Professor Ursula Kilkelly:

A number of issues were raised and I will attempt to respond to them. In respect of the Tusla nominee, I brought to the attention of the Department that the Tusla nominee intended to step down due to other responsibilities and there was a time lag in the nomination of the replacement for that person. I repeatedly brought it to the attention of the Department. We now have the Tusla nominee on the board in full attendance. These matters arise from time to time as board membership changes. When gaps arise, I always bring the vital nature of Department nominees in particular to the attention of the Department very quickly. I can only do so much in this regard but I stand over what I reported to HIQA in the consultation with it as part of its process. There was a gap at the time that has been rectified.

In respect of the named individuals and insurance, we always endeavour not to deal with risk at the brink but to take the proactive measures that will prevent us being in that situation in the first place. While there has been reference to two named individuals, the legal risks arise with regard to identifiable individuals, not just named individuals. The nature of the implications expressed in the report arise in that context. It is a much wider issue than named individuals and that is an Irish legal concept that is very pressing in this instance. In the context of the vacuum, I understand completely the Deputy's concern and appreciate very much her long commitment. We have engaged on these issues a number of times when I have appeared before the committee. The Deputy was in Oberstown at the time. I also appreciate her levelling with us on the gravity of what we faced. We were utterly aware of the gravity of what we faced at that time. Throughout that time, we never had a Pollyanna view about how things are on the floor of Oberstown.

It is very unhelpful to suggest that there is a lack of understanding of the true nature of the problems and what needs to be done to root out and unseat deep-seated practices that have built up over the years. This is part of the difficulty regarding where we are. We are utterly aware and have worked non-stop on these issues. I have daily contact with the campus. We have routine meetings, but in between that, at least two days per week are spent on it. It is simply not true to suggest either the board or management do not have full understanding of and oversight regarding what is happening on the ground. I am not suggesting for a second that notwithstanding the improvements, we do not have a long way to go. We do, but that is very clear.

The Deputy is right in the context of separation. This has been a really intractable problem. In response to Deputy Sherlock, I would say that we engaged on this last year. We have put a new policy and framework in place regarding separation, but we have focused much more on the way it is recorded. We have an entirely new data collection system to manage that. That is prompting a much greater level of detailed oversight, accountability and approval, including daily monitoring by the director. That is what has driven down the practice of separation dramatically - 50% in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The board has been very clear and has issued a statement on the use of restrictive practices, the unacceptable nature of those practices and how we need to take various steps to ensure the policy and its implementation are correct.

It is simply not true to suggest that we are satisfied with good policy. In the earlier session, Professor Hardwick mentioned that we had good policies. I do not agree. We did not have good policies. We have done a raft of work to put our policies on a firm and solid footing. We are about to develop and improve an entirely new policy framework that will set this up for the future. The extent of the work on policy and the implementation of policy is relentless, but we should not be under any illusions about the complexity of that work or its demanding nature. None of it would be possible without bringing all of the staff on campus - new and old staff who do this work on a day-to-day basis - with us. The key issue in the context of the broader concerns about the report was the fact that it had to enable us to move forward. I accept that Deputy Rabbitte's interest in it was perhaps slightly different. She wanted this root-and-branch approach and that comfort. I accept that completely. Clearly, we need to work better to make sure the Deputy is better informed and feels that she has the assurances that she needs.