Today's meeting has been convened with officials from the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, with representatives of Sport Ireland and the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, to discuss matters relating to safeguarding policies and procedures within the FAI.

I welcome the following witnesses: Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin, assistant secretary for sport, and Mr. Ciarán Shanley, principal officer for sports capital, Department of Culture, Communications and Sport; Dr. Una May, CEO; and Ms Helen McHugh, director of ethics and integrity at sport, Sport Ireland; and Mr. David Courell, chief executive officer; Mr. Tony Keohane, chair; Mr. Paul Cooke, president; Ms Aoife Rafferty, people and culture director; and Ms Kirsten Pakes, child welfare and safeguarding officer, FAI. I also take this opportunity to welcome all the members of the media. I think it is the largest number of media we have ever had at a committee meeting in here.

I wish to make a few comments. I want to outline as Chair of this committee a deep concern at the manner in which the FAI, an organisation in receipt of significant State funding, has engaged with this committee to date.

I found it pretty astounding and unprecedented that any Oireachtas committee's intentions, not solely those of this committee, were being questioned regarding the manner in which we sought this meeting. I wish to put that on public record. I have been a Member of the Oireachtas for the guts of 20 years and I have never seen that before. These are very serious issues. The reasons we are here, as a sports committee elected by the taxpayers and citizens of Ireland, is because we have very serious questions to ask. We did so in a legitimate way as the representatives of the people.

My committee colleagues and I sought to schedule this meeting for 9 July 2025 to enable the committee to consider matters relating to safeguarding policies and their implementation by the FAI following the extraordinary documentary, “RTÉ Investigates: Girls in Green”, by the Sunday Independent and RTÉ, which examined allegations of inappropriate conduct in the 1990s towards female players. I compliment those who made it. Those journalists certainly did the State some service. The committee has made it quite clear that it does not propose to examine the specifics of any individual case under investigation, but rather to gain an understanding as to how the association complies with Sport Ireland’s robust safeguarding criteria. Following engagement with the FAI around the details of the meeting proposed by the committee, I accepted the FAI’s deferral request and sought to schedule the hearing for today, 24 September 2025. May I point out that the agenda for today’s meeting remains as first advised? It has not changed at all. It is troubling that the FAI sought to cancel the engagement when additional attendees were requested by members of this committee. They were not requested by me personally.

It is also concerning the manner in which there was a referral, through a piece of correspondence, from An Garda Síochána to this committee. I have never seen anything like this before relating to a committee. It is from an assistant principal officer, an unattested garda, and it basically states that there is a preference, or it would be preferable, that issues under investigation be concluded before any committee meetings take place. There is a committee on justice affairs, the Committee of Public Accounts and many other committees here that deal with many live issues in the public interest. If we had to operate by that rule of thumb, no committees would sit. We will be writing to the Garda Commissioner to ask him to explain this intervention, what was meant by it, as well as his and the organisation’s awareness of it.

It is also concerning that the FAI, while it reconsidered its position regarding today’s meeting, has not included the persons requested in its delegation before the committee today. This is very unusual. Although the FAI is a private organisation that is totally dependent on the taxpayers of Ireland, if a committee of the Oireachtas requests certain individuals to attend, they generally attend. It is a matter for the organisation, though. It is very regrettable - the committee has considered this - that those people have not been included today. I have no doubt there will be questions as to why that is the case.

The committee enters into today’s engagement in good faith. It is our expectation that there will be constant engagement today. I have no doubt that, as a result of this meeting, there may be further hearings scheduled with all parties here into the future, almost certainly before the year is out. That is my view as Cathaoirleach and it is the view of many people on this committee.

For transparency, the chairperson of the FAI contacted me during the week looking for a private conversation on this issue. I outlined to him that, while we could have a conversation, I obviously would be making it public, which I have since done. I was also contacted the night before last by Mr. Robert Watt, a director of the FAI, who wanted to talk to me, but I was unavailable. I contacted him the following day but there was no conversation. I wish to make contacts I have had with senior people in the FAI in the recent past regarding this issue abundantly clear. Furthermore, for transparency, for members who so wish, I propose they outline any communications they have had with any director or member of senior management of the FAI in connection with this meeting when they are making their contributions. I thank members and witnesses.

The format of today’s meeting is such that I will invite the witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which will be limited to five minutes. If they could take less time, that would be welcome. This will then be followed by questions from members of the committee. As witnesses are aware, the committee will publish the opening statements on its webpage.

Before we move to today’s discussions, I wish to clarify some limitations relating to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses as regards references they may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is absolutely imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The committee has received correspondence from individuals in advance of this engagement regarding some of the items that have been flagged for discussion. I remind members that the names of individuals, or any personal information relating to them, should not be discussed publicly. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The committee is aware there is a Garda investigation in relation to the conduct of certain persons who were involved in football training. It is possible that prosecutions may be brought arising out of these investigations. It is vitally important that members and witnesses do not make any statements that could prejudice any potential trial or be used to try to argue that a fair trial is not possible.

I now invite Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin to make his opening statement on behalf of the Department.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach as ucht an chuiridh páirt a ghlacadh sa bplé tábhachtach seo um tráthnóna. At the outset, as the Cathaoirleach has said, the Department is very aware that certain matters relating to safeguarding in football are the subject of an active investigation by An Garda Síochána. We will be very mindful of that during out discussions today.

The allegations made by women involved in football in the 1990s were truly shocking and the bravery of those who came forward to tell their stories is commendable. It is vital that allegations of this nature be taken seriously and dealt with in the appropriate manner. Last year’s reporting of this story, both in print and on television, played an important role in bringing these stories to light. Cases such as these serve as a reminder of the need to be ever vigilant and of the importance of safeguarding policies and procedures in our efforts to create, protect and promote a culture that allows people to speak out about anything that makes them uncomfortable in all sports. It is vital that allegations of this nature be taken seriously by any national governing body of sport, NGB, and that an athlete-centred approach is taken in response.

In August 2023, Sport Ireland launched a new national code of conduct template for sporting organisations, which sets out a set of guidelines and principles that promote the behaviour and conduct expected from our athletes, coaches, supporters, officials, club members, and parents or guardians. All NGBs were asked to use the national template code of conduct as an opportunity to review their existing policies and procedures for handling code breaches to ensure that we have a safe and respectful environment for all involved in Irish sport.

The Government’s national sports policy, which runs from 2018 to 2027 and is overseen by the Department, strives to ensure that all our children have safe, enjoyable and positive sporting experiences and that they develop the physical literacy that will underpin their participation in sport and physical activity throughout their lives.

The creation of a culture of safety that promotes the welfare of children and young people engaged in sporting activities must be at the core of all NGBs’ operations and Sport Ireland’s Safeguarding Guidance for Children and Young People in Sport is a core document in this regard.

