Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Jun 2022

Vote 40 - Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth

Mr. Kevin McCarthy (Secretary General, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth) called and examined.

I welcome everybody. Apologies have been received from Deputy Matt Carthy who is unavoidably absent.

Please note that to limit the risk of spreading Covid-19, the service encourages all members, visitors and witnesses to continue to wear face masks when moving around the campus or when in close proximity to others, be respectful of other people's physical space and adhere to any other public health advice.

Members of the committee attending remotely must continue to do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee.

This morning we will engage with officials from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to examine the Appropriation Account for 2020, Vote 40 - Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. The Department has been advised that the committee will examine the area of direct provision and procurement matters, including the awarding of a catering contract to provide meals to Ukrainian refugees.

We are joined in the committee room by the following officials from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth - Mr. Kevin McCarthy, Secretary General, Ms Carol Baxter, assistant secretary, Ms Anne-Marie Brooks, assistant secretary, Mr. Dermot Ryan, assistant secretary, Ms Lara Hynes, assistant secretary and Ms Laura McGarrigle, assistant secretary. We are also joined by the following officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform - Ms Jessica Lawless, principal officer and Mr. Fionn Jenkinson, assistant principal officer.

As usual, I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the House as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. As such witnesses are within the precincts of Leinster House, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they may say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse that privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure it is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, the witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with such direction.

Members are reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits or objective of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Vote 40 changed significantly in 2020, mainly reflecting the restructuring of the previously named Department of Children and Youth Affairs, to take on significant additional functions in relation to equality, integration and international protection.  The name of the Department also changed in 2020 to reflect the wider-ranging areas of operation.

The 2020 appropriation account for Vote 40 records gross expenditure of €1.7 billion.  Receipts into the Vote were broadly on target but expenditure in the year was about 7% below the budget provided.  This resulted in a net surplus for the year of almost €123 million. The Department was allowed to carry €4.1 million over to 2021, to fund capital works, but surrendered almost €119 million at the year end.

Expenditure incurred in 2020 was distributed across five output programmes. The largest area of spending was the children and family support programme, in relation to which expenditure of €876 million was incurred in 2020. That is up about 5% on 2019. The bulk of this programme expenditure - 97% - was accounted for by funding of €848 million provided to the Child and Family Agency, better known as Tusla.  This included special Covid-related funding of €8 million.    Just under €24 million was expended under the programme in respect of the Oberstown Children Detention Campus.

Programme B comprises funding for a wide range of schemes and programmes to benefit children and young people, including early childhood care and education support, and the national child care scheme.  The account records programme spending of €601 million in 2020, including almost €83 million on Covid-related supports.  Most of the spending under programme B is channelled to the beneficiaries through Pobal, which acts as a paying agent for the Department under a service level agreement. Note 6.1 of the account records the amounts paid through Pobal under each subhead.

Programme E is titled a "fair and efficient support system for international protection seekers", and was transferred from the Department of Justice in 2020.  It is focused mainly on the provision of accommodation for persons seeking international protection, which cost €183 million in 2020. This was up 41% from the €130 million spent in 2019.

The final two programmes each involved a much smaller scale of expenditure in 2020. Programme C records expenditure totalling €27.6 million spent on policy and legislation functions related to children and young people, including funding of the Adoption Authority, the Ombudsman for Children, the mother and baby homes commission of investigation, and the Magdalen laundries compensation fund.  Programme D records expenditure of €19.5 million on equality initiatives in a number of areas, including disability, Traveller support and migrant integration.

A clear audit opinion was issued on the appropriation account.  However, I drew attention to the disclosure by the Accounting Officer in the statement on internal financial control in terms of non-compliance with procurement rules.  The Accounting Officer states that he was not satisfied that the procurement of a large number of contracts for the provision of accommodation to international protection seekers was compliant with the relevant procurement rules.  These contracts had transferred from the Department of Justice, which took the view that the contracts were compliant with relevant procurement rules.  The Accounting Officer for Vote 40 stated that the Department was taking steps to clarify the position and to put in place procedures to ensure improved compliance in 2021.

I welcome Deputy Alan Kelly to the committee. Fáilte ar ais. He replaces Deputy Sean Sherlock on the committee. I thank Deputy Sherlock for his work. I ask the secretariat to send him a note of our appreciation for his efforts over the past two years as a member of this committee. I look forward to working with Deputy Kelly as I am sure the other members do as well. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Dála Kelly.

