Ms Kate Duggan:

I will start by talking through all the delays from 2013 Deputy Seery Kearney has spoken about. My colleague Mr. Brophy will deal with the queries about systemic abuse. My colleague Mr. Corcoran will deal with the specific queries Senator Seery Kearney has about the powers we have or do not have at present with regard to child safeguarding statements.

As I referred to in the opening statement, we have had two parallel pieces in place with St. John Ambulance. I absolutely hear the Cathaoirleach's reference to not speaking about St John's Ambulance when it is not here to defend itself. We will speak about what is on the record for Tusla, what we have found and the concerns we have.

The first thing is we have publicly apologised to the individual victims and survivors for the delay that took place in investigating the allegations of abuse which first came to light in 2013. I put that apology on the public record today.

Over 2013 and up to 2017, we had received three allegations of abuse against one individual. Given our statutory powers with regard to retrospective allegations or abuse, our primary consideration has to be to determine that there is no risk to child protection today. In this instance, we were assured at the screening process that there was no current-day risk in the context of the individual against whom the allegation was made, because the individual was no longer in that organisation. We fulfilled our statutory obligations to assure ourselves, based on the allegations we had, that there was no current-day risk.

We have to work in due process and did so when investigating the allegation that was made. We believed, and believe, what the survivors told us about the abuse they suffered and we made a founded outcome with regard to the allegations of abuse in two of those cases. At that time, one of those individuals was an adult when he alleged the abuse had taken place and that would not be a matter for our retrospective teams. We believed those two people in 2019, but in line with due process, there was an appeals process to which anybody is entitled. When the correspondence was written in 2019, we were basing it on facts available to Tusla at that time. The facts available were that two allegations were made to us against one individual who no longer worked within the organisation, there was not a current-day risk to children, and there was a child safeguarding statement. We can talk later about what a child safeguarding statement means and what level of protection it gives with regard to assuring the public, but there was a compliant safeguarding statement.

In June 2022, when the founded outcome was upheld after appeal, we had our founded outcome at that stage. We believed the survivors and their story. We also believed and were able to take into consideration all the other information. The Senator referred earlier to a photograph and other documentation they shared with us. At that time, we were able to go back to St. John Ambulance and put what we considered significant pressure on the organisation to undertake this investigation into how it handled allegations of child sexual abuse. That was almost to assure ourselves or to check whether this was a bigger issue in St. John Ambulance. Did this relate to systemic abuse? Was this talking about organised abuse or organisational abuse? They mean three slightly different things. In 2020, we got the assurance that St. John Ambulance would complete that investigation and we very much welcomed that happened. We believed the survivors who made the allegations in 2013, and Dr. Shannon's report has concurred, with regard to the allegations made by those individuals.

The Senator referenced the proactive nature of Children First and it is very important for us as an organisation. We absolutely believe in the principles of Children First. We believe in the principles that, throughout this country today, there are tens of thousands of organisations working with children, whether they are organisations that are or are not funded by the State or they are organisations that may be something as simple as somebody local, in a community, setting up a local art and hobby class for the children living there, that are providing good and safe services to children. There are volunteers throughout this country who are absolutely living the values of Children First, and all of their interactions with children are ensuring those children are safe. However, we want every organisation to have a child safeguarding statement and they have to have one under Children First. I have referred in my opening statement to what that is. In a child safeguarding statement, every individual organisation understands its own organisation and knows the type of work it does, the interactions it has with children, and the risks in its organisation at a particular time with regard to child protection, and it will have identified the risks and the actions to mitigate and prevent those risks from happening.

We do not have the powers to compel organisations to submit the policies and procedures, when they are submitting the child safeguarding statement. Organisations refer to them in the child safeguarding statement, but we do not have the powers to compel them to submit them. What is most important for us, and it is very important to state, is that we are fully committed to doing whatever is expected of us in the child protection space. We are here to talk about the possible extension of powers, whether that is to Tusla or another statutory body. While it is a matter for the legislators, we wish to be part of that process and the discussion. We will certainly operationalise whatever is asked of us.

When we look at the proportionality of what we might do with regard to additional resources or powers coming to an organisation, I certainly see that the most fundamental thing is we increase the resources available to enhance the awareness of organisations around their obligations under Children First. We know we could be given additional powers. We could go into an organisation today and ask that organisation for a copy of its child safeguarding statement. We could ask that organisation for a copy of its policies and procedures and assure ourselves on a particular day, at a particular point in time, that the organisation is doing what it should be doing. However, we know from organisations and sectors already regulated that there still remains a child protection risk. Something can change a week later with regard to an individual or a process.

What we really need to do is make sure that all organisations know and understand how to bring a child safeguarding statement to light, but also make sure the volunteers and staff within those organisations and the parents of children and young people accessing those organisations know what to do if they think they have a concern. If we have staff members, how do we create that safeguarding and child protection culture in organisations throughout the country? That is the part of the discussion we are really interested in having. We talked earlier about where an organisation is funded by the State. When an organisation is applying for funding from Tusla on the portal, it has first to indicate and provide information on its safeguarding statement and child protection and procedure policies. When we have the organisation's service level agreement or monitoring meetings, those are fundamentally part of that review and of those meetings. However, even recently or in the past six months, we have had a situation where a staff member has abused a child in an organisation. It came about because it was reported to us. The organisation and the people working within it became concerned, made a referral and the referral went through its due process.

It is very important we keep the discussion today focused, not just on possible powers and the choices and decisions legislators might make, and we will fully support and implement whatever is asked of us, but on looking at additional resources to maximise our existing powers, which is another important conversation. We can ask organisations we do or do not fund for their child safeguarding statement. We do that on a risk basis. If we see something through a referral to another part of our organisation, or in the media, or something is brought to our attention, we ask organisations. We know 90% of the child safeguarding statements we receive voluntarily are of the organisations' own volition. Some 10% are based on our having had a concern with regard to a child safeguarding statement. We have reached out to those organisations and asked for the statement, if we are concerned about their policies and procedures. That is the role and the obligation our Children First officers have through Children First, in that they can support those organisations.

However, if an organisation refuses to give us its policies and procedures and it is not State-funded, we do not have the ability to compel it to do that. The last thing I might say is-----