Sport Ireland has an extensive suite of guidelines and codes of practice for the protection of children in sport, consistent with child protection guidance and legislation. Last year, Sport Ireland wrote to all NGBs to remind them of their responsibilities and that their policies and procedures regarding player welfare must be up to date and fit for purpose. This guidance includes set criteria for safeguarding compliance. This is a compulsory requirement for NGBs and is a critical element for NGB funding. These criteria are reviewed twice annually. In this regard, Sport Ireland works with NGBs to ensure that appropriate policies are put in place to take a proactive approach to safeguarding by identifying and mitigating risks to player welfare. It also works with NGBs to ensure mechanisms are in place to appropriately react to and handle complaints or issues when they arise.

It is important to note however that the FAI, like all NGBs, is an independent autonomous organisation, and as such, is responsible for its own governance including safeguarding procedures and disciplinary and complaints processes. More widely, great strides have been made in increasing female participation in Irish sport in recent years and that now stands at 47%, its highest level ever. The continued investment by the Department in Sport Ireland’s women in sport programme reaching €4 million annually this year, funds projects and initiatives across a wide range of sports, supporting the Government’s vision whereby women have an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential in sport. These measures, while positive, must of course be supported by a robust safeguarding framework for all who participate in sport. It is imperative that we demonstrate there is simply no place for abuse of any kind in sport and there should be zero tolerance for any actions that endanger welfare.

In this regard, it is important that any potential instances of misbehaviour, including those recently reported in the media, are treated with the utmost seriousness and sensitivity. I assure the committee that the Department will continue to work with Sport Ireland and other key stakeholders across sport, including the FAI, to build on the support measures already in place, to ensure that there are clear ways of reporting inappropriate behaviours and that the necessary support is provided to those affected. The Department is committed to a "sport for all" approach, aimed at ensuring everyone has the opportunity to partake equally in sport and physical activity, regardless of gender, age, socioeconomic status, disability or membership of minority groups such as the LGBTQI+ community, the Traveller community or other ethnic minorities. Work will continue to promote and foster fair play, respect, ethics, integrity and safety not only in football but throughout the entire sports ecosystem.

Wider and ongoing governance reform within the FAI, as set out in the current memorandum of understanding with them is a key priority for the Ministers and the Department. The cascading of good governance throughout its leagues and affiliates as per MOU condition No. 14 is particularly important.

On behalf of Sport Ireland, I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the important issue of safeguarding in Irish sport. We appreciate the committee's continued attention to the safety and welfare of those participating in sport. Sport Ireland is the non-regulatory statutory authority with responsibility for the development of sport in Ireland. Under the Sport Ireland Act 2015, we are tasked with developing and disseminating guidelines and codes of practice promoting best practice for the protection of children in sport. This responsibility is a central pillar of how we work with the sector, including the Football Association of Ireland and over 60 other funded sporting national governing bodies.

Sport should be a positive and enriching experience for everyone involved, and conducted in a safe supportive environment. Everyone, regardless of age, ability or background should be able to participate in sport free from harm, intimidation or abuse. I acknowledge the people who come forward to share their lived experiences and commend them on their bravery. Safeguarding is not a one-time obligation. It is a dynamic, ongoing commitment. To this end, Sport Ireland has developed comprehensive safeguarding guidance, templates and resources. These are disseminated across the sport sector and supported through a structured programme of education, support and compliance. This includes the national delivery of Sport Ireland child safeguarding workshops, refresher training, tutor development and our widely used Safe Sport app, which provides on-the-go information to coaches, parents, children and volunteers.

Sport Ireland requires organisations to declare their compliance with the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012 to 2016 twice a year. These requirements are embedded in our funding conditions, with non-compliance resulting in suspension or withdrawal of financial support. While we do not have statutory investigative powers, our role is one of guidance and support. We work collaboratively with NGBs to ensure that systems are in place to prevent harm, manage risk and respond to child safety concerns.

In 2024, close to 40,000 participants engaged in over 3,000 safeguarding workshops delivered by local sports partnerships, LSPs, and national governing bodies, while an additional 11,174 individuals completed the online safeguarding 1 refresher course. Sport Ireland works collaboratively with relevant state agencies. We have regular engagement with Tusla to ensure that NGBs have up-to-date information regarding their legal obligations under the Children First Act 2015. Tusla's children first information and advice officers are involved in the delivery of training to Sport Ireland's safeguarding tutors. We also work closely with the Garda National Vetting Bureau to ensure that the sport sector is aware of its obligations under the national vetting bureau Acts. In 2024, we wrote to all 65 funded NGBs to reinforce their obligations and ensure their policies are up to date. Historically, the focus has been on the safeguarding of children as outlined in the Sport Ireland Act 2015. However, we recognise that safety for all people in sport is an important area. Hence, Safe Sport International has begun a needs analysis in the area of safe sport for adults, a growing area of focus globally. The outputs of the analysis will inform the approach to provision in this area by Sport Ireland, in line with our role as a development agency.

The FAI, like all funded NGBs, is an independent autonomous body. The FAI is recognised internationally by FIFA and UEFA as the national association for the game of football having ultimate responsibility for the governance, development and promotion of the game of football in Ireland. The FAI has declared compliance with all safeguarding legislation and has taken steps, such as engaging the Raiseaconcern service, to enable individuals to come forward in a safe and independent way. Sport Ireland acknowledges initiatives that NGBs adopt which promote transparency and accountability. Sport Ireland's oversight of the FAI is informed and structured around the Government's memorandum of understanding with the FAI. Members of the committee will be aware that the FAI remains on a journey of governance reform. Late last year, the Government agreed a new MOU with the FAI, reflecting progress made under the previous MOU in 2020. The agreement sets out commitments to ensure further progress and reform in key priority areas. The Government tasked Sport Ireland with monitoring the FAI's delivery of these commitments up to 2027.

Safeguarding is central to the integrity of sport. It underpins trust, participation and performance. We remain committed to strengthening this area, working with all partners, and ensuring that Irish sport continues to evolve as a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment for everyone. I am joined by my colleague Ms McHugh, our director of integrity and ethics. We look forward to the committee's questions.

On behalf of the FAI, I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss safeguarding in Irish football, a key priority for our association. I am here with the president, Mr. Paul Cooke; the chair, Mr. Tony Keohane; our people and culture director, Ms Aoife Rafferty and Ms Kirsten Pakes, our child welfare and safeguarding manager. I appreciate the committee has also requested the presence of Eileen Gleeson and Gareth Maher. Neither of these individuals has a direct role in safeguarding and the FAI is satisfied that the five representatives here are appropriate witnesses to address the committee on matters of safeguarding policy, governance and oversight and that they can represent the association in full.

Safeguarding is the set of policies and practices that protect children and vulnerable people and aims to ensure the 225,000 registered players and 100,000 volunteers in Irish football are safe from any form of abuse, harm or neglect. It requires constant vigilance and shared responsibility across Irish sport including coaches, volunteers, clubs and all NGBs. The FAI is committed to making football safe, inclusive and enjoyable for all. I will share a few key facts about the FAI’s work in this area. The FAI was the first sporting organisation to employ a full-time dedicated safeguarding lead, with a strong team of four now in place. The child welfare and safeguarding committee, established in 2013, oversees policies and decisions in this area. Our FAI Connect football management system links safeguarding prerequisites to coach education and our Club Mark accreditation and League of Ireland licensing require evidence of safeguarding compliance. Last year, the FAI processed 15,000 Garda vetting applications and delivered Sport Ireland safeguarding training to over 6,000 participants. We introduced Raiseaconcern, an independent, confidential service for reporting abuse or inappropriate behaviour. We have recently commissioned a progressive review of our approach to adult safeguarding.

