Kathleen Funchion: Calls Tusla 'toxic' and urges reforms

Thank you very much Chair. Just before I come to yourself, Mr Gloucester, I just want to say that I had reason to contact Mr Brian Lee, and I want to thank him for his assistance for the matter over the summer, and the reason I start with that is because I genuinely believe in the type of person that will acknowledge work when it's done, and it is possible that you're going to take some of my comments as being negative, but I personally see them as constructive criticism. I don't have a huge amount of confidence in Tusla as it currently exists, and that's being 100% honest. I feel it's a very toxic organisation, and I'm glad that you used the word defensive, because that has been my experience, and people who contact me, that's their experience, and I do believe that part of our duty here on this committee, when we have the opportunity to speak directly to Tusla and to people that are in the key positions in Tusla, is to bring that message to you, that people have very negative experiences. I know that you are aware of the recent HICWA report, that would cover the area that I represent, but I wasn't surprised when I saw that report, because that is the culture that exists there, it's defensive, it's straight away, rather than actually acknowledging that there could be an issue, it's so difficult for people to get answers, and what I come across time and time again, is people, particularly women, who voluntarily went to Tusla, who voluntarily went to Tusla, who said, I am struggling here, I need some sort of assistance, and who have their lives back on track, and cannot seem to get increased access, and cannot seem to move from where they were, and I'm talking years down the road, so that to me is totally unacceptable, when we then try to get answers on their behalf, I have not once ever gotten an answer to any of those questions, not once, and I said this recently in the Dáil to the Minister's Questions, on one occasion, I got a response back to say that I had sent the correspondence to the incorrect address. Now, there's only one Tusla headquarters in Kilkenny that I know of, you know, that, I mean, even to send somebody back a letter like that, you obviously got the letter, if you're sending back that type of reply, so it's just, it's really, it's pettiness, instead of picking up the phone and saying, maybe you got the wrong person, let's have a discussion about this, it's total, and that's, I know you said in your statement that, you know, people don't always get the good stories, people, I would disagree with that, I would say people don't have the confidence at the moment in Tusla, and I genuinely hope that you're going to bring the change and reform that's needed, because I would give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but I have to be honest, and I feel I have to represent that view, that currently, people are not happy, and people feel very, very let down, and at the end of the day, when people are let down by Tusla, it's children that are let down, and that's so important, particularly given our history in this country, and how we consistently fail children, so I just have a number of questions, that you may not have answers to, and I accept that, that you can maybe forward on the response, and I welcome what you said about being open to individual meetings, and I think that's good, and that's positive, sorry Chair, are we to ask the two sets of questions now, and I'll be careful with the second set of questions, because I know that, so if I'm steering off, you might put me back on track, So basically I wanted to ask, in relation to Tusla, is there any independent review or appeal process, if somebody is not happy with what their outcome of the case, and I talk about maybe a birth mother who has been, you know, restricted, supervised access, maybe one hour a week, is there, I'll group the questions together if that's okay, Yes of course Is there any independent process there at the moment, for that to be reviewed or appealed, and if there isn't, is that something that Tusla would be open to looking at? In relation to the thing I mentioned earlier about increased access, there seems to be, from my experience, a lack of reunification plans in place, and when you question this, you know, it's like, oh that's way down the road, So I'm just wondering, so I'm just wondering, if we can get the policy, or the criteria from yourselves, in relation to reunification, and how that, I believe, I know there's going to be situations where it's not possible, and we have to be realistic about that, but in situations where it is, I think that should be at the heart of a care plan. And I want to know what your opinions, or what your plans, given that you're new in the role, in relation to prevention and intervention, to try and prevent children from actually going into full-time care, you know, family support, other things like that, that we can be looked at, and I'd also like to get from yourselves, what are the circumstances, or is there a policy, or criteria in relation to infants being taken into care, is it purely based on maybe that, that mother has previous children in care, or is there, or is there some set of criteria, I appreciate you might not have that here, but if you can forward it on, I would appreciate that, and then I just wanted to ask in general about the school