Vol. 1036 No. 3
1. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he will outline the interaction he has had with the Department of Justice and the Department of Health in regard to surrogacy and the recognition of parentage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15920/23]
My first question is on the surrogacy legislation we are all expecting. It was great last December to see that there was really good progress on this. We are led to believe that many of the recommendations from the Joint Committee on International Surrogacy were taken on board. We are coming into April and two weeks' recess. What stage is this at, particularly for parents who are looking for retrospective recognition?
I thank the Deputy. In January 2022, the Government agreed that issues relating to international surrogacy required further detailed consideration and agreed to the establishment of a special Joint Oireachtas Committee on International Surrogacy. Following the publication of the final report of the committee in July 2022, officials from my Department joined colleagues from the Department of Health and the Department of Justice to form an interdepartmental group to analyse the report and make legislative proposals. Based on the work of this group, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Justice and myself agreed draft policy and legislative proposals in respect of both the regulation of international surrogacy and the recognition of past surrogacy arrangements, both domestic and international. These proposals were brought to Government and approved in December 2022. Their aim is to establish a legal process to allow for the recognition of parentage in future international surrogacy arrangements and a legal process to enable recognition of parentage in respect of surrogacy arrangements, both domestic and international, undertaken prior to the commencement of the new law.
The policy approach approved by Government proposes that a two-step process will be introduced to allow for the recognition of parentage in future international surrogacy arrangements, encompassing pre-conception approval by the assisted human reproduction authority, AHRRA, and a post-birth court process for the granting of a parental order for surrogacy. The process will include safeguards for the protection of the rights and welfare of all parties to a surrogacy arrangement: the child, including their identity rights; the surrogate mother; and the intending parents. The Minister for Health is the lead Minister in respect of development of the legislation. I understand it is his intention to bring the proposals as amendments to the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction Bill) 2022 on Committee Stage in the Dail. The formal drafting process in respect of those amendments is well under way by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, in conjunction with the three Departments.
I understand this technically falls to the Department of Health. I always have to reword the questions. I appreciate the Minister taking the question. The committee was very ably chaired by Deputy Whitmore and I was delighted to see that many of its recommendations will be taken on board, particularly the point about the two-step parentage recommended by Professor O'Mahony. My specific concern is around those who are awaiting recognition now. They do not all have the luxury of time. I specifically refer to Brian and Kathy Egan and their family in Kilkenny, who are in an extremely difficult situation. They are in a court process at the moment and I appreciate the Minister may not be able to comment on that specific case. For those awaiting retrospection, is there a possibility, now that we know we are going to progress this legislation, of looking at retrospection to see is there a way to deal with it before the legislation, if it is at the drafting stage? If that is not an option, when will we see the legislation coming before the committee? Is there even a rough estimate?
I am aware of the very pressing needs for parents with children where those legal relations have not been properly established. That being said, I do not think we could promise to provide for the retrospective element beforehand. This has to be done in the one package. The Government has committed to addressing the issue of retrospective parentage and has set out a range of criteria in terms of how that will be assessed. These criteria will include establishing that the surrogacy was not unlawful at the time in the relevant jurisdiction; that it was a purely gestational surrogacy; and that the surrogate mother has provided her consent to the granting of a parental order of surrogacy. The process needs to have those safeguards I referred to, including safeguards for the child, the surrogate mother and for the attending parents. The issues involved in proposing legislative measures for transferring the assigning of parentage in relation to past surrogacy arrangements are highly complex and that is why we are taking that bit of time across the three Departments to draft proper legislation.
I appreciate the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, may not have this information as he is not the lead Minister, but is there a rough timeframe for that going to committee? There are so many people who do not have the luxury of time in relation to retrospective recognition. I understand the complexity because we dealt with it in the committee and it was very complex. However, we came up with very good recommendations in a very tight timeframe. If there is no way it can be done before the legislation has passed, is there a way of saying to parents listening in today that once the legislation is passed, the retrospection could be dealt with within a certain timeframe, maybe six weeks? There are some very good recommendations for couples going forward and we see now that this is an option for family make-up surrogacy. It is becoming more of an option, which is fantastic for people. However, one of the fears is that only addresses issues going forward. It is great and we need that but what about those who are in the situation now and who are really concerned about now? I particularly want to reference the Egan family because they have been through hardship and have been in the courts since last September in regard to this issue.