I invite Mr. Kevin McCarthy to make his opening statement. He is very welcome. I understand that he was appointed the Accounting Officer for the Vote in January and I wish him well in his new brief. As detailed in the letter of invitation, he has five minutes for his opening statement. Lean ar aghaidh.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend to assist it in its examination of the 2020 Appropriation Account of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

  I am joined by my colleagues Ms Carol Baxter, assistant secretary; Ms Anne-Marie Brooks, assistant secretary; Mr. Dermot Ryan, assistant secretary; Ms Laura McGarrigle, assistant secretary; Ms Lara Hynes, acting assistant secretary; and Mr. Gordon Gaffney, Mr. Andrew Patterson, Ms Ruth Mulligan, Ms Caitríona Mulhall and Mr. Aidan Madden.  In my opening statement, I will give a very brief overview of some of the main features of the Vote and main developments in 2020. The more detailed briefing document, which was supplied in advance of the meeting, sets out the estimated provisions, outturns and variance explanations for each of the subheads, along with further details on specific topics of procurement and international protection. I hope that will be of assistance to the committee in providing a fuller picture of the work of the Department and its expenditure.

As we all know, 2020 was an extraordinary year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In common with all public bodies, the Department was forced to change the way we delivered services and rethink approaches to sustaining our objectives to enhance the lives of children and young people, adults, families and communities, recognise diversity and promote equality of opportunity. The year 2020 also saw a significant increase in both the size and responsibilities of the Department. On the formation of the new Government, it was decided to assign significant additional responsibilities to the former Department of Children and Youth Affairs. These included international protection, equality and disability policies, which transferred in from the Department of Justice as well as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the National Disability Authority.  The transfer brought almost 100 staff members and a substantial increase in funding to the Vote. Some minor youth justice areas transferred out at this time also to the Department of Justice.

Responsibility for education welfare functions, under Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, transferred to the Department of Education with effect from 1 January 2021. As part of the new disability remit, the transfer of responsibility for specialist community-based disability services from the Department of Health is due to be completed soon, following the recent passage of the relevant legislation and extensive preparatory work by both Departments and the HSE. This final transfer of functions will bring together key disability policy and service elements and result in a major increase in the Department’s Vote.

In summary, following the changes announced by the incoming Taoiseach in 2020, the Department retained virtually all of the responsibilities of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs as well as assuming significant additional functions in relation to equality, integration and international protection. The reconfigured Department therefore closed the year with five programme areas, which encompass child protection and welfare, prevention and early intervention, adoption, family supports, early learning and childcare, youth services and youth justice, as well as equality, integration, international protection and disability policy.

Turning to the Vote, the total provision for 2020 was €1.837 billion. In terms of overall composition, the majority of this was focused on three areas: Tusla, the Child and Family Agency; early years care and education; and international protection seekers' accommodation. The current expenditure provision was €1.796 billion, with a further €41 million allocated to capital expenditure. The net provision was €1 billion when appropriations-in-aid of €36.5 million are taken into account. The outturn for the Vote was €1.677 billion, with a surplus of €123 million, of which €4.1 million was deferred.

The major factor impacting the level of activities and expenditure in 2020 was the Covid-19 pandemic. Delayed recruitment, cancelled travel, reduced capital expenditure and service closures impacted on spending on schemes such as early childhood care and education, ECCE, and the access and inclusion model, AIM, as well as on international protection services as a result of slowed migration of international protection seekers. On the other hand, the response to the pandemic necessitated additional spending allocations to the Child and Family Agency of €8 million and to Covid-related supports for providers in early learning and care and school-age childcare to a value of €109.5 million. These additional supports were funded from savings realised within the Vote.

The largest savings were realised in two areas, the first being under programme E, international protection seekers' accommodation, which finished the year with a surplus of €17.4 million, or 9% of its 2020 provision. Some increased costs were incurred in ensuring compliance with public health requirements during the pandemic, offsetting some of the savings.

