Vol. 1010 No. 1
44. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the legislative actions he plans to take in cases in which there is a question or doubt concerning a child’s guardianship status that their rights are ensured from the perspective of the best interests of the child; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36448/21]
I thank the Minister for taking this question. I understand and appreciate that it does not fall solely within his Department's remit. It concerns the guardianship status of children and ensuring their rights in the best interests of the child. Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
The issue of guardianship is a matter for the courts in the first instance, under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. However, I have a continuing interest in ensuring that the legal and practical arrangements for the welfare of children are well-founded and appropriately applied at all times. As Minister in this Department, I have no formal or defined role in the determination of cases where there is a legal issue about the guardianship of a child. That is, and must be, a matter for the courts. However, there are guardianship matters to consider relating to children in the care of Tusla. Children are received into Tusla's care either through a voluntary agreement or by way of a care order issued by the courts, each of which are provided for under the Child Care Act 1991. My responsibilities in this area relate to care orders under the Child Care Act 1991 rather than the Guardianship of Infants Act, which relates to the courts and the Minister for Justice.
Regarding the actions under the remit of the Department of Justice, under section 6(c) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, a person can apply to court to be appointed as a child's guardian if he or she is married to or in a civil partnership with the child's parent, or has cohabited with the child's parent for over three years, and if the person has shared responsibility for the child's day-to-day care for more than two years. As issues relating to surrogacy concern areas of law that intersect across the remits of several Departments, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Justice, the Attorney General and I are working together on these matters. The provisions of section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act are being examined in that context. I have met with the Ministers on three occasions to address the issue and we have also met with the Attorney General on one occasion. Work is ongoing among our officials about how to address the relevant and very complex legal issues in a manner that vindicates the rights of the child.
Surrogacy was the reason behind me raising this. I understand that other Ministers are involved. The Department of Health is limited with regard to questions due to the cyberattack and it is important that I can raise this in the Chamber to keep children's rights on the agenda. Dr. Conor O'Mahony produced an excellent report on this.
It is important that the recommendations in his report are looked at. It makes some excellent recommendations and Dr. O'Mahony is very well placed to look at this issue. There are difficulties around the issue of international surrogacy and these are not accounted for in the proposed Bill. International surrogacy is a big part of it and we all have to be very honest about that. It is important that is considered. Families are also very concerned about the issue of retrospection and whether a Bill passed in 2021 will apply from this year onwards or will apply to other families. I will ask a supplementary question shortly.
Some of these matters fall within the remit of the Department of Health. The drafting of a Bill on assisted human reproduction and associated research was based on the published general scheme of the assisted human reproduction Bill, which was published in the previous Dáil. Work on the Bill, including drafting, is ongoing by officials in the Department of Health. There is a commitment in the programme for Government that this legislation will be passed. The legislation is comprehensive. It encompasses the regulation, for the first time in Ireland, of a range of practices, including domestic altruistic surrogacy. The provisions related to surrogacy are dealt with in Part 6 of the Bill. The Bill sets out a court-based mechanism through which the parentage of a child born through surrogacy may be transferred from the surrogate and her husband, if applicable, to the intended parent.
As the Deputy stated, the Bill does not deal with commercial surrogacy on an international basis. Dr. O'Mahony has produced a report with recommendations in that regard. The report is being examined by the three Ministers and the Attorney General.
I am very glad to hear that. It will be welcome news for families who have gone through surrogacy or are facing surrogacy in the near future. It is welcome that surrogacy is an option and I am sure we will see much more of it in the near future.
On the report, the Minister has met with some of the families and advocacy groups. They are open to meeting with him, the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, and any other Minister they need to meet. They get their stories across very well and I commend them on all their work.
Parental leave, maternity leave, maternity benefit and many other areas that some of us probably take for granted are also very important. I am glad to hear the Minister's comments so far and I appreciate, as I said, that it is not his area only. However, the crux of the matter is Dr. O'Mahony's report.