Being honest, as mine is not the lead Department, I cannot give the Deputy a specific timeframe. I will speak to the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, and get back to her directly to give her an indication on times. Following the publication of the proposals in December, I was contacted by groups such as LGBT Ireland. It had flagged some concerns, particularly for same-sex female couples and how it felt some of the elements did not cover them. I have raised that with both the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and that is also being looked at in the context. We all appreciate, both for prospective families who want to use surrogacy or other techniques under assisted reproduction, and for retrospective situations, time is really of the essence. We absolutely understand this. However, this is deeply complex and it is fair to recognise that as well. It is very complex legislation which is establishing new and breaking existing relationships in terms of who gave birth. We have to be careful there but everyone is very cognisant of the need to act rapidly to provide those protections for situations where those protections for children and for parents do not currently exist.
Will the Minister come back to me on that?
I will.
2. Deputy Sean Sherlock asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he has met with An Taoiseach and the Minister for Health regarding vacancies in children's disability network teams [15714/23]
I ask the Minister what engagement he has had with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health regarding the serious issue of vacancies that are arising in children's disability network teams, CDNTs, throughout the country where we know there is a significant vacancy rate of 31% at present within the section 39 organisations?
To answer the question very directly, I have not had a formal meeting with the Taoiseach or the Minister for Health since responsibility came over to my Department on 1 March on this specific issue. However, both myself and the Minister of State with special responsibility for disability, Deputy Rabbitte, and our officials, are engaging with all relevant Departments and stakeholders, such as the HSE and the relevant section 38 and 39 providers, on a range of issues to enhance capacity across children’s disability network teams. These measures include, probably most significantly, a revised draft of the progressing disability services, PDS, roadmap, incorporating a range of measures to enhance recruitment and retention, and have been submitted to the Department for comment. A working group has been established comprising officials from my Department, the HSE, the Department of Health and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, to increase the pipeline of clinical talent to fill the more than 600 funded vacancies in the CDNTs. In partnership with the CDNT lead agencies, the HSE continues to explore a range of options to enhance the recruitment and retention of essential staff in CDNTs.
This involves exploring new solutions designed to quickly and effectively recruit clinical path staff to increase capacity, including: sponsorship of students in the final two years of training; supporting 20 clinical psychology placements annually from September 2023; identifying and progressing the option of an apprenticeship programme; and identifying and progressing the option to employ new graduates on therapy assistant grades until CORU registration has been completed.
We had a meeting of the Cabinet committee on health on Monday, of which I am a member, as are the Minister for Health, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, where we discussed the issue of recruitment into the CDNTs. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and I are acutely aware that there are many challenges in the area of disability that have moved over to my Department, but we all agree that filling the posts across CDNTs is up there at the top.
I acknowledge the Minister's response. The Labour Party feels strongly that the key to filling vacancies is the issue of pay parity. The lack of this between section 39 organisations and the HSE, for instance, is having a major impact on the ability of these organisations and CDNTs to recruit. Does the Minister acknowledge that the joint statement by Fórsa, the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, and SIPTU in respect of the potential for the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, to engage in a process on the issue of pay parity and looking at the whole issue of pay, could have a positive impact in respect of this problem of recruitment and retention of staff? Can the Minister give us some indication as to whether the Government is sympathetic to those people working in section 39 organisations, in particular? Many of them are now being poached by the HSE because of better terms and conditions being available.
A range of issues is impacting on our ability to recruit new staff and retain existing staff across the CDNT network. Undoubtedly, pay is one of those. It is also fair to say that even in HSE-led CDNTs we are having problems regarding recruitment and retention as well. I do not think it is solely because of the pay differential between HSE-led and section 38- or section 39-led CDNTs. I do not want to minimise, however, the significance of this issue either.
As I mentioned earlier, one aspect in this regard is the roadmap in terms of progressing PDS. This sets out a range of issues we are examining in respect of addressing these crucial challenges in recruitment and retention. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and I will obviously engage in respect of these wider issues in the context of pay, and obviously determinations on this level are also a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe.