completion program, there's many of them that are currently falling under the ETB, and they're governed by the ETB, and those ones actually run quite well, I know, I believe anyway, that that proposal was sent to Tusla, and I'm just wondering, have you looked at that, or would you consider that, because I know what always comes up about school completion, is the issues of governance, and that is one way, around that, and I just, I was glad to hear, Deputy Sherlock mention it, because it's school completion, I think it's just a fantastic program, and it's out on its own, it's invaluable, and I think we should be putting a lot more, resources into it, then on the other set of questions, Do you want to get answers to those first, correct? Yeah, okay, maybe that might be easier, yeah, thanks. So, thanks Deputy Function, and I, you know, I don't dispute your comments, I might use different phrases to talk to you, but I don't dispute the general trust of your comments, the only thing I can say to you, particularly in relation to your observation about confidence in Tusla, I can only hope that the genuine attempt we're making, and the work we're doing, will over time, allow you to feel that you can repose confidence in us, but I don't dispute where your view is at at the moment. On the Carlo Kilkenny, the HICWA report, yes, I wouldn't be happy about it, and unfortunately, because of the view of the agency, there have been a lot of improvements in that area, but it's very hard to get people to see those as well, but that said, the foster care report by HICWA was certainly not something that crowned us in glory. The one thing I am happy about is, there have been changes there since HICWA have accepted a very detailed action plan, and that is progressing. Yeah, that's good. So, just to say, it's external to my view, that it's progressing. In relation to care processes, and care issues, and issues associated with things like access, and so on, can I say, I think there's probably three questions in there. The majority of children who are in the care system have processes beyond the individual social worker that's easing with that case. Many of them are before the children's court or the family court, and they're under the oversight of a judge, and they are subject to the in-camera rule, and about which a lot of people have a lot of views and a lot of complaints, but that is the law, that's the provision that's there. So, I mean, the ultimate appeal process is in the context of the courts, and the courts spend a significant amount of time processing any application TUSLA makes for a full care order, in other words, we go through an interim care order, because the court rightly raises a bar for TUSLA to reach in relation to evidence, and it's in that space that access very often gets determined. I'm very interested in the observation about reunification planning, and I think that's something we may be able to come back to address with you in more detail, because I would want to talk to the professional staff in relation to it. Unfortunately, just as there are legitimate views and questions about that from any people, I equally would have to say I'm very concerned that there's a small prevalence on social media, which is quite inappropriate about some of its commentary in relation to that, and I think I would just want to be balanced about that, but I think it's a very fair question. Preventative is the one that I'm really interested in, and our prevention of family support service. Three weeks ago, I said to the organisation in very clear terms, we have a whole amount of change programmes going on. Some of them we can't stop, because we have to attend to them, but some of them we need to slow down. And I have said that we have four priority programmes that I want achieved, and two of them are on the left-hand side, the Child Protection and Welfare Strategy, which is off the back of the HICWA report of 2018, and on the right-hand side is the Prevention and Family Support Service. And what I've said is I no longer want those to be seen as two programmes in TUSNAH, I want them fully integrated, where children in the majority can step down from the Child Protection System once there's a safety plan and be supported in the Family Support Service. And there is some very good work being done around that, and I'd certainly make sure that we send you detail on that. On the school completion programme coming under the jurisdiction or the employment of the ETB, that would entirely, genuinely, be a matter of public service determination of employees, and that's, I think, as you know, the sole remit of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I've heard some of the arguments about it, and I'm interested in exploring them more to see what better level of stability can be there to give the certainty you're talking about. But it is something I'd need to come back to you about on the detail of the backstory on it, if you like. I'm not fully au fait with the numbers of school completion programme staff who are in that space versus the numbers who aren't, and I have heard of it as an issue, and I'll certainly look into it and come back to you. It's not necessarily within the gift of TUSNAH to make a determination. No, I do know that, Jay. I'm interested in your opinion on it, really. Well, I mean, you know, my view is if there's a good service and a service that's working, everything we can do to bring stability to that is the responsibility of all of us because clearly it's fulfilling a very important function, and I heard that yesterday in Lodz. Sorry. Sorry, I'll just draw your attention to your time. That's all. I know you want to talk about the other issues, and I have no desire to curtail your time. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Okay. So will I go on to the next? Sorry, Chair, just because I did overlook it. In relation to infants being taken into care, the evidence threshold is in respect of the actual child, it's not in respect of siblings. Okay. Yeah, you must meet the threshold in respect of each child. Now, often the concern can be the same, but the risk has to be articulated in respect of each child. Thanks. Just in relation to the other issue then, we had a discussion here in the summer, and there was a lot of talk about closing facilities and whether there was power there to do that. But is there ever a situation, and what might that situation be if there was a decision taken to close a creche facility? Is it the case, if somebody has a criminal conviction, how can they then get to a situation where they're permitted to open and run a creche? I have maybe three other ones. If parents are unhappy with a facility and then take their children out of that facility and they're in the ECCE year and are being told by the new facility, they can't get the ECCE year here because the other facility is still claiming the money and is refusing to deregister the children and this is weeks, let's say, later. How is that happening, because then you have a situation where what I would see is a place that's very rightly under scrutiny is still receiving public money, but also that child should not be at the disadvantage of not having the ECCE year because the parents really felt they had no choice but to leave. And parents' contact in Tusla with information in relation to a facility and let's say very serious information for an example, just as a potential example, alleged falsification of documents of staff qualifications, and yet there has been no follow-up to date back to those parents in relation to those allegations, which I would be very, very concerned about. And just in general then, what is the process? OK, I just have one more, so I should be OK. What exactly is the current ongoing process if there was a very serious question mark over a facility? Like, is it a weekly inspection or is there like a process around that? So, just, just, let Macaulay briefly address the, these were professional regulatory questions around the convictions and so on. Just in relation to the payment continuity issue, and I mean that scheme is operated by the department. The challenge is equally, if you have a child in provision and that child is sick or unwell for a period of time and isn't able to attend the creche, if the continuity of the payment doesn't happen, well then the child is disadvantaged with their return. And I suppose turning it on and turning it off is probably a little bit more of a not-instant process. But, but I think, I think there's, there's genuine bona fides in your point about if somebody leaves and they're unhappy. I, I, I, I'm not familiar with what the mechanics might be. But, but I don't see that there should be any particular objection to ensuring they're able to have continuity. And, on the professional matters, I may be like Brian just. I'll take them in reverse order as well. Just in terms of ongoing processes, if we have a particular concern regarding a service, as we've heightened regulatory oversight, and that can take a number of different mechanisms. And we could have conditions on the service, which we'd look for regular updates in terms of what those conditions might be. Well, there would be an inspect, increased inspection rate. It's highly unlikely that it would ever be weekly. So it'd be, there wouldn't be any particular benefit in doing weekly inspections, because you'd be seeing the same things potentially over and over again. So there would be a period of time. But if new information did come in, in an intervening period, we would potentially inspect that service immediately. So if it isn't at heightened space, unsolicited information comes in today, we could be there tomorrow. Or even this afternoon, if we can fit it into the schedule, if we're very concerned. And certainly as well, during ongoing processes, if a child protection welfare concern that meets that threshold comes in, we would bring that to the attention of our social work colleagues in TUSLA. And if it meets that threshold, they would certainly intervene immediately and contact the parents as required. And that's certainly a very important balance that we have in TUSLA, is that the regulatory response can't necessarily operate as responsibly as, say, the child protection side. So they have that power. But just to be a number of services that would have a higher level of scrutiny in terms of how we'd look at them. And each one is judged separately in that regard. Just in terms of the ECI funding, that's more of a policy matter. That's the first I've ever heard of that particular issue. And certainly that would be of concern if that was the case. If we had deregistered a service and the funding hasn't followed the child. But that would be a matter for the department and for PUBL, who are involved