The second area of significant underspend was within the three combined early learning and care subheads in programme B, which incorporates the ECCE and AIM childcare schemes as well as the national childcare scheme. There was an underspend of €55.6 million or 12% of the €480.8 million in these areas. The biggest factor was the closure of the national childcare scheme for 12 weeks and the lower than anticipated uptake of the scheme once it reopened, as well as the suspension of the ECCE and AIM schemes. It should be noted that a large portion of the early learning and care subhead’s original provision was reallocated to Covid-related spending in the sector in the form of specific supports.

I acknowledge the significant efforts of staff across the Department, our agencies and the wider sector in managing the impact of Covid-19 in 2020. The early learning and care sector and Tusla were particularly impacted in differing ways. It is to its strong credit that Tusla continued to deliver critical front-line services throughout the pandemic. In the early learning and care sector, the Department moved quickly to put in place supports to sustain the sector and retain capacity to the greatest extent possible during periods of service closure and reduced demand, working with the sector to ensure sustainability and protect services and service affordability for parents. The Department worked closely across Government and with sector representatives to develop and target supports that aligned with wider initiatives such as the temporary wage subsidy scheme, along with capital and reopening support packages. Other areas within the Vote also responded to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic, including international protection, youth justice and youth services.

As we emerge from these pandemic-related challenges, the Department faces new challenges that are again unprecedented in nature and scale. I refer to the effects of the war in Ukraine, which has precipitated a humanitarian crisis and impacted enormously on the work of the Department over the past three months through our efforts to provide safe shelter and accommodation to those who have come here in crisis in their many thousands under the EU’s temporary protection directive. The responsibility for making immediate accommodation arrangements for those seeking it falls to our Department under our international protection responsibilities.

We are happy to play our part in meeting the needs of displaced Ukrainians seeking asylum. The increased scale, pace and unpredictability of demand for accommodation has posed major challenges which continue to be managed on a daily basis. As of 31 May, 23,894 beneficiaries of temporary protection have sought accommodation through our service. All available avenues of additional short-term accommodation have been and are being explored in seeking to increase available capacity to meet this demand. We have had to move quickly to build internal teams to manage the response in all of its aspects, through reassigning staff from other roles and bringing in additional support where we can. We have relied heavily on the support of local authorities in meeting immediate emergency accommodation needs as they arise and taken all necessary urgent actions to ensure that the daily requirements of managing the unprecedented inflow of people involved can be met. We will continue to seek to respond to this crisis as it evolves over the coming weeks and months and this will have a significant impact on costs in the Department’s Vote in 2022 and beyond.

I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Department for their response to the huge demands of the current crisis and for the wider contributions they have made in continuing to deliver on a range of objectives since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. I thank the Chair and members for their attention and am happy to take questions.

I welcome our guests. I think it is Mr. McCarthy's first attendance at the Committee of Public Accounts so he is very welcome. I commend the witnesses on their response in recent months, especially during Covid. It is only when one reviews the accounts and funds under the aegis of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth that one appreciates the role the Department plays in government. It is enormous, especially on the back of the Ukrainian humanitarian crisis, in which it is the lead Department. With significant responsibility in the transfer of community-based disability services, the Department will get even busier. There is a lot happening and that is to be appreciated.

I will focus first on the opening comments from the Comptroller and Auditor General which drew attention to the disclosure from the Accounting Officer around the non-compliance with procurement rules in relation to international protection accommodation services, IPAS. He spoke about the vast majority of non-compliance procurement, over 87%, in 2022 relating to IPAS centres and emergency accommodation. Regarding the 151 contracts with a combined value of over €91 million, what has the Department done to counteract this in 2021 and into 2022? Will the Secretary General give an update of the measures the Department has implemented?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I thank the Deputy. His opening comments are appreciated. On the non-compliant expenditure identified in the 2020 accounts, it is important to acknowledge the context whereby, in providing accommodation for international protection seekers, the Department meets an unpredictable level or scale of demand. It is demand-led and a real-time response is required. The system tends to come under continual pressure and in 2020 there was a context involving Covid and the requirements of public health compliance which involved having to thin out the accommodation numbers in any congregated setting. That put pressure on the emergency response at that time.

The previous Department, in seeking to provide for international protection accommodation, ran a number of regional tendering competitions between 2018 and 2021.