As the Minister sits in Cabinet, I am sure he has a view on these matters. Given there is clearly a major issue concerning the disparity in pay between organisations, CDNTs are not going to function until such time as, I respectfully suggest, pay parity is addressed. I refer to there being some signal from the Minister to us this morning to show he acknowledges that the pay differentials are significant and that this is having a knock-on effect concerning the ability to recruit. The very existence of section 39 organisations in the long term is now in question. They are losing capacity weekly and their ability to deliver services to the people they serve is being hindered as a result. I contend this is an emergency, it needs to be addressed and the WRC process needs to have the support of the Government.
As I said, the issue of recruitment and retention in CDNTs is the top priority for the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and me. We will look to support all measures that we can see that will start to address the major issues in this context. I recognise that pay and the pay differential are part of this issue. We have seen that issues concerning organisations providing services to the HSE have been addressed in the past. I am thinking especially of the way in which the hospices have recently been addressed. The outcome of that process will be seen as a success. There is, therefore, capacity in this regard. The number of organisations in this regard is much larger and we must recognise this fact. As I said, however, the Minister of State and I will work within the Government to see what solutions we can achieve to address the pay concerns here and through that part of the mechanism address the overall lack of filling of spaces in CDNTs.
3. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the action he has taken in light of a review (details supplied) into the handling of child sexual abuse allegations within an organisation; his views on assurances Tusla provided regarding the organisation's current safeguarding child protection procedures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15391/23]
My question concerns the situation with the St. John Ambulance. In light of the handling of child sexual abuse allegations within the organisation, what are the Minister's views on the assurances Tusla is providing regarding that organisation's current safeguarding child protection procedures and will he make a statement on the matter?
We had a useful discussion on this matter in the Seanad yesterday. The board of St. John Ambulance Ireland commissioned an independent review to be carried out by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon into the handling of complaints of historical sexual abuse of members under 18. This was a step I had urged the organisation to undertake following my own engagement with victims of abuse within the organisation.
My Department is giving urgent consideration to the findings and recommendations of the review report by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon. My officials have been working with Tusla to ensure appropriate supports are in place for survivors of abuse on the publication of the report. Tusla established a helpline that was available over the St. Patrick's weekend and this continues to be available during normal office hours, Monday to Friday. My officials are also engaging with Tusla to ensure all appropriate actions are taken in response to the findings of the review report. The commissioner and board of St. John Ambulance have accepted in full the findings and recommendations of Dr. Shannon’s report.
As noted in the report, the child protection policy of St. John Ambulance was in draft form during the review process. Although completed in November of 2022, the report was not published until March 2023, and in that timeframe child protection policy and procedures dated 2022 have been finalised and published on the St. John Ambulance website. Tusla carried out a review of the child safeguarding statement of St. John Ambulance most recently in March 2022, and the statement was deemed compliant. Child protection concerns relating to current members of the organisation should be referred to Tusla and An Garda Síochána. An assurance was given by St. John Ambulance to my officials that all known child protection concerns have been fully reported to Tusla.
St. John Ambulance has set out a detailed document outlining how it will respond to the significant number of recommendations set out in Dr. Shannon's report. I am determined to see that those recommendations are implemented. Officials in my Department, along with those in Tusla, have already met with members of the board of the St. John Ambulance. They met earlier this week seeking to set up a process whereby we can ensure all those recommendations are fully implemented.
I thank the Minister and I welcome that update. This process is going to be key. It is worrying, though, to think that an organisation dealing with children was finalising its child protection statement up until November 2022. I think that is what the Minister said. I mention those who have come forward and told their stories. I commend them on their courage and bravery. From dealing with one or two people, and one person specifically, I know they felt for a long time that they were not being listened to or heard. Unfortunately, we too often have debates in this Chamber concerning similar situations. We owe those survivors a great deal and I hope this is some vindication for them. We really need to learn from this situation and I will go into this in more detail in this regard in my follow-up. What do we need to do now in respect of possible legislation for a HIQA-style approach to organisations dealing with children?
While we all welcome that this report was undertaken, that it was published and that St. John Ambulance has committed to implementing all its recommendations, it is not acceptable that it took this huge level of pressure, primarily applied by the victims of abuse in this organisation, and nearly everyone here would have engaged with one or more of those victims, to bring about this development. This situation is not acceptable and it is important we recognise this.
