Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and I appreciate it. I also note that, in the recommendations, one of the particular findings was that St. John Ambulance should be honest about how its structures facilitated grooming and predatory behaviour. It has outlined all of the steps it will take to make sure this is not the case in future. The report found St. John Ambulance lacked professionalism in some operative culture. It states the lack of professionalism poses a continuing threat to the implementation of robust and effective child protection systems. The review recommends it takes steps to consider this lack of professionalism through the implementation of robust and effective child protection systems. I will take the opportunity to note that it is funded by the GAA, the IRFU and the FAI, all of which continue to engage its services while it is still at a stage of lacking professionalism.

Now we are on to how Tusla engaged with St John's Ambulance over this period. Coming from the opening statement and that which we know from the report, Tusla engaged with it between 2019 and 2022. In December 2022, St. John Ambulance was in receipt of a letter, and I have seen copies of a similar letter, stating its child safeguarding statement was compliant. In fact that letter went further to state there were no issues for improvement. Tusla is widely understood as being the child and family agency and having responsibility for child protection in the State. It is widely understood to do this. A letter from it that makes this decision is something that will be brandished by any organisation as being a statement of its standards. Therein lies a very dangerous precedent that we need to get to the heart of today. Tusla was saying there were no issues for improvement and St. John Ambulance was compliant during that period. When it submitted the safeguarding statement, did it have all of the policies and procedures attached? Tusla's wording states that, during this period, it was working to assist St. John Ambulance with this because it is an obligation to have all of the policies and procedures in place. I would like to know when exactly Tusla was working with it and when it had its policies and procedures in place.

The operative understanding of the people of the people in charge of St. John Ambulance according to the report, and accepted by it, was that it believed a criminal standard of proof was required before it could even instigate and investigate a child protection matter. This is extraordinary since child protection has been in place since 1999.

Looking at the two pieces I have read out, one that St. John Ambulance's structures facilitated grooming and predatory behaviour and the other that the ongoing situation was that St. John Ambulance needed to implement robust and effective child protection procedures, I am curious to know how Tusla went on to say there were three allegations and that nothing suggested systemic abuse. I am curious to know what is the standard that qualifies for systemic abuse in an organisation. What does Tusla understand by it? Is it when leadership of an organisation doctored a photograph in 2003 to cover up someone against whom there may have been allegations of child sexual abuse and rape and to make sure the person was not in the photograph? To me that potentially would be a hierarchy covering up. When there are allegations-----