This issue extends across a number of Departments. The three Ministers are working together and meeting regularly, which is important. We hope to meet again in the near future to continue our discussions. We are getting support from the Attorney General on the issue. I have met some of the groups and there is an alliance formed in this particular area. It is important that provision is made for children in Ireland who were conceived through surrogacy and are deeply loved by their parents.
In all of this, when a child is conceived through surrogacy a number of individuals and adults are involved. As we know from our experience in the area of adoption, it is important that a child has full access to knowledge about all parties involved. One of the points I will be bringing from my Department to the discussion on this legislation is that a child has to know all parties involved in his or her conception.
46. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he requested his departmental officials to conduct a review specifically into the continual discrimination of disadvantaged children through the under allocation of hours under the national childcare scheme, NCS, given comments he made during parliamentary questions in May 2021; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36216/21]
This question relates to the review of the national childcare scheme, an issue I have raised a few times. Deputies are coming across continual discrimination against disadvantaged children under the allocation of hours through this programme. I ask the Minister to make a statement on the matter.
I have discussed this matter with the Deputy on a number of occasions. As she is probably aware, I recently contracted Frontier Economics to undertake a review of the national childcare scheme in line with section 26 of the Childcare Support Act. In conducting that review, I asked the company to give consideration to a complaint made against the NCS, as we discussed during oral questions previously, concerning the application of a work-study test, which determines the number of subsidised hours of early learning and childcare a child may be eligible for under the scheme. I do not believe the NCS and, in particular, the work-study test gives rise to discrimination in the way the Deputy suggests.
Under the NCS, children are provided with access to subsidised early learning and childcare that is at a level necessary to support positive child development outcomes regardless of whether parents are in work or study. Where parents are not engaged in work or study, the NCS subsidises up to 20 hours per week. Where parents are engaged in work or study, the NCS subsidises up to 45 hours per week. The definition of work or study is broad and covers all forms of work or study arrangements, including full-time, part-time, week-on, week-off contracts and zero-hour contracts. Moreover, the minimum hours required to engage in work or study to qualify for up to 45 hours per week is very low at just two hours per week.
The NCS also includes sponsorship arrangements that allow for additional support for vulnerable families where there is an identified need for early learning in childcare on the grounds of child development or child welfare. Already, external assessment by the OECD and the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, points to a range of benefits of the national childcare scheme, including a reduction for families in the cost of early learning and childcare and an increase in family incomes, with the most disadvantaged families experiencing the greatest gain. However, I have asked Frontier Economics to extend its research to review the activity test, which I know to be a feature of early learning and childcare schemes in other jurisdictions. I have also asked the expert group convened to look at the new funding model to consider the issue of childcare services in areas of disadvantage.
I am glad to hear the Minister's comments because they address the crux of the matter. We raised this issue in May, and I have raised it a number of times since. Following that, some services that had brought it to our attention tried to get in contact about the review. They were led to believe it was a one-year review of the whole NCS, which was not looking at the issue of potential disadvantage. I reiterate that the cohort of children we are talking about are those who will not necessarily come to the attention of Tusla. They are in an in-between category, for want of better words, of children who rely on childcare and early years services for a hot meal and security. It particularly relates to after-school care. We have had that conversation. A lot can be teased out through a review and if the Minister is now clarifying that this issue is being included in it, I welcome that.
Yes. I specifically asked for this issue to be included in the review. Although I am confident the NCS is designed in a way to lessen disadvantage, I am also cognisant, having listened to the Deputy and having met childcare providers, especially from areas of geographic disadvantage, that they have raised concerns, which I want to address. As the Deputy knows, I have done a number of things. We have engaged with Tusla to enhance the application of the sponsorship arrangements and I spoke directly to the chief executive to make sure sponsorship would be provided in a broad manner.
On information about how parents can access the higher number of hours, SOLAS, in conjunction with the education and training boards, ETBs, is providing better information on how parents can access various courses that will allow them to access the full 45 hours per week. I have made a commitment to review this particular issue in the context of the Frontier Economics review of the NCS. However, as regards the bigger piece, the funding group is also looking at the issue of disadvantage in childcare facilities and how funding can be targeted to address that.