These steps demonstrate how safeguarding is truly embedded into football structures.

The committee will be aware from our recent correspondence that on foot of guidance from An Garda Síochána, and separate legal advice, we have been unable to share certain materials sought and that we are obliged to avoid discussing the specifics of any case. Even discussing correspondence, without naming individuals, can impact a case, especially when the same correspondence has been detailed in media, which has named the individuals involved and has pinpointed it as relating to them.

I would also like to acknowledge the uncertainty over our appearance here today and would like to reassure the committee that no disrespect was intended. It was borne out of a genuine concern that the association has had regarding some of the contradictory messaging we have received about the scope of this hearing. I believe that nobody here today would want to undermine these investigations and the rights of the individuals involved so we hope to proceed today with care and to remain within the stated scope of the agenda.

When concerns were raised following the "Girls in Green" documentary last year, we noted that the robust policies and reporting structures that we now have in place were not in place to protect the individuals affected in that documentary back in the 1990s. The courage of the individuals involved who came forward underscores why this work matters. The FAI also made three clear statements: Nobody should ever feel unsafe in Irish football; nobody should have felt unsafe in the past; and nobody should feel unheard. We stand over those statements here today. Safeguarding is about so much more than process and procedures. It is about protecting people, listening and acting. For example, following historical allegations that came to us, actions undertaken by the association have included: setting up a working group; engaging independent third party specialists; meeting the individuals impacted; establishing support frameworks; and taking precautionary measures to ensure the alleged individuals were not currently involved in Irish football. We also activated a campaign to highlight awareness of unacceptable behaviour and where to report it, and safeguarding has been elevated to be the priority agenda item at each of our board meetings.

We are fully committed to supporting and contributing to any work that advances safeguarding. With that in mind, we urge the committee to review the current Garda vetting process to enable a more efficient, joined-up approach for volunteers across multiple sports. We would be glad to collaborate closely with Sport Ireland to support the committee should they choose to progress this measure.

I will close by saying that safeguarding is a continuous effort. Looking forward, the board and executive are fully committed to ensuring that safeguarding standards continue to be elevated across Irish football. Through robust policies, independent reporting channels, and ongoing collaboration with Sport Ireland and the Government, we are determined to make football in Ireland as safe as it possibly can be today and every day.

I thank Mr. Courell. We will proceed with questions and answers. Members will have approximately seven minutes speaking time for both questions and answers. We have a rota. There will be a second round where I propose we will have three minutes. After the first round of members, if there are non-members present, they will be given two minutes, which is one question and an answer. The first person on my list Senator Ní Chuilinn.

For transparency, I was contacted by one member of the FAI, Eileen Gleeson. At which point I suggested that Ms Gleeson comes in and speaks publicly to the committee. That is the only person I have been in contact with and we are all disappointed that she is not here.

I want to reference the opening statement in terms of the "Girls in Green" documentary. Everybody who has spoken so far has mentioned it. I welcome the FAI's willingness to discuss "safeguarding policy, governance and oversight", which is basically all we are here to do.

My first question is for Ms Kirsten Pakes and I ask her to cast her mind back to May 2023. Did she know about the allegations that were later exposed in the documentary that everybody has mentioned?

I believe that any questions about that are restricted. I am happy to answer any questions on safeguarding measures and procedures we have in place.

This is all about safeguarding measures and procedures. If there was an awareness of something that had happened historically to women in football, I am assuming that when that came to light safeguarding procedures would have been initiated.

Again, I do not think that is within the remit.

I ask Ms Pakes to please move closer to the microphone as people cannot hear her.

I am sorry.

I think Ms Pakes is not going to answer. I will just move on because I only have seven minutes.

To clarify, I ask Ms Pakes to repeat what she said because I do not think people heard what she said the second time.

She said it was not in the remit.

I encourage Ms Pakes to answer the question.

It is a bad start.

There is nothing within-----

I will.

Did Ms Pakes know in May 2023?

Please allow the witness to answer.

I am here to highlight the positive work that is happening throughout the association at grassroots level, our children's offices, our DLPs, everybody.

I appreciate that.

I am here to answer whatever I can.

I will give back some time to Senator Ní Chuilinn but, first, I want to set some ground rules. If somebody asks a question, unless there is some very specific reason relating to an individual or it has been outlined and discussed in great detail in here now by me and by others, then I would suggest, and I would hope, that Ms Pakes will answer the question.

I will of course. I do not mean any disrespect by not answering but it is integral to safeguarding that confidentiality is maintained, and I would not be doing my job if I am not keeping confidentiality.

The Senator might wish to rephrase her question in a way in which it could be answered.

Did Ms Pakes know in May 2023 about the allegations that later came to light in the documentary?

No.

On 5 May 2023, Ms Rafferty responded to her then PR director, when he drafted a press release, saying, "Perfect, ... That ... keeps us safe for now." What does that mean?

As Mr. Courell outlined in his opening statement, any communication in relation to an ongoing Garda investigation I cannot comment on.

Did Ms Rafferty initiate a PR response to something that was going to break before she initiated a safeguarding response? Ms Kirsten Pakes has said she did not know so Ms Rafferty did not tell her safeguarding manager.

Again, I am not able to comment on that form of communication because it is part of an ongoing Garda investigation.

Is this the answer we are going to get to everything?

We need to pause for a minute. Within reason, these are not really answers. I respect what was said in the opening statement. I do not necessarily agree with it but it is the FAI's prerogative to say it. Committees have asked these questions about correspondence that they have had, across tens of thousands of issues, many times before. I suggest that witnesses reconsider their answers.

Now, respectfully,-----

It is actually the Senator's-----

-----we were very clear in coming in here that we would not be answering any questions on the specifics. We made that clear in various correspondence over the weekend and before we reversed our position in looking for a deferral on coming in here. So we, respectfully, request that we stick to that line, a Chathaoirligh.

Okay.

We cannot. We have taken legal advice. We have taken all the advice we can take. Our priority is not to in any way endanger the justice that we have received-----

I appreciate that.

-----and the Gardaí investigation.

However, no specifics. No people have been named. No specifics relating to any individual case or Garda file or anything like that has been referenced by me.

I understand.

Sorry, this is not a to and fro. In that scenario, it is extraordinary that, while maybe not in the level of detail for the reasons Mr. Keohane have outlined, a question on whether somebody who has a position in an organisation that is funded by the taxpayer was aware of issues or not is something that cannot be answered. I ask the Senator to continue.

The day after the documentary aired, Ms Rafferty did a media briefing with Mr. Courell and she said, "We ask anyone to help us create a safe environment." That was on 8 July 2024. Does that include coaches and managers asking everybody in the game to help the FAI "create a safe environment"? Does that extend to coaches and managers?