At a point in time, it became clear that that was not going to meet the requirements of the demand that was presenting and expressions of interest were sought through national and local newspapers to try to bring additional accommodation on stream as it was required. There was a competitive element to that but, when the functions transferred in, the view was taken by our own procurement team that while much of the accommodation was procured competitively, it was not compliant with the regulations and, therefore, should have been noted in the circular 40/02 return.

With regard to the 151 contracts in 2020, have new competitions been extended out or has there been a request for tender, RFT, for these current contracts?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

What has happened since is that a large-scale request for tender was published on 18 January of this year, with a closing date of 21 February. A compliance check process on the responses that were received had commenced on 28 February. That was paused when the Ukraine crisis broke as we had to divert staff resources to meet the immediate need of the Ukraine crisis. We have since been in a position to recommence the compliance checks as part of that RFT so we will see additional accommodation coming on stream on foot of that. Although I am not in a position to say, I would expect that some of the contracts that were placed in 2020 and 2021 will be regularised through that process.

It is important to also say that overall demand for international protection has been growing hugely. We have seen 4,500 people seeking international protection so far this year. The context is that our projections for this year would have been 3,500 for the full year and we have seen 4,500 to date, so the numbers are increasing very significantly, which is going to continue to put us under pressure in terms of an emergency response.

The original intention in running the RFT was to try to move away from our reliance on emergency accommodation and emergency centres and, as the Deputy will be aware, there is a White Paper for transitioning out of the model of direct provision that operates at the moment and an implementation plan has been in development around that. The ultimate aim is to move to a different model and a different system of accommodating international protection seekers that would see them received in reception centres, moving on to phase 1 accommodation for a period and then moving on to a different type of accommodation in phase 2 beyond that. The intention would be that all of that would be procured through normal, required procurement channels but, as I said, at the moment our overall capacity to respond is coming under pressure, not simply because of the Ukraine response, but also the international protection numbers.

In terms of non-competitive procurement for 2021, does Mr. McCarthy feel the Department has decreased or increased the €91 million figure that was there for 2020?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There is a lower number of contracts in 2021, that is, 54 contracts rather than 151, but of a similar value, so it will be up around the €90 million mark again for 2021. The RFT that was published in January of this year was a complex request for tender and it took some time to get that in place. In the meantime, we continued to respond to the demand in 2021 as it presented, and there was a continuing requirement for emergency response. I point out that the 40/02 return for 2021 will also show a very significant level of non-compliant procurement for international protection.

Mr. McCarthy mentioned the White Paper on the alleviation of direct provision. Is there much competition with other State agencies and bodies in terms of securing accommodation, or with approved housing bodies in terms of acquisitions? How is the Department dealing with the implementation of that White Paper, given it is over a year since it was published?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are working closely with the Housing Agency and with approved housing bodies on developing both an ownership model and a funding model for phase 2 accommodation. There has been quite a bit of development on that front since the programme board was set up to develop the implementation plan and to begin to identify 2022 actions that we would move on.

The Deputy is right to say the overall housing market and rental market is a factor in terms of our capacity to be able to acquire accommodation of the quality and scale that we will be seeking to acquire. We have made some good progress already in acquiring phase 2 accommodation and, at this stage, we have 11 properties already acquired, with 44 in train, and there is funding of €28 million this year to implement White Paper actions. We expect we will be seeking some supplementary funding on the capital front if we make good progress on the properties that are in the acquisition process.

The International Protection Accommodation Services, IPAS, budget allocation for accommodation in 2022 is €230 million. Will that be sufficient in terms of the Department's aspirations to secure both capital and commercial facilities?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

No, that budget is already coming under pressure. There is a €28 million fund for White Paper implementation. It remains to be seen whether that will come under pressure but the overall budget for international protection will come under significant pressure this year simply as a result of the numbers that are already materialising, with 4,500 arrivals to date up to the end of May, when the €230 million would have been predicated on the assumption of 3,500 over the 12-month period. There is a significant uplift in demand for international protection and this is quite separate from the Ukrainian demand, just to be very clear on that. These are people who, under the EU directive, are seeking protection here. Obviously, there is a context in terms of the UK environment and so on, which may well be impacting. We are trying to understand the factors behind that and what the future trajectory looks like, based on what we are seeing over recent months and, indeed, in terms of the assumptions behind the White Paper implementation plan because that has implications if this is a new scale of activity that we are seeing.

