Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move:

“That Seanad Éireann:

acknowledges that: - the ‘Independent Review of the Handling of Past Complaints of Abuse in St John Ambulance Ireland’ (SJAI) by Dr Geoffrey Shannon SC, disclosed a very serious pattern of abuse of young people in that organisation over a number of decades;

- the report made eight recommendations arising from its findings, including:

- that the culture and ethos of the SJAI needed change, such that the young people at the heart of it, the ‘cadets’, ‘should be considered as members who

have a contribution to make’ and that a ‘culture of safeguarding’ needed to be implemented;

- that they ‘must ensure that all appropriate measures are in place to ensure the safety and wellbeing of cadets in its care at all times, to include ensuring that appropriate rules with regard to supervision and management, in particular when cadets are taking part in any offsite activities or overnight stays’;

- the urging of ‘a culture of openness ... one that does not make excuses or contextualise its failing behind conservative ideas and prejudices. It is not acceptable to defend the failures at a systemic level that allowed children to be vulnerable by reference to culture of the time. Instead, SJAI should be honest about how its structures facilitated grooming and predatory behaviour. Warnings were ignored and not taken sufficiently seriously in the past, nor were reports made to the appropriate authorities.’;

- that ‘the failure to investigate known threats to the safety of children in the past was part of the broader weak accountability mechanisms within SJAI’;

- that the ‘disciplinary structure within SJAI was not used when a threat presented itself. There was a failure to investigate, with excuses made about the degree of information available. This represented an ethical failure, when children’s safety and welfare were

at stake.’;

- that ‘the organisation formed an opinion that it could not act, even to investigate, without the degree of evidence that would secure a criminal conviction’;

- that ‘a culture that did not investigate these suspicions also found it too easy to dismiss the gravity of allegations, and from there to deny or minimise that there was wrongdoing within the organisation’;

- that ‘the culture of deference towards rank and status also led to the reputation of the organisation itself being prioritised over the safety and welfare of young people in the organisation’;

notes that: - the 1916 Proclamation states that ‘The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the

children of the nation equally...’;

- the Thirty-first Amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights’;

- since 1998, with the coming into law of the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998, under Minister Alan Shatter, persons reporting a child welfare or child protection issue were protected from civil liability;

- since 1st January, 2005, the HSE was responsible for child welfare; this function was moved to Tusla from 1st January, 2014;

- in 2006, it became a criminal offence to cause or permit any child to be placed or left in a situation which creates a substantial risk to a child of being a victim of serious harm or sexual abuse or for failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child from such a risk while knowing that child is in such a situation;

- in 2012, with the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, it has been a criminal offence to withhold information relating to known or believed sexual abuse;

- the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012-2016, imposes a statutory obligation on any organisation engaging with children or vulnerable persons to ensure that their staff are vetted;

- the Children First Act 2015 imposed an obligation on organisations to have a child safeguarding statement and introduced a system of mandatory reporting to Tusla under section 14 of that Act;

- the Children First Act was revised in 2017 to include a mandatory reporting obligation where a retrospective allegation is made;

- the SJAI and any organisation in the country that carries on work or activities that consists mainly of having access to or contact with children is a ‘relevant service’ in accordance with the Children First Act 2015. Section 10 of this Act obliges any organisation deemed a ‘relevant service’ to ‘ensure ... that each child availing of that service ... is safe from harm while availing of that service’;

- under the Children First Act 2015, Tusla ‘shall ... regard the best interest of the child as the paramount consideration’. This has been deemed by the Courts as being a proactive obligation. Barr J stated ‘I have no doubt that in the exercise of their statutory function to promote the welfare of children, health boards are not confined to acting in the interest of specific identified or identifiable children who are already at risk of abuse and require immediate care and protection, but that their duty extends also to children not yet identifiable who may be at risk in the future by reason of a specific potential hazard to them which a board reasonably suspects may come about in the future’;

- the SJAI’s files showed that it did not make a referral to Tusla in every case where a child protection issue arose or when such an allegation was made, even in instances where internal investigations were made;

- an allegation was referred to Tusla in 2013, and it would appear from the Report that the assessment of that allegation commenced in 2017;

- the most recent allegation made to SJAI was in 2016 after the coming into law of the Children First Act;

- in correspondence with the SJAI in 2019, Tusla found ‘no issues for improvement’ in the safeguarding policies of the SJAI;

- this finding by Tusla was quoted by the SJAI, including at a meeting attended by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy Roderic O’Gorman;

- in September 2020, Tusla wrote to the SJAI in relation to the report of historical abuse stating ‘from our meeting with you, [we do not] have any concerns regarding the management of the allegation discussed or any concern that child abuse was systemic within your organisation, or that there was any failure to act on the part of SJAI. We don’t plan to meet with you again unless further matters arise.’;

- the SJAI relied on an investigation by An Garda Síochána and Tusla in relation to three reported allegations and their file shows that the case was ‘closed off once An Garda Síochána confirmed that no action had been taken by them or HSE/Tusla’;

- in September 2020, Tusla noted that their child protection policy was outdated and obsolete and stated that ‘it is imperative that all safeguarding documents are in line with Children First guidance and legislation’ and invited SJAI to engage to have its policies reviewed;

- in November 2020, Tusla recommended that SJAI engage an independent review;

- the review was carried out by Dr Geoffrey Shannon SC;

- the review concludes that there is an ongoing threat to the implementation of robust and effective child protection systems and practices; calls for: - an urgent investigation into the child protection oversight within Tusla that within weeks deemed safeguarding policies adequate, child protection policies outdated and then called for a review;

- an urgent statutory review of the powers of Tusla and the adequacy of the Children First Acts 2015-2017, to address the very serious shortcomings demonstrated in Dr Shannon’s report;

- an urgent review of the mandatory reporting obligations, extending them to ensure that criminal sanctions are imposed where there is a failure to act;

- a review of the number of organisations, or individuals within organisations, who have been prosecuted for the withholding of information, and if none have been, then a review of the legislation, its adequacy and application must be undertaken;

- a complete review of the standards and criteria applied by An Garda Síochána/DPP in the investigation of matters of historical sexual abuse that deemed the previous matters not prosecutable;

- an immediate meeting between the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and any survivors of the SJAI who may wish to attend that meeting to hear their concerns at the inadequacy of the State’s response to their experiences; and

- the provision of counselling, medical and legal support to the survivors of sexual abuse within this organisation.”