Mr. Fred McBride:

The report states that after the examination of certain cases, there was no indication that children were at immediate risk. There is always a degree of unknown elements with 53,000 referrals a year. Almost all of them - 98% or 99% - are screened, although they do not all move to an initial assessment. Somebody looks a referral and decides whether immediate action needs to be taken. HIQA acknowledges that, from the evidence it looked at, no child who needs an immediate response does not get one. That is consistent with what we know ourselves because we respond immediately to children who are at immediate risk or in harm's way. We monitor the cases which are waiting to be allocated and where the circumstances change, we look for any new information that comes in on these cases. It is entirely possible that a child could be in harm's way without us knowing. In the case of more than one third of unallocated cases, I would not even call them "unallocated" because they are being actively worked by our duty and intake teams. It is simply that they do not have a single, dedicated social worker attached to them. I realise and accept that having a duty team working cases is not ideal but I do not think it means they are unallocated. That is a debatable point and I do not suggest I am absolutely correct in this regard but I am trying to provide nuance in this respect.

Other cases are monitored by the duty team and when there is any new information suggesting a case be given a higher priority, we do that. We contact schools, we may visit a child at home and we talk to people in the community. Can we always know there are no risks to children? I am sorry but we cannot.