There are obviously going to be budgetary implications in the immediate term. There are also procurement implications in terms of our capacity to respond to the emergency demand as it presents, and there are challenges in terms of being able to meet that scale of demand over the coming months and years, if that is what continues to materialise.

With regard to the Department's assurance around value money for IPAS accommodation, what mechanisms are there within the Department to ensure it is getting value for money on contracts?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There would be pricing guidelines to adhere to when we are procuring accommodation. As I mentioned, of the contracts that were identified in the 40/02 return, a large portion of those would have been procured competitively through expressions of interest and so on, but even where there is directly negotiated procurement, as is necessary in terms of trying to add to capacity to meet the immediate demand, we operate to pricing guidelines. From that point of view, we would be satisfied that we are achieving value for money in terms of the overall accommodation market and what we are prepared to pay.

Even though we have a similar scale of non-competitive procurement or non-compliant procurement in the region of €91 million, Mr. McCarthy would still say we are getting value for money.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes, given our pricing guidelines and our adherence to those, we are satisfied that the accommodation we procure is consistent with what would come through an open tendering process.

With regard to the reporting mechanism for individuals housed in direct provision centres and their ability to voice their concerns, we have seen a recent television documentary in regard to the standard of their accommodation and the services provided in the centres. Is there a reporting system within the Department and how does that work?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There is a direct and very responsive complaints mechanism in place and a dedicated email address where residents can raise any concerns or identify any requirements directly with the Department.

There is also a confidential helpline operated by the Jesuit refugee service. Our IPAS helpdesk dealt with 6,000 queries in 2021. We monitored turnaround times on those to ensure an adequate service is being provided. They deal mainly with accommodation queries and then, as I say,-----

Are they queries or reports?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They could be queries or they could be complaints.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They also, by the way, have recourse to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children if they are dissatisfied with the response received. There is also an inspection regime in operation. All of our recognised centres would be subject to three unannounced inspections per year. All the direct provision centres are expected to adhere to national standards which are agreed with the NGO sector, service users and service providers. We are moving to involve HIQA in a formal inspection role from later this year. There are a number of mechanisms through which residents who are dissatisfied with their arrangements can raise issues, complaints and queries.

My final question relates to the humanitarian response to the displaced Ukrainians. How difficult is it to secure additional accommodation at local authority level? Given the forecast of increased numbers coming to Ireland, what will the Department's response be in the coming months?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Earlier I mentioned the figures as of 31 May, the day before yesterday. I have not seen the updated figures for yesterday yet. At that point, of the 33,000 or so Ukrainians who have arrived here, almost 24,000 have sought accommodation and have been provided with accommodation through our services. That has been an enormous effort, as the Deputy can imagine, in terms of working directly through various contacts to identify potential accommodation sources right around the country, working the phones, and trying to identify and bring on stream accommodation where we can as quickly as we can within pricing guidelines to ensure value for money considerations are met.

The local authorities have worked very well with us in identifying and sourcing accommodation that would not have been on our radar within their local areas. The Deputy is right. It is becoming increasingly difficult to bring new places on stream. At the moment we have some additional capacity coming on stream through student accommodation which is being vacated over the summer period. That will give us about 4,000 places, but obviously that will have to be vacated at the end of the summer.

I will let Deputy Dillon back in for a second round later.

I thank Mr. Kevin McCarthy and all his team for being here today. When I looked at today's pack, I thought there was nearly enough here for two meetings, but I am sure he would not even like me to joke about that. The Department certainly covers a wide range of activities and it has increased. It has had responsibility for the international protection service for some time and the level of non-compliant procurement there is of concern. The Secretary General has told the committee he is satisfied there is value for money. However, he cannot say that because the only way of saying there is value for money is by having a compliant procurement system. Would that be fair?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. Obviously, procurement is the best protection for us in ensuring value for money. We would absolutely accept that and we would want to move to a situation where all of our contracts are fully procurement compliant. That is the objective we are working towards. The publication of the RFT earlier this year was aimed at achieving that alongside the implementation of the White Paper which moves us to a different model, also based on compliant procurement. To be fair to everybody, the reality in which people have been operating is that we have become reliant on emergency provision and the very urgent sourcing of accommodation to meet the demand as it arises. We have obligations under international law to provide accommodation to people on arrival where they seek asylum. We have to do that to a particular standard. In procuring accommodation, the two key considerations for us would be that it meets the required standard and that it meets the required value for money test.

