Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I was hoping that the witnesses would come before us today with a very clear, metric-driven response to each of the points which were raised in the HIQA report. These points are addressed in quite general terms in the witnesses' statement, but I was hoping that we would be able to go through the six standards with which there was moderate non-compliance, for instance, and that the witnesses would lay out a very clear timeline as to what actions were being taken to address that non-compliance and when they would be completed. I would also like the witnesses to address the two standards with which there was major non-compliance. I am hopeful that the witnesses can come back to us with a very clear, definitive action plan as to when those actions will be completed.

I will start with something which is a little bit outside of what has gone before. There was a major incident on the campus in August 2016. There was a fire. The dates of the announced inspections in the HIQA report range from 27 March to 30 March. In that report it is stated that there was moderate non-compliance in respect of standard 9 - premises, safety and security. For instance, "Staff were found to have inconsistent responses with regard to the procedure to be followed in the event of a fire." The report identifies that doors were of varying sizes and, in respect of national standards, "Appropriate annual inspection and testing certificates were not available to demonstrate that the emergency lighting system was in compliance with the appropriate standard." Notwithstanding the positivity of what the witnesses have presented to the committee regarding deconstruction of some of the cultural, staff and managerial practices and the fact that they are engaged in a process to try to rectify many of these issues, by any fair analysis there is a long way to go if there was a fire in August 2016 and in March 2017, a good number of months later, HIQA was still identifying deficiencies in respect of something as simple as fire safety. That is the first point the witnesses might address.

The second point relates to the recent High Court judgment against Oberstown in which the judge clearly stated that there was a limited breach - and I emphasise the word "limited" - of constitutional rights in respect of deprivation of physical exercise; loss of contact with families; lack of procedural safeguards relating to the imposition of separate and associated deprivations, particularly the formal written recording of decisions; and regarding imposition of the separation regime. As I understand it, and I would like the witnesses' perspective, this case was taken by four people. It related to a specific incident or incidents which took place in August 2016. Is Oberstown Children Detention Campus still breaching the constitutional rights of citizens - children and young adults - in respect of separation and associated deprivations, particularly in respect of the formal written recording of decisions? Is it still breaching these rights or has it rectified the matter in the intervening period? I am not a lawyer, but the HIQA report of March 2017 would clearly suggest that there was major non-compliance in respect of standard 2 and that "Some children spent long periods of time in single separation and the reasons for this were not always clearly recorded." I suggest that, notwithstanding the positivity in the witnesses' embracing of cultural and managerial change in a real and meaningful way, the witnesses still have not dealt with these issues satisfactorily. These are simple issues which can be dealt with without expenditure of major resources and within a short timeframe. When will the witnesses satisfy the committee, the Minister, and the users and staff of this service that this will be rectified?