in the funding schemes behind that. The other point you made regarding parents making, providing information to us, which is a really vital part of our work. And we have this office that we call the Unsolicited Information Office. It's where parents can bring concerns and other members of the public and staff, can bring concerns regarding a service or regarding children in a service to our attention. It's really important to state that it's not a complaint service because we have no statutory powers to process or manage complaints. It's the provider's responsibility to manage complaints themselves. So what we do with unsolicited information when it comes in is that it's assessed and then risk rated. And depending on the nature of it, 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, whoever brings in the concern to us, we do always get back to them and we do advise what the process looks like. And we do advise them that we wouldn't necessarily give them a blow-by-blow update of what's happening through the process because it's not a complaints procedure. It's a source of information that informs us regarding regulatory compliance. And then in terms of criminal convictions and closing, certainly one thing that we would have is that if we engage in a prosecution under the new regulations, if there's a successful conviction, that operator can never operate a service again under the current regulations. One of the challenges we've had is that people who have convictions under the previous regulations, it can't be used in the current set of regulations. And that certainly presents a challenge. But if there was a successful prosecution in the current regime, they wouldn't be able to operate in that space. Just one really fast. Yeah. It's just I think the issue is that parents feel very disconnected from this. And they have said they've used the numbers and stuff that were provided the last time and just felt that they really weren't getting anywhere. So that's, I suppose, the big issue. And that's why I made it, you know. No, I appreciate that feedback. There's a way of following up on that part of it. I would like myself and this new CEO, it's certainly a very big focus is regarding how we can better involve parents in the process and provide as much information as we can within the existing legislative framework, pending maybe some legislative adjustments that will help us in that regard. Thank you Mr Lee and thank you Deputy. And just, I'll be very brief because I want to let Deputy Rabbit in and then Deputies Mitchell and Chambers. But just on that communications, because I think it's very important now that we've started the discussion on the other aspect of our meeting today. And, you know, one of the key questions, and Deputy Function touched upon it, is the two-way process of communication. And Mr Gloucester, you referenced it in your opening statement. And I think it is of critical importance to parents so that they have the peace of mind to know that if there are ongoing investigations, ones that they might be aware of for whatever reason, and not specific to prime time, that there is a communication flow and that there is confidence that the system is there to support them and their child. So, you know, you mentioned that the current tracks exclude individuals where there is prosecutions. Is there any, in your view, in your professional opinion, is there wiggle room in that? Are the regs sufficiently robust? And the legislative changes that you have alluded to, where are we with those? Are you in discussion with the Department? You know, I asked a question on the first day back from the summer recess in regard to, on promised legislation, in regard to very specifics in terms of was the suite of legislation supporting Tuesday in their day-to-day duties sufficient to cater for issues that have been highlighted either through prime time or indeed other issues that have arisen. And are we any closer to determining precisely whether or not there are legislative changes that will be required? I did receive a response from the Department quite promptly. In fact, I was quite impressed with how promptly that occurred. But we are now two months later, and I have inquired and I haven't seen anything come back yet. So that's my only intervention. Apologies, Deputy Rabbit. I know she's looking at me. But I wouldn't wish to let this meeting go by without sort of raising that, I think, important point that both of you have referenced. So perhaps Mr Lee and then Mr Gloucester and then Deputy Rabbit can start your contribution. In terms of any wiggle room, in terms of a successful prosecution under the current regulations, as far as I'm concerned from a regulator's point of view, no. But it hasn't been tested in the courts. Someone hasn't challenged it because it hasn't got to that space. So I can't predict that in the future. In terms of the new legislation, we did have a very productive meeting with the Department. The challenge is that there needs to be primary legislative changes and secondary in terms of that. That does take a bit more time. And we need to make sure we have all the right adjustments because there's other things in the practicality of the regulations that need to be updated. But there's certainly aspects that, as the Department has probably advised you, in terms of immediate closure of unregistered services and if there's a grave