As members of the Committee of Public Accounts, we would want Mr. McCarthy to take a stronger position than saying the Department wants to get to compliant procurement.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely.

I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General would have a similar view.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. That is the unequivocal position - that we want to get to entirely compliant procurement. We were on a good pathway towards that. Events over the past couple of months have unfortunately thrown us off that course just for the time being, but it is absolutely our intention to get to that.

Mr. McCarthy mentioned the international protection service. It is commonly viewed that direct provision is not the best the way to continue. Many people have asked when direct provision will end.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

As the Deputy knows, the White Paper commits to ending direct provision by the end of 2024. The Minister has continually restated his absolute commitment to meeting that objective. Some of the assumptions on which the White Paper was based and on which the implementation plan was based are now coming under a bit of stress because of the numbers we are seeing. We are conducting an exercise now with the other partners on the programme board who are representative of NGOs, service users and other Departments and Government agencies to look at the implications and impact of those changed assumptions.

We have two and a half years left to achieve that target. Does Mr. McCarthy believe there is a significant risk of that being missed or does he believe it can be achieved?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are continuing to work towards that target is what I would say. It is a challenging and ambitious target. It was always a challenging and ambitious target. We recognise that.

If Mr. McCarthy does not mind me saying so, when officials use terms such as "challenging target" and "ambitious", I am hearing that they will not meet it.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are committed to meeting it, but it is important to say that it is a highly ambitious and challenging target, particularly with the impact of increased numbers arriving making it more challenging. We are absolutely working through the various actions.

Are the resources in place to help the Department achieve it? Obviously, we understand that external factors can change. However, is everything in place that allows the Department to reach that with all the internal controls it has?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We have significant resources in place this year. We have a good understanding in terms of the requirements to secure additional resources if necessary, particularly in terms of our property acquisition programme, which is now well under way. Obviously, the scale of what would be required to meet the targets in the White Paper grows as the numbers that may come into the system grow. That raises the bar in terms of what is required.

That has been the challenge with direct provision since its inception. We need to get to a position where we stop using it as a tool. Of course, it will be there as a short-term measure, but for long-term stays, direct provision is unacceptable and the Government and specifically the Department need to stop using it.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is the commitment that is set out in the programme for Government. It is a commitment that the Minister has reiterated as his own personal objective of achieving and our job is to support him in achieving that.

I would certainly appreciate all the work that Mr. McCarthy and his officials can do to achieve that.

I turn to the ECCE scheme. In some ways it could be extended to family support centres. When the wage subsidy scheme was in operation the level of funding that was going into the childcare sector was incredibly significant. We have a large number of very small operators, many of them with great passion and commitment. However, in many cases the current model of pay per child per use does not do anything to help them meet the capital costs of providing that service. Similarly, my area has a fantastic new family resource centre to be opened soon. The Department via Tusla provided the family support centre with a number of staff but nothing in terms of capital. Other agencies, including local authorities, had to meet that. Does Mr. McCarthy accept that the weakness of the ECCE scheme is that we do not have an ambitious capital programme as we would have had in the past, for example, with the equal opportunities childcare scheme? There is a significant problem in providing this pay-per-use service when we do not provide a strong ambitious capital programme.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

A capital programme is provided for under the NDP for early years, amounting to €70 million over the course of the coming years. The initial focus of that will be on providing additional capacity in areas where additional capacity is needed, and it is something we keep under close watch working with the county childcare committees, which would be in close contact with suppliers in their areas in terms of the maximum demand-----

The difficulty is that many providers of ECCE have had to take out loans in their own name to provide the building, yet in the breakdown of costs they receive per child, per use and so on - it is highly regulated, almost by the hour - that capital responsibility does not appear to be reflected in the fee being paid to the provider.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I would point out that the new funding model for early years, which comes into effect from September, will see a significant overall increase in funding to the sector and to providers right across the sector. A total of 99% of providers will see an increase in overall funding for this year, which reflects all the costs that are captured in operating, running and establishing an early years setting. The 1% of providers that will not see an increase will see no decrease in funding. The Government is making a significant additional investment into early years provision through that new funding model, recognising all the costs that are involved for providers in meeting the level of demand and recognising the nature of those costs in providing different forms of service to children of different ages and so on. It will be a much fairer and-----

