed and risk rated.

Depending on the nature of the information, the response can be different. It could trigger an immediate inspection or it could wait until the next inspection that we could follow up with it.

In terms of communication with parents or whoever brings a concern to us, we always get back to them and advise what the process looks like. We also advise them that we would not necessarily give them a blow-by-blow update on what happens through the process because it is not a complaints procedure. It is a source of information that informs us regarding regulatory compliance.

In terms of criminal convictions and closing, certainly if we engage in a prosecution under the new regulations and there is a successful conviction, the operator can never operate a service again under the current regulations. Where people have convictions under the previous regulations, that cannot be used in the current set of regulations, which presents a challenge. If there were a successful prosecution in the current regime, the operator would not be able to operate in that space.