Yes, it does.

Did Ms Rafferty ever receive any complaints of safeguarding from any coach in the year before she made that statement?

I am sorry; I am not sure what the Senator's question is.

Did anyone tell Ms Rafferty about the safeguarding issues? Did anyone tell her about the allegations that later broke? Previously, she said that she wanted help from the FAI's managers and coaches.

I will talk about what we are trying to create from our public statement on 7 July. It was our intention to try and create a safe environment - an environment where people had the opportunity to come forward.

If I think about the individuals involved in that case, which was at the forefront of all our minds today when we were coming here, I want to encourage people that there is a safe place to raise their concerns and that we can support them in whatever manner or send them down the appropriate avenue if they want to move forward to have those concerns.

When was the Raiseaconcern service initiated?

I think it was in June 2024.

It was a month before the documentary, was it?

Yes.

What triggered the service being initiated?

When we were formally approached by PFA Ireland at the end of January 2024, we went about understanding what was the best way to engage in the context of providing support to those who were coming forward. It was also important for us to understand how people can raise their concerns in a confidential space. A board oversight committee was created. Through discussions with that committee, it was determined that we should have a confidential space for individuals to raise their concerns. It is important that we create an environment of safety first whereby people have the ability to raise confidential information at any time.

Did the FAI get any complaints or were any concerns raised previously by international managers about international teams not being safe?

I am not sure whether the Senator is referring to the communication we are talking about. However, it is important to understand that when someone comes forward and asks us to hear what they have to say, it is sometimes on an informal basis. We provide support as required. Ms Pakes and her team in the child welfare and safeguarding department provide a safe space and a space where people can come forward. On the back of the PFAI coming forward with specific concerns from the girls in green, it was determined that we needed to ensure we created additional avenues for people to come forward.

I think I am out of time, so I will recap.

I will give the Senator another 45 seconds.

I thank the Chair. Ms Pakes did not know in May 2023 about what came out in the documentary. Would Ms Rafferty put on record whether she knew in May 2023?

I do not think I can comment on any of the communication in light of the ongoing Garda investigation.

Ms Rafferty does not want to put on record where she stands on that.

No. I would like to but, given the advice we received before coming to the committee hearing, at this moment, I am unable to answer that question.

We are here to talk about safeguarding policy, governance and oversight. I have one question for Dr. May about trust. She mentioned trust in her opening statement. Does she trust the FAI?

I am not sure whether the query is about this specific issue or in general.

I cannot get any answers about safeguarding policies and when or whether they were instigated, so I am wondering about trust.

We have a close working relationship. We have a network of safeguarding officers and children's officers in all the national governing bodies. We have a close informal and formal relationship with them. We carry out workshops, conferences and campaigns. We work closely with them and Ms Pakes is part of that network.

Could Dr. May answer the question directly? I apologise, but I have to be fair when it comes to time.

We have confidence in our process, which relates to that relationship, which is through the children's officers and the network of individuals who are tasked with safeguarding within their national governing bodies.

I might start by saying something unexpected. I compliment some of the people in the room on the work they have done with the FAI in recent years. I genuinely mean that. There are some people here who I have great time for as I do for the work they have done in recent years. However, I will follow the line of questioning of Senator Ní Chuillin. I will start by reading an extract of a press statement that was referenced earlier.

To clarify, the Deputy means by the FAI.

Yes, it was by the FAI on the day after the "RTÉ Investigates" programme was aired.

I am sure there is no issue with answering questions regarding a statement the FAI made.

At the press conference, Ms Rafferty stated:

It is really important to understand policies and procedures and safeguarding measures are in place and have been in place for a long time. That is not enough. It is about our behaviours across all of our football community and why we would ask everyone to help us to create a really safe environment for those who play or are in administration in football. It is essential. It cannot be just a document. It cannot be just a policy. We would ask all of you to call it out, tell us, report it and we will be committed and reassure everyone we will do everything to investigate it.

Bearing in mind the emails referenced by Senator Ní Chuilinn, does Ms Rafferty think the FAI did that?

In my role as people and culture director, I created an environment where people had the opportunity to come forward and share their concerns in a safe, confidential manner. I lead with integrity. In the interactions I have had with individuals over the past three years in my role, I believe I created that.

I am sorry to interrupt. I am not doubting Ms Rafferty's integrity at all. We are all human. People make mistakes all the time. I am not saying anyone here made a mistake. It might come out in the fullness of time that they did, but I am asking specifically in reference to the email where Ms Rafferty said that the press statement was prepared and ready for publication. It was clear to the people seated behind me. It was published in a number of newspapers, as is referenced in the opening statement. It is quite clear the FAI had knowledge of this in early 2023.

Again, I respect the questioning and I would like, when the Garda investigation has concluded, to be able to talk in more detail about it, but on this occasion-----

I respect that. I will maximise my time.

I will move on to Mr. Courell. I genuinely meant my opening comments, and he is the specific person I was referring to, about the improvements in football. On the emails in 2023, the thread presented to some of us shows that Mr. Courell was copied in on the email of 5 May. Is he willing to comment on that email?

I know it will be frustrating for the Deputy, as it is for me, but our position remains consistent in that we are not in a position to comment.

I will take the email out of it. Did Mr. Courell discuss anything with the then chief executive about the content of the email or with anyone else on the senior management team?

Again, I apologise. This is not intended as a sign of disrespect-----

Maybe the Deputy could rephrase the question, withdraw the reference to the email and ask it another way.

I am not sure how more blatantly I can ask. The last time something like this happened, I was not here. A former chief executive came here and did the same thing. It did not end well for that individual. In the context of what we have heard so far, we are in familiar territory. Is the Mr. Courell willing to disclose any communication he had with anyone in senior management at any stage about what was clearly written about in May 2023 and in the immediate aftermath of the programme?

Genuinely, I reassure the committee that our conscience is clear on this matter. However, we want to make sure it remains clear and we are not willing to compromise an ongoing investigation. Having dealt and engaged with the individuals at the centre of this, we need to remember these are real people who are seeking justice, and we are not willing to compromise that.

With respect, I have three young children and there are other people here who have children. If I was a parent involved in any set-up about any individual - I am not referencing a specific individual - and if I felt that people in senior management in the FAI had let me down as a parent, by not implementing proper safeguarding procedures, I would be offended and upset.

I will move to Ms Pakes because she is the only person who has answered a question so far. When did she become aware of the safeguarding complaint she acknowledged?

Will the Deputy repeat the question?

When did Ms Pakes become aware of the safeguarding complaint? Initially, there was this email thread in 2023. Ms Pakes acknowledged that she became aware of it at a later date. When did she become aware of it?

We have documented through our media statements and so forth, our interaction with the PFAI and the women.

Therefore Ms Pakes is saying it was after the "Prime Time" programme. That is when she became aware.