This is the point I was trying to get to. I believed the issue had been clarified in May but question marks arose again afterwards. However, the Minister has made it very clear that the issue of disadvantage will be part of the review and I welcome that. As I said, it is about the children who will, potentially, fall through the cracks, which is what we are always trying to avoid. I say this regularly, but this is particularly the case with early year and childcare settings. It is not just about parents. We are all guilty of sometimes thinking that childcare equals parents working, but it is also about the children and all the various benefits to them from socialisation to security and everything they learn. I welcome that and I look forward to the review. Our next question will probably be about when we will get the results of the review, but I welcome it for now.
As the Deputy will know, it is early learning and care, with the emphasis on the early learning. On the review, I would expect it in the last quarter of the year. The review of the Child Care Act 1991 and, as significant, the report of the expert group are expected in the final quarter of this year. This is something I have been speaking about a great deal, although I did not initiate it. It was initiated by the former Minister, Katherine Zappone. The expert group is a really important group, comprised of eminent experts in the area of childcare from within Ireland and internationally as well. It will bring its report to the Government in light of its commitment to double investment in early learning and care in school-age childcare by 2028, as contained in the First 5 strategy. This is the body that will show us how we can ensure that the extra money we are investing gives us more services, better quality and can ensure that the workers in these services are paid appropriately and that parents are not paying so much as well. I look forward to publishing the expert group report. I am sure that once published, the Deputy and I will engage further on it.
47. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the steps he is taking to ensure that the experiences of the 550 persons who gave evidence before the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters confidential committee are recognised and officially reflected. [36297/21]
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the experiences of the 550 people who appeared before the confidential committee of the Commission of Investigation on Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related matters are officially reflected? The Minister has committed to formally recognising these testimonies. The lived experiences of 550 survivors were not reflected in the final report and the Minister now proposes to commission a new report, which means we face the prospect of two contradictory documents. Which report will form the basis for the redress scheme, especially in regard to forced adoptions, discrimination and the avoidance of direct and actionable attribution of responsibility to the State and religious orders?
I thank the Deputy. I have reflected deeply on many aspects of the commission's report since its publication and the survivors' response to it. I understand that some survivors are disappointed with how their personal testimonies were reported. People expected to see their full narrative as they told it, rather than abbreviated sections. It has become apparent that many did not know that the twin processes were in operation during the investigation. Much of the frustration is as a direct consequence of this. The process has not fulfilled their expectations and I deeply regret that.
The intention of establishing any inquiry under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 is to provide an effective mechanism to investigate complex and sensitive matters, while also respecting fair procedures and natural justice. That was undoubtedly the intention of the Oireachtas when it approved the establishment of this commission. In recognising the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of so many, the commission was required to produce a report of a general nature. This is what it was tasked to do in its terms of reference.
While it has been widely reported that the testimonies were discounted or discarded, I do not believe that is correct. In its correspondence to the Oireachtas joint committee, the former chair of the commission confirmed that they were taken into account and relied upon by the commission in making its determination on crucial questions. However, I am conscious of the need for the lived experiences of those who attended the confidential committee to be more clearly heard, understood and officially recognised as part of our history.
Over the past year, I have met many survivors and their advocates and I have sought to understand directly from them their diverse and valid responses to the publication of the report and the Government's action plan. Their views are paramount. I have worked to listen to them and to try to rebuild trust. I have always been clear that the commission's report does not represent the end point of the State's response to the mother and baby institutions. Survivors are telling me that they want the historical record of these institutions to reflect their experiences and they want them recounted. I am currently exploring mechanisms to achieve this. I will continue to engage with survivors, professional archivists and historians to determine how best to preserve these important oral histories.
To say that people were disappointed that the full narrative was not in the report is not an accurate description. The Minister spoke about how the survivors spoke before the academic committee and they were disregarded. He also spoke about the statutory instrument at that time. If he does not think it is correct that they were disregarded, why is he commissioning a new report so that they are reflected? The confusion and contradictions contribute to the increasing distress for everyone affected. The Minister says he believes survivors and simultaneously the Chief State Solicitor is opposing judicial reviews by survivors who say their testimonies were misrepresented in the report. This is deeply callous hypocrisy. The Minister cannot commit to officially recognising their evidence and then oppose that same evidence in the courts.
