It is not so much the fact that the official report into last month’s fire at the Hadfield street Drop-In Centre was due to be handed to government yesterday as just what the report and its recommendations will mean for the quality of care that children in the custody of the state can expect, going forward, that is relevant at this time.
The public comments emanating from the submission of the preliminary report including those made by Minister of State Joseph Harmon point to apparent official concern over deficiencies in the practices and protocols associated with the safety of the children in the event of a fire. Interestingly, Harmon also made a point of saying that limitations in fire-related safety protocols also extend to other buildings housing state agencies.
The latter point is, of course, well-made, since it is no secret that while government has overall responsibility for monitoring safety and health, including fire safety, across workplaces in the country, the example set at some state entities leaves a whole lot to be desired. More to the point what used to be the Ministry of Labour and is currently the Ministry of Social Protection has a poor track record as far as workplace inspections and the imposition of penalties for transgressions is concerned.
Incidentally, the Fire Department has on more than one occasion shared its frustration with this newspaper over the difficulties associated with getting both business premises and state-controlled buildings to comply with fire-safety requirements particularly in the matters of upgrading old and antiquated electrical installations and the haphazard storage of material on premises. From the Fire Department’s perspective both the public and private sectors are inclined to bolt the doors on fire-related safety only after the horses have already left the stables, that is to say after a fire – like the one last month at the Drop-In Centre – has come and gone.
In relation to the Drop-In Centre President Granger is on record as saying that “if we find that there was gross dereliction of duties… persons who omitted to commit acts, which would have prevented that catastrophe will be punished…” Except we are thoroughly mistaken, the President, we believe, is making a point that goes beyond the circumstances of the Drop-In Centre fire, per se. It would certainly appear that he is pointing to a concern over the broader quality of care afforded children in the custody of the state.
While, of course, one has no wish to preempt the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, the tragic events at the Drop-In Centre and more particularly the loss of life provide an opportunity (that should not be overlooked) to paint with a much broader remedial brush as far as significantly upgrading the quality of care that children enjoy whilst in the custody of the state. It has to be said, of course, that where the physical and procedural arrangements associated with fire prevention and fire drills at a state-run institution for children are found to be deficient those deemed responsible should be made to account. The point has already been made however that as far as the Drop-In Centre was concerned, deficiencies in areas of fire drill and fire safety were, to put it mildly, a microcosm of a far wider qualitative deficiency in the management of the institution. The staffing strength at the Centre on the night of the fire, for example, raises serious questions about the judgement of those institutions and managers with oversight jurisdiction. As one professional care-giver told this newspaper, it appeared as though the Centre had become neglected to the point where it was simply left to run on “virtual auto pilot.”
While the Inquiry by Colonel Algernon was intended to deal specifically with events at the Drop-In Centre we need to remind ourselves that, over time, there have been numerous challenges of one sort or another associated with the provision of convivial facilities for children in the care of the state. These extend to their socialization and education, tools that are critical to them in life beyond those institutions that are presently home to them. Children in the custody of state ought to have expectations that go beyond simply being housed and fed until they are old enough to go one their own.
If, therefore, the early indications are that the outcome of the Inquiry into the circumstances of the fire will result in physical remedying and upgrading of the facilities at what we expect will be a considerably renovated facility (and an extension of those remedies to other similar institutions), the equally important need is for a comprehensive examination of our wider professional child-care infrastructure. This would be with a view to arriving at determinations in relation to current levels of competency, training and professionalism that exist within the system and whether the extant management structure embraces those practices and protocols that allow for the raising of standards of child-care beyond simply ensuring that there is no repeat of the Drop-In Centre Tragedy. That is the least the Inquiry can do.
