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

I am curious about how there can be several allegations about divisions of an organisation and other behaviours. What exactly triggers a view that Tusla is able to come before the committee and say it did not see anything that was systemic abuse? I am curious as to what is the threshold for systemic abuse. What is the arbiter of this that triggers some sort of engagement? In other areas Tusla is mandated to be part of an interdepartmental group that includes the Garda and others. What triggers it?

What is very important about today is that people understand that, depending on whether Tusla is dealing with an organisation that is funded or not funded, it is either quite powerful or completely impotent and completely toothless. Even the recommendation to commission a report was merely that. It was a recommendation. That is all it was. What would have happened had it said "No"? What would have happened if it had not done anything? What would have happened in those instances? It suggests nothing would have happened.

The opening statement says there were two well-founded allegations and a further two allegations. It states there were concerns about the management of the disclosure of allegations. I know that when one allocation was made, to be fair to St John's Ambulance, it was reported in line with mandatory reporting in 2013, albeit to a previous entity of Tusla. From 1 January 2014, Tusla has been responsible for child protection. That report was made and it was not investigated until 2018. That was five years later. This is because it was retrospective. I have been a mandated person for a number of years in my career. Even if it is retrospective, it must be considered in light of the current situation. Given the other suggestions and what Tusla has disclosed, such as concerns about management disclosure and the recommendations that are here and how they have been accepted by St. John Ambulance, it is unbelievable no investigation was done. It is really quite shocking.

In all of the years since 1 January 2014 how many times has Tusla written to the Minister saying that, when it comes to non-funded organisations, it is completely toothless and child sexual abuse and rape could be going on around the country? It has a register, and if a child safeguarding statement is not sent forward, an organisation's name might be entered on the register. How does Tusla know the organisations even exist? What sort of a deterrent is this? It is a completely toothless deterrent. There are no sanctions. How often does Tusla ask for there to be sanctions? Did Tusla ever identify and raise this at ministerial meetings or at meetings of Oireachtas joint committees? I cannot find it and I have done a search. I would welcome the witnesses turning around and saying otherwise. The child first responsibility is proactive. Mr. Justice Barr said it is a proactive duty to ensure child safeguarding. It would appear, based on what we have seen to date as an exemplar, that the public perception is completely different from the reality. This needs to be explored. Vulnerable people find themselves having to go public in very vulnerable ways to try to instigate any action. We need a response to this.