No. I am not saying that at all. I want to be able to answer the Deputy's questions but I am really conscious that I would not disclose any steps I take in any case with anybody that is not party to those proceedings. I understand it is frustrating but unless we are in an independent review and I am disclosing my steps-----

Can I ask Ms Pakes a general question, in that case? That might be more appropriate. In the event of a rumour or allegation of this description, typically - taking out the programme and every bit of it-----

We are talking about generic.

This is generic, okay? In the event of an allegation of that nature, would it be typical for stand-down protocol to be initiated fairly promptly? Obviously there is a window here. Ms Pakes may not be able to acknowledge the emails and all that but there is a nine or ten month window here where there was inaction.

I appreciate that but the Deputy is also talking in quite generic terms here in the sense of an allegation of that nature.

Okay, so I will rephrase it. If there is an allegation of a sexual nature, is immediate action taken? Is there a process? Does the process typically take a few weeks or months? What happens?

This is a pretty standard question. In your role, Ms Pakes, if an allegation of that standard is made-----

If an allegation of a sexual nature is made, first we have to establish whether it involves a child. If it involves a child, we have statutory reporting procedures we need to take. We also have, as the Deputy said, our stand-down order, a precautionary measure, that we need to put in place if there are children at risk. If it involves an allegation of something sexual with an adult, we have to understand there is self-determination in this factor where an individual is able to come forward and report the matter. There is a differentiation between a child and an adult.

May I ask one final question of Mr. Cooke, Chairman? He is the president of the board. When did the board first become aware of this?

Again, I know this will be annoying but I am not going to discuss anything specific around that because of a Garda investigation.

Sorry now, but this is a bit extraordinary. It is a pretty generic question. As a board, Mr. Cooke, you are not willing to reveal-----

We requested the minutes from boards. Even if they were redacted for matters concerning this, they could have been redacted, and that information has not been furnished here either today.

It is extraordinary, Mr. Cooke, that you sit here as president of the FAI, and bookman - I understand all of that - and have been asked the question when the board was aware of these issues in any shape or form and you are refusing to answer. We are not talking in relation to any specifics or any people. It is a pretty generic question.

On information specific to that, obviously we are aware when the PFA came forward. We were obviously aware then. I sat on the oversight committee.

Sorry, when the PFA-----

Made a complaint that generated the "Girls in Green" documentary. We were aware of that.

So you were aware of that from the time the complaint was made rather than when the documentary was made.

When the complaint was made.

Around what date was that?

It was January-February 2024.

I thank everyone for attending here. I will raise another topic that may assist with answering. Is Mr. Courell aware of a project called operation magenta?

Yes. It was the working title. It was not called operation magenta it was called project magenta. It was the working title for our response and engagement with the complaints that presented.

When was that established?

January 2024.

Is Mr. Keohane happy that the independent review he ordered into operation magenta interviewed all those central to the issue before the board was told in the autumn of 2024 there was nothing to see here?

Project magenta was set up at the beginning of February 2024. It was a subcommittee of the board which also involved senior executives of the organisation. We also brought on board some outside support to ensure we handled the very sensitive matters absolutely carefully and properly. I cannot comment on the investigation to which the Senator referred because it referred to earlier matters but I am really satisfied that the operation of what the Senator called project magenta was handled professionally, properly and carefully to ensure we did the best job we could possibly do under difficult circumstances, bearing in mind that we were dealing with things then which we did not know the full extent of. We wanted to make sure that we listened carefully to the people who were making the complaints, the women who were making the complaints, and that we ensured they got justice or that justice would be delivered in the end for them.

I will return to Mr. Courell. He will agree that he addressed a media conference outside the FAI headquarters after the allegations were made in various documentaries, as well as being documented in the Sunday Independent and RTÉ. Did he tell that press briefing that he first became aware of those serious allegations in early 2024?

I think my exact wording was that these matters first came to our attention in early 2024. That was in reference to the complaints that came forward. To clarify any ambiguity around that, the PFA of Ireland, which is the representative body for professional players in Ireland, approached the association in January 2024 with direct concerns that were originating from the group of women at the centre of this. We then engaged with them. They facilitated a sit-down for us to sit with the group of women, and with those direct complaints, the ability was there for us to act.

Therefore Mr. Courell had no prior knowledge whatsoever of these allegations prior to them becoming public.

As I said, that statement was in reference to the complaints and the allegations that ultimately presented through the PFA of Ireland in January.

Does Mr. Courell have any regrets about the statement he made on that day?

That was in regard to complaints rather than any other reference point there may have been.

It is referencing that he had absolutely no prior knowledge of these allegations before they came to light in the various documentaries.

No, I was referencing that in the context of the complaints. There is a distinction between a complaint and another approach that we may or may not have had.

Therefore Mr. Courell had no prior knowledge of those complaints that were made prior to them coming out as serious allegations in documentaries.

Correct. A complaint is a trigger for action to be taken and that is how a proper and due process should be followed. If anybody presents with any concerns, we would always encourage them to go via our existing vehicles of access. We have our safeguarding team, our people and culture team for employee matters and, as referenced earlier, we also introduced Raiseaconcern, so there are three avenues within the FAI for people to formalise their complaints. That then enables the system to take action.

Following everyone else’s line of questions, can Mr. Courell withdraw any of the statement that was made given the information that is public knowledge that he may have been included in emails in 2023 giving him the information of these complaints that were made?

No, the complaints only came forward in January of 2024. They were only crystalised in February of 2024. Anything that happened before that was not a direct complaint.

Ms Pakes mentioned she had no knowledge of these complaints prior to 2024. Does she have an exact date of when she was informed of this? Can she tell me who informed her? Was it from public documentation or was it somebody from within the organisation?

I am trying to be consistent in my approach here because I am being mindful. As I said, I would not normally talk about steps that happen through a concern or complaint. I have to be mindful here that there will be individuals out there who have genuine concerns, who want to come forward and they have to trust in the process of confidentiality and I have to stand over that.

I am really careful, for their needs, that I do not breach anything around that. Any process that might have happened is key to that confidentiality.

We have heard extensively how safeguarding policies are in place right across the board. Policies can be in place but it is the follow-up and the action that is vital and that is where we are asking the questions today. Ms Pakes has outlined the safeguarding policies. Is Ms Rafferty happy that these policies have been enacted right across the board? When did they begin? Did they begin prior to 2023 or have they only subsequently been brought in and enacted?

I joined the organisation in November 2022 so I am not an expert on the safeguarding policies prior to that. Ms Pakes and her team are very diligent in ensuring those policies are enacted. In relation to "Girls in Green" and the concerns and complaints that were brought directly to me by the PFA of Ireland, again we ensured that we approached those complaints with compassion and a level of confidentiality. There was a group of individuals who were bringing concerns to us. At that point, we established our oversight committee. We brought in expertise, as Mr. Keohane referred to. That is where we considered our Raiseaconcern service. For me, where we are right now, I would reiterate what Ms Pakes is saying. It is really important for individuals who are out there to trust the FAI and the processes, policies and procedures. I will go back to my comment that I made on that day. It is about behaviour, openness, and support. While I know the Senator is referring back to previous communication, we are very clear that as an association we want to create a safe space and that individuals will come forward at different points and we will enact those policies.