Survivors expressed entirely justified scepticism around any State response to the abuses and silence they experienced but 550 of them took the incredibly brave step of testifying before the commission. When they found that their testimonies had been misrepresented or disregarded, they were forced to seek a judicial review to enter another potentially re-traumatising process.
Thank you Deputy. We are over time.
Why is the State forcing them down this route? As ageing survivors of some of the worst atrocities, the least the Government could do is support them in seeking justice instead of obstructing them.
I agree with the Deputy in terms of the bravery of the 500 individuals who appeared before the confidential committee to give their personal accounts of their experiences in these institutions. I have always said that that chapter and the extracts from their stories have had a huge impact on me, but I am aware that they are just extracts. I know from my engagement with survivors that they wanted their entire stories, not part of them, reflected on the historical record. Survivors can obtain their testimonies from the archive through a subject access request but they just become their personal documents. It is that element that I am seeking to address. I want to ensure that for those who so choose, their full testimonies can form part of the historical record of what happened in these institutions. I do not have the full answer just yet on how to do that. I spoke with Deputy Cairns and colleagues on the joint Oireachtas committee about the issue. I have some more work to do, but that is what I am seeking to achieve.
The Minister says that he knows from speaking to people that they want their entire stories in the report. That is not what the rest of us are hearing. People have very considerable and legitimate concerns around findings such as that there was no evidence of forced adoption. That is not someone saying that she wants her entire story represented in the report; it is saying that she wants an historical fact represented in the findings of the report. The long overdue redress scheme is at the heart of this issue. If the commission links its findings to the potentially flawed report - who knows what the new report will find, although the Minister may be reneging on that now because he has not mentioned it but he did say previously that he was going to commission a report to look into the 550 testimonies that were disregarded - then which report do we work off in terms of redress? How do you square that? I do not think anybody understands that. It is a blatant contradiction. Anyone who was forced into the institutions, who was separated from his or her family, or lost a family, in the system, is entitled to the fullest possible redress as a matter of justice.
I am absolutely committed to providing a comprehensive redress scheme. When the parameters of the interdepartmental group were being established, the Government made clear that we would not be bound solely by the recommendations contained with the commission's report. That is an important step. It allows us-----
Is the Minister speaking about the old report or the new report? Will the redress be based on forced adoption or not?
Allow the Minister to answer.
It allows us to go past the commission's report and to publish a scheme of redress that is comprehensive. I have always said it should recognise the time spent within these institutions, across both the mother and baby institutions and the county institutions. That is what the Government has committed to do and that is what we will deliver. I accept that we are a little behind in terms of publishing the scheme of the redress. I hope to have that soon. I believe it will be comprehensive in terms of the range of the survivor body that it will cover and provide redress to.
48. Deputy Pauline Tully asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the steps he is taking in relation to assessing the childcare needs of parents in County Cavan where service providers are indicating that they are no longer taking children under two years of age due to the financial strain in meeting the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016; the consideration that is being given in this regard to forward planning of the provision of places or services or both at both local level in County Cavan and national level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36217/21]
What steps is the Minister taking in regard to assessing the childcare needs of parents in County Cavan, where many service providers are indicating they are no longer taking children under two years of age? They are claiming that this is due to the financial strain of meeting early years services regulations under the Child Care Act 1991. What consideration is being given to forward planning for childcare places and service provision in County Cavan and at national level?
I thank the Deputy. Officials in my Department closely monitor developments in relation to early learning and childcare capacity, including the supply of and demand for places.
Before the onset of Covid-19, data gathered through the annual early years sector profile survey revealed that the sector was running at near capacity, with evidence of undersupply for certain cohorts, including children under the age of three, and in certain areas, including Cavan. This evidence informed the allocation of funding under the Department's annual capital programmes. We have been able to increase capacity by 27,433 places nationally since 2015, with 494 of these additional funded places in County Cavan.
