Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will make a couple of points before I bring other members in. From reading the report by the Ombudsman for Children's Office, it comes across as though our responsibility for children in direct provision was taken on begrudgingly by some. It looks like a system that was not really devised or thought out in any constructive way, but instead was developed on the hoof without any consideration being given to the needs of children seeking refuge.

I find it quite astounding, for instance, that children seeking refuge were not considered by Tusla to be a vulnerable group. It is unbelievable that it would have taken that kind of stance. To hear that IPAS does not have any concerns regarding the impact on children growing up in direct provision is, quite frankly, unbelievable. One line in the report really hit home to me. It stated, "the lack of operational guidance between ... [Tusla and IPAS] has resulted in families being transferred ... [to other] ... centres mid-assessment without the knowledge of social workers" who would have been working with them. This added to children being left lacking in visibility.

Has there been any evidence in the witnesses’ work that when this was brought to the agencies concerned, they made an attempt to reform the way they carried out these roles? Do they know if children who fell through the cracks here were being followed up with or whether their assessment had to be picked up from the beginning? Finally, for now, throughout their report, one phrase that recurs repeatedly is how the agencies failed to implement the recommendations contained in the McMahon report. Multidisciplinary assessments to identify and assist vulnerable people with special reception needs in particular is a case in point. This a simple question. I doubt it has a simple answer but I am going to ask it. Why have the McMahon report recommendations been consistently ignored by Departments?