So Ms Rafferty is standing over it that absolutely every action was taken when it was necessary to be taken, right from the start.

When received those complaints - that is a very generic statement and I apologise to the Senator. I want to be really clear when we are talking about those complaints that were brought forward, I actually was quite shocked. When those complaints were brought forward it really emphasised the importance of establishing good oversight.

And clearly looking at the time, is Ms Rafferty satisfied that every single action was taken? It is a yes or no answer.

In relation to the formal complaints that were brought in, absolutely, yes.

When they were brought. Thank you.

I welcome all the witnesses. The word "trust" was just used. It is very hard sitting on this side of the table, listening. It is like watching a US television network with some of the people pleading the Fifth Amendment, not answering questions to a committee of people who were elected and are in place here to represent the taxpayer. It is very hard to have trust, not on a personal basis but in the group or organisation, for those of us sitting on this side. To me, concerns and complaints are one and the same. If there are concerns, they should be treated similarly. I want to ask Mr. Cooke about his comment. Was it in 2024 or May 2023 that he was made aware of concerns or complaints?

Complaints in January, February 2024.

Concerns?

Complaints, through the PFA of Ireland.

Did he have any concerns or any notification of concerns prior to that, that he was aware of?

No.

To Ms Rafferty, regarding an email I am looking at that was sent in May 2023, it stands out to me, I do not know whether we can refer to it, the phrase "that definitely keeps us safe for now". That strikes me as though it was looking to keep the FAI safe; there is nothing about the people referred to that the concern should be about.

If I refer back to my interaction with the individuals involved in this, because I have had a lot of one-to-one interaction with the group, I absolutely believe that group has a level of trust in me because I have dealt with their concerns. I have treated them with respect and respected their confidentiality. I have created a space where they can raise those concerns. I recognise the level of frustration among the committee here. I am really sincere in what I say about not impacting an ongoing Garda investigation because I have dealt with those individuals on a personal basis. I would have to hold that line. I am happy to answer those questions when the Garda investigation is completed. It is really important because I know those individuals involved in the case and the ongoing Garda investigation.

In terms of general concerns that are brought, I do believe staff internally and those involved in football externally consider me as someone they could trust and come forward. I do believe that as an executive, a board and those involved in football within the association, we have created a level of trust where people can come forward.

We have correspondence from Eileen Gleeson, who was asked by the committee to come in, where she states that she expressed a desire to come in, however, the employer's decision was to the effect that it would be wholly inappropriate for her to attend the committee in any capacity. Why would you not want somebody coming in here who this committee asked to attend? Who made that decision? Who wrote that correspondence to Eileen Gleeson?

That was a decision taken by the board. We thought it would be wholly unreasonable to have somebody in a public forum who is taking a legal case against the organisation at the minute.

Despite the fact that this committee asked for her to come in. That is our remit, to ask who we see fit.

As Mr. Courell said in his opening statement, we also felt that we could properly represent the organisation through the people who are here present in front of you. Our overriding bit, let me repeat, is that we could not encounter a situation where somebody who is taking a case would be debated in a public forum, a case that we intend to robustly defend.

On those safety concerns, were any of the witnesses made aware of them? Was Mr. Courell made aware of those concerns from Eileen Gleeson?

Sorry, I ask the Deputy to expand a little bit on his question.

With regard to the national team, was Mr. Courell aware of these issues?

Is the Deputy talking about the Eileen Gleeson case?

Yes.

I appreciate the Deputy is going to maybe baulk at this but there will be limitations to what I can say. I will try my best to address them. The limitations are there because we are in ongoing litigation. With that said, there are a range of issues that were identified in the unfortunate media leak of that case. We have not yet had an opportunity to mount our defence but as Mr. Keohane said, it will be robust. We will be submitting that to the Circuit Court in due course. It would be right and proper for us to respect the process and enable that to play out. With that said, I want to just give reassurance to every young girl, every mum, every dad who is listening or watching today that the association places a huge emphasis on women's and girls' football. The scale of growth it is experiencing is immense, with a 79% increase in participation in women's and girls' football over the last four seasons. We have played our part and continue to do so by investing heavily, with the 12th-highest investment across UEFA, into those standards. With regard to any issues that were identified in relation to the women's national team, it is only right and proper, as we have acknowledged, there were some concerns or challenges that were raised. We listened, we took action and they were addressed long before any of this came to light, such as ensuring that the women's national team now has a security detail in support of them.

Was Ms Rafferty or Ms Pakes made aware of that at the time?

The specific allegations the Deputy is referring to in the application, again, I am not involved directly with the women's national team so those concerns would not come directly to me.

Ms Rafferty was not aware or was not made aware of them, no?

At different points employees bring different concerns to me. There are a number of allegations in the application so I cannot go into one specific thing as to whether I was aware of it or not. There are many allegations; some I was aware of and others I was not because I am not part of the operations of any of the international teams.

There will be many concerns raised that are outside my remit and there might be concerns that would come under safeguarding but would be handled through other channels.

I thank the witnesses. As other members have said, there is a lot of positive work being done by the FAI. However, the issue we are dealing with is around safeguarding. Some very serious allegations have been made which relate to how the organisation responded and some governance issues. I want to clarify what we know already. We know that a formal complaint was made in February 2024, which Mr. Courell was aware of. Mr. Cook and Mr. Keohane indicated that, as of February 2024, they were aware of a formal complaint made by the PFA. Were all of the directors of the FAI aware of it in February 2024? Okay.

We know there were the newspaper reports and the documentary aired in July 2024. When were the Department and Sport Ireland made aware of the formal complaint? Were the Department and Sport Ireland aware of any concerns that had been raised prior to the formal complaint?

The FAI informed the Department in April 2024 that there was an impending investigation involving the alleged abuse of players in the 1990s.

When did Sport Ireland become aware of it?

We would generally be notified at the same time when these issues arise. It is important for us to be aware and to trust that we will be informed, but we do not seek information of any detail at the early stage of an investigation.

I want to ask about NGBs generally. They have safeguarding policies. Part of the issue here seems to be the debate between what is classified as a formal complaint and the raising of a concern. I do not want to go in to specific issues, but the dispute here seems to be that while concerns were raised in May 2023, a formal complaint did not come until February 2024. Generally with regard to NGBs or from a policy perspective, what is the standard when an issue comes up? Does it have to be a formal complaint? What happens if someone says there is a rumour or whatever?

Sport Ireland would not ordinarily be involved with rumours or concerns unless there is a formal complaint that has been actioned and is verifiable in some way.

What is the threshold? We are used to loads of rumours being thrown around in politics, but this is a safeguarding issue. This is something specific. The dispute here seems to be about the difference between a complaint and a concern that has been expressed. When would Dr. May expect an organisation to act?

We would not expect to be notified of an issue unless there was an official complaint.

I was not asking in terms of a notification. I am asking in general terms. What is the threshold if a concern was raised or a complaint made about safeguarding?