As I said, the report is very scathing in places about the internal structures of St. John Ambulance and sets out the need for very significant internal reform and I will work to ensure that happens. I know Deputy Funchion's committee will engage with Tusla in terms of its oversight role here. I will observe those hearings carefully and if follow-up work is necessary, we will be happy to do it.
The committee hopes to look at this and I know that some members of the committee, Deputies Sherlock and Cairns, are present. I assume there has been consultation with the survivors who have come forward and told their stories of anything that has gone on in St. John Ambulance, but I just want to make sure that has been done. It also raises the really serious question of who is in charge of ensuring organisations, whether State-funded or not, that deal with children have the correct procedures in place and have best practice. I talked earlier about a HIQA-style organisation. HIQA examines and ensures everything is in order in the health sector. Do we need to look at something like this for child protection? It is very worrying - I do not even know if "worrying" is a strong enough word to use - that up to November 2022 this organisation, which would known there was a huge amount of speculation around it, still did not have its procedure in place. I know the Minister has acknowledged that was not acceptable but are there other organisations that we do not know of? Do we need to look at legislation or something like that to give Tusla the powers to check these organisations on a regular basis?
On engagement with survivors, I said in the Seanad yesterday that I have had online meetings, had phone calls and had very significant engagement with one of the survivors. I am open to further engagement if that is something they feel is necessary and that they would wish. Moving away from St. John Ambulance to the wider issue, the discussions Deputy Funchion will have at her committee will be useful in terms of Tusla giving its perspective on its engagement with this organisation and any similar organisation. The new special rapporteur on child protection will speak with me about this particular issue and I know she wants to speak to St. John Ambulance as well about its implementation of the report.
Dr. Shannon's report was very much focused on actions within St. John Ambulance and I think Deputy Funchion's committee probably has an opportunity to look at this with a wider lens. I am not committing myself to anything today but I will listen very closely and if there are particular recommendations from the committee, I will be happy to engage with it on those.
4. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the steps he is taking to improve the operation of the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 in assisting relevant persons, as defined in the Act, in accessing personal information. [15561/23]
Despite concerns raised during discussions on the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 and the scepticism expressed by survivors, the Minister said it would provide a clear pathway for access to identity records for adopted people and others. However, survivors are encountering delays, barriers, and in some cases less information than they had been able to gather themselves previous to this legislation. What steps is the Minister taking to improve this situation?
The Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 provides guaranteed access to birth and early life information where it exists, thereby addressing a decades-long historic injustice. The legislation provides a full and clear right of access to birth certificates, birth, early life, care, and medical information for all persons who were adopted, boarded out, the subject of an illegal birth registration, or who otherwise have questions in relation to their origins.
In this context, and the context of the historical denial of access to rights, there has been an initial surge of demand for services under the Act and everyone across all organisations involved is committed to responding to this demand as quickly as possible. As of Monday of this week, just over 7,500 applications for information have been received by either Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland, AAI. These applications are in addition to the 3,500 applications made for tracing services since 3 October, and the more than 3,100 new preferences registered to the new statutory contact preference register.
To date, both Tusla and the AAI have processed and completed almost 3,000 requests for information, and more are due for completion and issuing each day. In addition to information and tracing services, applications are continuing to be made to the contact preference register, and the Adoption Authority of Ireland has already successfully identified 215 matches for relatives for whom they are seeking to facilitate contact. Both agencies advise that they have reassigned additional staff members to work exclusively on the processing of applications and that they will continue to keep every person who is waiting for information informed about their particular application.
Officials from my Department continue to support and engage with both the AAI and Tusla in respect of the ongoing implementation of services under the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022. This is done via regular governance and oversight meetings with both bodies where fulfilment of birth information and tracing obligations forms a standing agenda item. This engagement also supports positive changes to the benefit of the persons affected by this legislation. This is most evident in the tracing for verification amendment I brought forward in the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022, which was directly prompted and informed by stakeholder experience.