Since the onset of Covid-19, there has been evidence of some depressed demand for early learning and childcare due to changes in parental working arrangements. The very substantial Covid supports we have put in place for the childcare sector have ensured that we have not seen a loss of services. We maintained the same number of services in 2020 that we had in 2019. Ensuring that supply is sufficient to meet demand, particularly once work patterns stabilise after the Covid pandemic, is a key priority for my Department. We are doing the fieldwork for the annual early years sector profile survey at the moment. This will allow us to update our data on capacity, which will inform capital investment plans and the prioritisation of future capital funding.
The cost of delivering early learning and childcare is higher for children aged under two years. This is because of the lower adult-child ratios. However, we also give higher subventions for younger children under the national childcare scheme, NCS. The maximum weekly subsidy rate for children under one is €229.50 and for children aged one and two years it is €195.75. These rates exceed the average full-time fee for children under one and aged one and two years in Cavan. The data the Department has gathered says that these fees are €166.33 and €165.36, respectively.
This year's early years sector profile survey will also include an income and cost module. Data from this module will form a key input into the setting of future funding rates and will also be considered by the expert group I spoke about earlier.
Constituents have been contacting me. One lady told me that when her maternity leave finished and she tried to find a place for her little baby, she could not because no crèches in her area would take a child under one. She ended up being forced to take 16 weeks of additional unpaid maternity leave even though this had not been her intention and was not what she wanted to do. She was worried about what she would do when she had to return to work because she was finding it extremely difficult. She had even tried to source a childminder to work in her own home but they were charging exorbitant rates.
Another mother recently told me that she had one child aged two in a crèche and when she attempted to enrol her ten-month-old child in the same crèche she was told it was not taking any babies under two. She tried six other crèches and they all refused. They were either not taking babies or were full and did not have a waiting list. She is a civil servant and was able to work from home while trying to mind a ten-month-old. Trying to work with a ten-month-old in the house is practically impossible. What is the timeframe for the review about which the Minister was talking?
The Deputy made a point about childminders. The Government is advancing plans to allow childminders to be paid through the national childcare scheme. The subvention that many parents get for centre-based childcare will also be available to childminders following registration. That was discussed at the Oireachtas joint committee earlier today. That is an important step forward. I absolutely take the point. There can be increases in demand both in geographical areas and in specific demographics. The Deputy pointed out that it is often harder for parents to access services for children aged under two. We are gathering data at the moment and hope to have it in the third quarter of this year. That data will then guide my Department's capital allocations to support new services in 2022.
That is welcome and the sooner it is done, the better. The situation is at a crucial point at the moment. There is a lack of availability and affordability. It is difficult to retain staff and fees for parents are increasing. All of these things need to be dealt with. This applies in Cavan but I know it also applies elsewhere. There is a severe lack of crèche places in Cavan. I am also hearing about a severe lack of community crèche places. Many in the workforce can afford to pay these fees, which are quite high, but those who are not in that position do not have a choice. They either have a community place and supports offered to them or they have to stay at home and mind their children. There are no such places. There are a number of resource centres working with the Cavan County Childcare Committee and Tusla to try to source premises for a community crèche. Any support that can be given in this regard would be more than welcome.
Many staff in childcare facilities are highly trained professionals and yet they are paid basically the minimum wage or certainly under the living wage. Can something be done that would result in increased pay for the workers and decreased fees for parents?
No provider should be increasing fees at this time because the State is providing a great deal of support, offering the employment wage subsidy scheme at the upper rate to all childcare providers across the country regardless of the turnover rule. That is a decision we made and I know the vast majority of childcare providers really welcomed that additional support and have acted fairly. No provider should be increasing fees at this stage. I see no reason for that.
With regard to the wages and salaries paid to childcare professionals, I absolutely agree with the Deputy. I was delighted when the Minister of State, Deputy English, signed the commencement order for the joint labour committee a number of weeks ago. I initiated a process earlier this year to create a joint labour committee for the childcare sector. This will lead to an employment regulation order setting a salary scale for childcare professionals. That is very valuable and I am very pleased to have been able to lead on that.