I do not think there is a defined threshold and the Deputy has raised a fair issue there. It is challenging when there is no defined threshold. However, we would not expect an NGB to act immediately and to take fundamental actions in relation to a concern. We would expect it to explore it in greater depth and to look into the issue and establish whether it felt that there was a greater issue of concern here. Until it becomes a formal complaint, it is very difficult for an NGB to respond.

I might ask Mr. Courell because this is specifically about the difference between a concern and a complaint. We have clearly established that a formal complaint was made in February and I am satisfied in terms of the responses that action was taken on foot of that. What is the difference between a concern and a complaint? What is threshold in terms of action being taken?

If we want to talk in generic terms-----

I am talking in a general sense.

It would be if someone came to me today and said, "I think something is happening and it is not happening to me". I would want to afford them the safe space. I think I am an open individual who people would come to have that conversation with. The next step would be to encourage them to engage with the processes we have in place to formalise it. It also, however, depends on whether it is a child or adult that has been subjected to the inappropriate behaviour. As Ms Pakes referenced earlier, a key tenet of safeguarding legislation is that the autonomy of an adult needs to be respected and it is therefore their choice if they want to report their experiences. We are only able to take action with a report, otherwise we would be at risk of defamation or a range of different topics. I thank Dr. May for acknowledging the difficulty that any NGB would face in dealing with this generic situation.

That is specifically why I asked the question. In the document the FAI provided on safeguarding in Irish football, one of the things it indicates is that a stand down order is an immediate protective measure that can be issued on three grounds: when statutory authorities are investigating a child welfare or vulnerable person concern; when concerns are raised with the FAI outside of such an investigation; or when Garda vetting disclosures indicate risk.

I totally get that fair procedure has to be established. However, our concern - and the answer is yet to be established - is that when a formal complaint was made, did the FAI act in accordance with procedures? On the evidence we have heard, I think that has been case. Our issue comes back to Deputy O'Sullivan's point about if one was the parent of young children and so on, if concerns were raised with the FAI outside-----

It is with concerns relating to children or vulnerable persons that stand down orders are set out within the child welfare and safeguarding policy. It is not a generic concern.

I appreciate that it is not generic but again this comes back to the discussion that this is safeguarding in Irish football generally, that is how it is expressed and worded with the FAI document. The critical issue for us is determining the thresholds that need to be determined on safeguarding. What you seem to be saying to me is that it almost has to move to that level - if it is an adult player, to a formal complaint process. I totally accept you are very reasonable and encourage people to engage. Is that where the FAI will move to take action?

I apologise to the Deputy but I want to make sure that Ms Pakes is able to land her message around his specific reference to stand down orders. There is a clear distinction between child welfare and vulnerable adult versus adult. The stand down policy the Deputy referenced relates to children and vulnerable adults as opposed to more generic concerns around adults.

Would Mr. Courell potentially define a young female player as a vulnerable adult, particularly if they are in the company of someone in a position of power?

If it is okay, I will defer to Ms Pakes to address that question?

Our definition within the child welfare and safeguarding policy is taken from the National Vetting Bureau Act's definition of a vulnerable person.

May I ask one final question?

The Deputy has 15 seconds.

It directly relates to the Cathaoirleach. Mr. Robert Watt, as a director of the FAI, contacted the Chair specifically around this and I question whether this was appropriate. Did the FAI ask Mr. Watt, as a director, to contact the Chair of this committee in advance of the meeting?

Just to be clear, I did not have a conversation with him. Will the chair of the FAI answer the question?

I had a conversation with the Cathaoirleach, as has already been stated. If I recall my conversations with the board correctly, Mr. Watt volunteered to make a call but I have no knowledge of that call taking place.

There was no call. He messaged me.

Okay, I thank the Chair.

I was going to ask that question.

It is safe to say the last time the FAI appeared before this committee it was probably one of the most infamous hearings in the committee's history. As somebody who is heavily involved with the game and has a huge love for it, I was always very hopeful that the next time the FAI returned, it would be in a more positive setting and its representatives could outline the good work that is done under the new era to rebuild the reputation of and restore confidence in the organisation. Unfortunately, the uncertainty in recent days and the toing and froing - "Are they coming, are they not?" - probably has not covered the organisation in much glory.

That said, however, it is prudent of the FAI to reverse its decision and attend the committee today, considering the significance of the issues that have been raised and highlighted by my colleagues here, but also given the climate we are in and given that our academies will be heavily reliant on government funding in the upcoming budget in a couple of weeks' time and that any potential risk to that funding would have a detrimental effect on the evolution of the grassroots game in this country. I am a firm believer that you cannot punish the next generation of Irish footballers, be they children or women, for the sins of suits in boardrooms past or present.

With that in mind, I have listened intently to the answers the witnesses could and could not give. Can they outline to the committee how many outstanding legal cases there are at present?

In terms of safeguarding?

Yes.

I do not believe we have any but I will ask Ms Pakes to clarify.

If there are any safeguarding legal cases, they would be not with us. We might be informed by Tusla or An Garda Síochána about cases that we should be made aware of, but they are not directly with us.

Ms Rafferty mentioned in one of her answers that at times there can be many allegations. Are there any stand-down orders in place at the moment?

I am not over the stand-down orders.

That is Ms Pakes as well.

That is Ms Pakes.

I just picked up on a comment Ms Rafferty made that there can be many allegations, which I presume-----

My terminology was probably incorrect. It is actually about concerns or if someone wants to raise something where they are not sure how to move forward with it. It is about coming to someone they feel they can trust and where they will be able to talk about something in a confidential manner. While my role and the remit is more within staff and employees within the association, I have got involved and people would come to me from grassroots level just with my interaction daily with people across the football community.

Does Ms Pakes want to comment on that, whether there are any stand-down orders in place at the moment?

We do have stand-down orders in place but, again, it is confidential.

I appreciate that.

They are not a sanction; they are a precautionary measure we put in place. We do highlight to the individuals involved that it is very confidential.

But are there any in place at the moment?

Yes.

There are. Can Ms Pakes give a number?

I would not like to give a number.

Okay. No problem.

In relation to any Garda investigation or potential litigation or lawsuit that may arise out of anything like that, I trust the FAI is indemnified against any action. What I am trying to get to is, if there are any costs to that, the potential knock-on effects it might have on Irish football.

That will depend on the circumstance or the nature of any legal action that may come, whether it is current or historical, depending on which insurers we were with, what policy cover there was, the nature of the complaint, the nature of the action or response. I do not have a blanket answer for the Deputy, I am afraid. It is unique to each and every case.

I am probably unique among my colleagues around the table here in that I am a designated liaison person for a large organisation under the FAI's remit and I am mandated with upholding best practice with regard to safeguarding. I have gone through the stringent criteria the FAI has put clubs through. It is ironic that we jump through so many hoops, particularly to meet our licensing criteria in relation to safeguarding and so on. Is Mr. Courell confident that the organisation is meeting its own standards and thresholds that it is setting for grassroots clubs and League of Ireland clubs around the country?