The Minister said that as of last Monday, 7,526 applications for information have been received by Tusla and the Adoption Authority of Ireland, as well as 3,489 applications made for tracing services. However, only 2,948 requests have been completed. The Minister said that like it was a good thing but that is kind of the problem because of the requests yet to be processed, does he know how many of them are waiting for longer than the statutory time period of one month, extendable to only three months under the Act? Does the Minister acknowledge that the delays are routinely breaching the Act? Most importantly, there are applicants who through their own work have accessed more information than this legislation provides them with. I refer to those who for maybe years or decades have gone about finding their own information through all these lengthy processes. This legislation came out and they requested their information but they got less than what they managed to find themselves. That is clear evidence that people are not getting all their information. What does that say about how the legislation is working and what it set out to achieve in the first place?
If the Deputy wishes to draw a specific instance to my attention, where an individual has received less information, she can do that. I have always engaged with Deputies when they had concerns about information issues. I will not comment as I would like to see the information. If we can provide a resolution, we will do so.
In terms of the processing, there are delays which I know are deeply concerning for survivors, many of who waited for a long time. We added in those statutory timeframes on Committee Stage. We discussed it here and felt it was a good idea to add timeframes like in other pieces of access to information, such as freedom of information, FOI. At the start of this process, we saw a huge surge for access to information but we are processing those requests. As I said, just under 3,000 people have now received their information and we will continue to ensure resources are put in place across the two organisations so we can get through that backlog and back into a system where we are meeting the requests for information within the statutory timeframes.
I do not think the Minister said how many of the applications are waiting for longer than the statutory time period, but maybe I missed it. That was one of my questions. We all knew there was going to be thousands of applications when the Minister set out the timeframes for responses. People have been waiting for decades to access this really basic information about themselves. Every time I and other members of the committee called for adoptive people to be included in the mother and baby homes redress scheme, the Minister constantly cited the birth information and tracing system as the key issue they wanted. Yet the system is not meeting the standards set by the Minister, it is failing to meet the needs of illegally adopted people and, ultimately, it is not providing the justice the Minister set out to be the main form of redress. The Minister said that if there was a particular case I should bring it to his attention. I will do so but it is not one specific case. There are a lot of people who spent a long time going to great lengths to try to get their information. More than one person, several people, have told me the information they got back is not near the information they managed to painstakingly gather themselves. That leaves people feeling like the system is not giving them all their information, which is the whole purpose of it, that is, that people would get all of their information. We highlighted that at the committee. How would one know what specifically there is to find unless one had spent that time searching?
If there are specific issues in terms of the accessibility of information, I can only act on them if I know what they are. There are many sources of information.
It may be that the information one of the people who has been engaging with the Deputy is from a source that is not covered by the birth information and tracing legislation. There could be a variety of reasons the information that person has received is different. I am happy we have acted already. We made an amendment through the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill to include more information. Recently, for example, the Justice For Magdalenes group has flagged an issue about some of the records from Magdalen institutions in private ownership. We are looking at the issue, and if necessary and if it will address the particular issue in question, we are prepared to bring forward legislative changes.
I believe the legislation is working. As I said, I have had correspondence from survivors who for the first time have received their birth certificates with their original names, having looked for those certificates for a long tine. I have received information from people who are happy with the processes under this legislation but if, as the Deputy has flagged, people are coming to her with clear questions, we are happy to address them. I am happy to take the issue out of the Chamber and address it then.
5. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he will provide an update on the progress made with implementing the White Paper on ending direct provision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15392/23]
When the White Paper on ending direct provision was announced two years ago, it was broadly welcomed on all sides, although we would have preferred more State involvement in the reception and integration centres. Over the past year, however, the situation has deteriorated somewhat as a result of the war in Ukraine. Some of the difficulties of the past year could have been avoided if there had been more progress in respect of the capital projects. What progress has been made in implementing the White Paper?
Since publishing A White Paper to End Direct Provision and to Establish a New International Protection Support Service, my Department has placed a significant focus and drive on delivering these reforms. Implementation of the White Paper began with the appointment of dedicated staff as part of a transition team in the Department to lead the transition to the new system. Governance structures were established to oversee transition to the new model in the form of a programme board and an external advisory group. A high-level implementation plan was drafted and completed setting out how the provisions contained in the White Paper would be introduced. The plan looked to prioritise and pilot certain elements of the model in 2022 to build capacity for the project.