concern that we can immediately close. And the other part that I'm particularly interested in because it's about the communication appearance, is that we can post enforcement notices as soon as we have information like the Health and Safety Authority or the Food Safety Authority. I think that's the potential biggest thing we could do in the new legislative framework. But I have to say, in the existing legislative framework, we're using it very effectively. We've deregistered six services since the new regulations have come in. And we're using it very effectively. So I think in the learning of operating that for the past three years, there certainly are things we could improve in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Closter. I think apart from the legislative changes, which you'll be much more familiar with how that process can take time, what I'm relying on more in the interim is that we create every simple, visible communication to parents to trigger them and assist them to ask questions also, as well as us asking questions. And that's not to place a burden of responsibility on parents, but it is to try and assist them and say, look, we inspected the service on the 5th of November. The last published inspection report is April. That means there is another report pending. And it is not an unreasonable question, I think, for parents to at least be aware of that and whether or not they feel they have the freedom to ask. I fully understand all of the pieces that go around that, that they may not feel that. But we can only try to provide the information we can within the parameter of the law that we're working in. And it's quite a difficult space in a word in deputy functions reference to if somebody makes a complaint to us. We may well be pursuing that complaint through the regulatory enforcement process, but we're not at liberty to disclose that. And that's where the challenge arises, I suppose. But we certainly believe legislation has a part to play in changing the sector, but it's not the only part. Are you satisfied, Mr Gloucester, given your limited tenure as Chief Executive, are you satisfied that the length of time that an unregulated service was in offering in this city, or anywhere for that matter, operated for so long in, I have to reference it, while being careful, for so long, without either it being shut or it being correctly registered? Are you satisfied, or can you provide the committee with assurances that such instances, where possible, won't arise in the future? Because it was a very lengthy period of time. I think all of us were quite taken aback with how long this particular operator was in operation. And I don't think that's an allegation, I think it's a fact. Well, as opposed to an individual service, can I say categorically that my view is that TUSLA would have to, and does, but would have to continue to flex every possible avenue it has, where it's aware that an unregistered service is operating. I draw the line at that, quite frankly. But the legal power for us to go through the process with the person who is operating unregistered, that is a timeline that's beyond our control. However, the sector isn't obliged to display its registration certificate. But I'm going to say this, and I'm very happy to say it. I believe a responsible sector would encourage its members, there are umbrella organisations in the sector, that they would encourage their members to say, while you don't have to, you should, as best practice, display your registration certificate right up on the front door, and if not, even give a copy of it to every parent who places a child with you. And obviously, while it's unfair that the public have to make their own mind up when they don't see that on the wall, I think we have to start challenging the sector to take a level of collective responsibility for driving standards that don't always require legislation. And I say, within the powers we have, I have no tolerance for somebody operating something that they're not registered to operate when it requires to be registered. But the process I'm bound by is somewhat lengthy. But I believe there are other ways, and I would hope that the majority of good providers in the sector would rise to the challenge, and let's see how that would progress. Mr Lee. Just in terms of that, for the most part, most services, when they come to our attention, if they're operating outside registration, they close pretty much immediately on us, writing to them to cease and desist. So that would happen 90% of the time. If they don't do that, then we do move to prosecute, and it's the court process that can take a considerable amount of time. That's acceptable. And as I mentioned there already, it's the powers to insist that a service immediately closes when it's unregistered. We don't have those powers, so we have to take it through that process. Okay. That was it. an important question. Thank you. Thank you. And as I mentioned in my previous video, that obviously it is a very , very brief introduction. That i'm going to skip this you must self- purchasing, and let it go and stop the process that you could get on the deposit. All I know is that there is a government that is very important. My first introduction is that it was very, very suitable. But I don't have a government support. Part of your Neo047endi is taken over from the store. And if you want more or what it does,