Yes. I believe we do fantastic work in safeguarding, within both the organisation and our community. We are driving day in, day out for stronger standards. Our FAI club mark programme, just looking across the grassroots game, has been in place since 2017 and has been inching closer and closer to full compliance. We have made that mandatory from early 2026 as part of that. Not only do clubs and the volunteers themselves have a legal obligation to be vetted and safeguarding-trained; we will audit each and every one of those clubs to enable them to gain that club mark process or that club mark mark. Our colleagues from the Department or Sport Ireland may have a view on it, but we are absolutely doing good work in the safeguarding space, and that should be recognised. I thank not only our staff but all the volunteers who help enable that system to work for us.

Dr. May touched on this earlier, that she has confidence in the collaboration and the process that Sport Ireland has with the FAI and the metrics they are working towards in advance of 2027. At this stage of the process and Sport Ireland's monitoring of the FAI, are there any downfalls, any glaringly obvious holes, that the FAI is not meeting at present, or is Sport Ireland confident that, collectively, they are on the right path for them to reach their metrics by 2027?

To confirm, does the Deputy mean within the context of the MOU?

With the MOU, yes.

With the MOU, it is a three-year process. It has been in place and it was only signed less than a year ago, so we do not expect all the requirements to be met immediately. However, we work very closely and we meet regularly to assess progress on various issues and we are very comfortable that, as we progress through, we get the full transparent responses from the FAI as to where it is at and we will highlight issues. The MOU does not specifically go down the road of safeguarding but we will at all times monitor and check and verify that the FAI is in adherence with the MOU because it is very important to us. We are comfortable and confident that it has made significant progress around good governance. The previous MOU had 160-plus recommendations; the current MOU has only 16 recommendations. That is a reflection of the progress that has been made, and we will continue to manage that process.

I thank all the witnesses for being here. Like others, I echo not only the good work that is being done but also the sentiments of the Chair, that we really have not had a great start. I appreciate from the FAI's perspective that there are confidentiality concerns around issues relating to safeguarding but I do not think it is striking the balance right. I am seeking comfort, and I think the public are seeking comfort, that the organisation is safe, and that is what it has asserted it wants to provide. I do not believe, however, that the balance is struck correctly at the moment. For example, in the opening statements across the groups, we heard that nobody should feel unsafe in Irish football, nobody should have felt unsafe in the past and nobody should feel unheard. However, there are voices that we clearly want to hear from as a committee and that we have requested who are not here today. In normal governance procedures, we, as those charged with oversight, are the ones who decide whose voices are important in our being satisfied that our oversight is met.

Having said all that, like Deputy Byrne, I want to try to phrase my questions in such a way that they will lead to meaningful conversations rather than the very frustrating answers we are hearing from the FAI to a lot of the questions being put to it.

I believe it was Ms Rafferty who answered earlier that the Raiseaconcern confidential reporting service was implemented in June 2024. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Can she tell me what the prior mechanism for reporting of concerns was? I appreciate that, as she said, she started in November 2022 but, as director of people and culture, she would have been briefed on what was in place beforehand, I am sure.

In terms of safeguarding, it is not under my remit, but absolutely, in terms of employees raising concerns internally, there are HR policies and procedures. There is a grievance procedure that-----

Then does Ms Pakes have the answer to that? I apologise to Ms Rafferty. What was it that was in place before the Raiseaconcern service?

We have sections 5 and 6 of the child welfare policy.

How many reports and concerns have been raised annually under the Raiseaconcern service? How does that compare with figures prior to the introduction of that service with any equivalent mechanism that existed before then? Do the witnesses have those figures to hand?

We have 129 raised through the Raiseaconcern service. There are a variety of concerns raised. They are not all relating to safeguarding matters.

Regarding safeguarding matters, we have had 109 people come to us with concerns. We have signposted them. We have spoken to them. We have directed them to the right call.

Do the witnesses have the figures from before that service was introduced? As many of my colleagues have tried to do, I am trying to get a picture of the operations that were in place in terms of safeguarding before and after some of the very pertinent issues under discussion. Does the FAI have that kind of analysis? If so, is the service working?

It was important that we continue to work with our processes within sections 5 and 6 of the policy because it is mandatory that we have reporting procedures, as outlined in our child safeguarding statement. The Raiseaconcern service was to give that anonymous aspect to it because we did get feedback that there could be times when people wanted to report a concern but they felt that they could not because-----

Okay. I thank Ms Pakes for that.

If the Deputy does not mind, may I provide a bit more flavour on the numbers around the Raiseaconcern service?

Briefly, please.

It was introduced just over a year ago. As Ms Pakes has kindly offered, we have had 129 approaches to that process. Forty-three of those are actually outside of the remit. They were queries or questions about other sports that presented, so that number is slightly inflated. That leaves, effectively, 86 cases, of which 70 have been closed, 16 remain open and eight of them-----

I appreciate Mr. Courell giving additional detail and colour, but it is really not what I am looking for.

Sorry.

I have a limited amount of time and I just want to continue.

Please supply the information to the committee separately.

Please do provide that.

We have already.

It would be helpful.

We have already.

In my line of questioning, it is not really what I am looking for.

I am not sure whether the witnesses answered Deputy Byrne's question on how many legal cases were currently pending with the FAI.

Does the Deputy mean in relation to our safeguarding?

Do the witnesses have the broader figures as well?

I do not believe we have got those. We do not have those figures.

Perhaps the FAI could furnish them to the committee afterwards also.

Apologies. I do not believe we have any legal cases with regard to safeguarding ongoing at the moment.

My apologies.

Just to clarify that.

I must have missed that.

On a previous exchange between Ms Pakes and Deputy O'Sullivan, if there is an assault committed against an adult and that assault is witnessed, is there a requirement for that to be reported by the witness under the FAI's current safeguarding requirements?

It depends. Did the Deputy say that it was an adult being assaulted by another adult?

If there is an assault committed against an adult - I did not specify - and the assault is witnessed, is there an obligation on the witness to come forward?

I believe the individual can go to the Garda and report it. The witness might report it, but the Garda might not follow through with that.

It might be something to look at within the FAI's safeguarding.

We are looking at adult safeguarding.

Great.

We have got a consultant who is helping us with that process.

Great, because I think-----

The key point is around self-determination. We-----

I appreciate that but there are also instances in which self-determination can be hampered by a culture that is created whereby reporting-----

Part of the process is us asking would the individual like to report it. If the individual says "No", we have to document that he or she did not want us to report it.

That is why I am asking about witnesses because witnesses can be vital people in those instances. Sometimes, the assault itself can be a form of intimidation for the people around. We all know from the clubs of which we are all members and the environments that we operate in within sport that it is a team event.

That bystander behaviour is a really key part of safeguarding and that is a part we need to work on.

I have one minute left and I want to discuss an issue that has not arisen today. My questions are probably for Mr. Courell. SIPTU has sought to engage with the FAI on the subject of the planned reduction in jobs across the organisation, and particularly football development officers. Does the FAI plan on collaborative engagement in order to protect those jobs? Does the FAI consider any of those redundancies as relating to safeguarding?