Priority was placed on progressing elements of phase 2, including the development of the accommodation in the community model, the acquisition of properties, the development of the income support payment and of the local integration model, all with a view to commencing the movement of international protection accommodation services, IPAS, residents into phase 2 accommodation towards the end of 2022.
The war in Ukraine, however, has had an unavoidable impact on the timelines and deliverables for the White Paper. Alongside this, there has been a substantial increase in the number of people seeking international protection, with more than 15,000 new people seeking protection in 2022. It is not clear if the increase in international protection arrivals is a once-off impact due to the pent-up demand after the pandemic and the impact of the war in Ukraine or is a longer term trend. The White Paper was designed on the assumption that 3,500 new people would arrive per year, which figure was based on an average of the previous 20 years. In 2022, however, the numbers were significantly higher. It is in that vastly changed context that the overall review of the White Paper is under way. The review is reassessing the projections underpinning the White Paper with respect to numbers of arrivals and how this impacts on the deliverables and timelines involved.
I anticipate the review will be completed early in quarter 2, with a new set of proposals and timelines then to be brought to Government. Notwithstanding the war in Ukraine and the significant increase in international protection applicants, we will continue to press forward these reforms.
I thank the Minister for the reply. When the White Paper was announced initially, the theme behind it, according to the website, seemed to be about encouraging integration and supporting independent living. There were various plans to use housing bodies, NGOs, urban renewal schemes, hosting and tenancies. However, there has been practically no implementation of any of those plans apart from for Ukrainians. A sort of two-tier system has developed whereby the hosting and tenancies responses seem to be only for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. There have been unintended or unforeseen consequences with the closure of hotels and guesthouses. We heard yesterday that 37% of hotel beds in Kerry have been given over to either international protection or Ukrainians, with consequential difficulties experienced by business owners in the Kerry area. It seems there are many people making enormous profits out of the situation but they are picking and choosing.
The Deputy has raised a number of issues that I will be unable to delve into fully in the time available. The three key elements of the White Paper related to accommodation, supports and integration. We are absolutely on the back foot in terms of the accommodation vision that was set out in the White Paper because of the changed circumstances. However, it is not accurate to say we have done nothing on supports and integration. We have brought in the community integration fund. We will be putting two integration officers into every local authority in the country this year. We have, for the first time, allowed international protection applicants to have a bank account and a driver's licence. These are very basic things that international protection applicants have been denied for too long. We have brought down the time period within which they can apply to work. This year, HIQA will be inspecting the international protection accommodation across the country. Most recently, the Department of Education has allowed the regional education and learning support teams, REALTs, that were initially only for Ukrainians, to work also with international protection applicant children. On supports and integration, we have advanced significant parts of the White Paper notwithstanding the recognition of the real challenges on the accommodation side.
It seems we are back to square one in that there is an overreliance on for-profit accommodation providers. It seems those seeking international protection will continue in such accommodation for the foreseeable future. The danger is some elements will choose to exploit that. We seem to be back at square one. Has the Minister more or less completely abandoned the reception and integration centres that were a central part of the White Paper? Is that up for review? Is there a danger that approach will be abandoned? The White Paper stated those centres would accommodate applicants for the first four months or until a decision on their application was made and that efforts would be made to speed up the process. There does not seem to be any talk of implementing those elements anymore, which is causing a difficulty.
I can tell the Deputy clearly that we have not abandoned the idea of reception and integration centres. They remain central to our response. My Department is engaging at the moment with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform about how we can advance the programme, whether through my Department purchasing large existing buildings and converting them into reception and integration centres or going for a scratch build, which will take longer. We are looking at the various fast construction techniques that exist at the moment to increase scale. Ensuring State-controlled accommodation where we have better control over the standards provided within those accommodations is central to the vision of dealing, in particular, with the larger numbers. Those phase 1 reception and integration centres remain central to the Government's response to the needs. With the increased numbers requiring accommodation, those centres are now needed even more. The White Paper provided for five or six reception and integration centres. In light of what I expect will be higher numbers of people seeking international protection in Ireland into the future, there will probably have to be a larger number of centres.