I am glad Mr. McCarthy mentioned that funding because I hope we will start to see in the autumn the delivery of service connected with that. It is a very significant increase in funding and I have to accept that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, is doing a fantastic job in allocating that and driving that agenda. It shows, however, that the only logical way forward is for us to move towards a system whereby the State largely funds childcare in a more direct way and with more control over governance. A total of 14% of contracts under ECCE were identified as being non-compliant, but I have concerns about whether that phrase is even appropriate in this context. These are very small operations in some cases, and we are holding them to account for being non-compliant when the Department itself is struggling with non-compliant procurement. We really need to support ECCE providers more, provide better governance in order that we can control it and ensure the significant funding that has been delivered will reach the service and parents and that we will move towards this model of a more national system.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In respect of the compliance levels, non-compliance can mean a number of things. There is quite a high bar for compliance because in the inspection regime, depending on the scheme, there could be anything from 28 to 44, and beyond, compliance checks. Where a provider is found to be non-compliant on a small number of those, it is deemed to be non-compliant. The compliance regime is very much about trying to support providers in identifying where they are not compliant and to rectify that and take actions to get to a level of compliance. Sanctions do not kick in until successive non-compliance is found through successive inspections. There are a number of means through which those providers that are found to be non-compliant can be supported through support funding and so on to help them to address the findings that are identified.

The intention, which is very much underpinned by the new model, relates to a public private partnership and to the State becoming much more involved as a co-founder of activity in the sector, in return for which providers sign up to fee arrangements that involve no increase in fees for parents and, ultimately, reductions in fees for parents. It is about trying to move what has historically been a very independent sector into being a publicly funded and publicly supported model of provision, recognising the vital importance of early years education and care for the development of children and the State's absolute responsibility to ensure that is funded, supported and overseen in terms of quality. The compliance aspect is important in providing parents with the assurance that the quality of provision their child is getting in a given setting is tested and benchmarked against expected standards and that the provider is supported in achieving those standards where it is falling short, for whatever reason.

The Deputy is correct. Historically, it is a sector with a lot of small providers that has had a lot of complicated schemes and complicated funding arrangements. The new funding model will help to put it on a better plane from that point of view.

I want to touch on the Ukrainian refugee crisis. What type of material is being supplied to refugees outlining, for example, how they could be supported through social welfare, language classes and so on? Has the Department looked at producing, say, a comprehensive booklet that could be broadly circulated at the likes of Intreo centres?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Quite a lot of whole-of-government effort has gone into developing information resources for Ukrainians on arrival. There was initially a reception hub in Dublin Airport, manned by staff from the Departments of Social Protection and Justice and our Department, which ensured Ukrainians on arrival were processed immediately and given a personal public service, PPS, number and information on their rights and entitlements and where to go for additional information and so on. We provided the accommodation service on site in Dublin Airport at that stage.

We have since moved our operation to Citywest and the other Departments have joined us there, so now a single reception and transit hub is in operation in Citywest, where other agencies such as the HSE, Tusla and so on are on site as well. Therefore, if particular health needs are identified, they can be assessed and identified at that stage, and good information is being provided to Ukrainians on arrival in respect of that.

When they are accommodated at a local level, community response forums, which the Deputy may be familiar with, are in place in each of the local authority areas. They bring together all the community and voluntary organisations, local State agencies and so on to try to co-ordinate supports and responses at a local level to ensure that there is an outreach to people in the settings where they live and that their needs are being met in a joined-up way. It continues to be a challenge to respond to those needs but-----

I accept that. Were the measures at Dublin Airport extended to the other airports and the ports for people who may have missed the hub? I also asked about posting notices, translated support materials and so on.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There are QR code notices on site in the reception centres, which can be scanned on a phone to bring the user to information websites. Gov.ie has a lot of information material in the Ukrainian and Russian languages. The information materials provided are provided in the various languages. We have interpreters on site in Citywest and previously in Dublin Airport to ensure people's needs and inquiries can be met. There are a lot of attempts, to be fair to all the Departments and agencies involved, to ensure that Ukrainians are being met on arrival with whatever information they require.

As for the non-Dublin Airport arrivals, the vast majority of arrivals are through Dublin Airport, at well over 90%, although I would have to check the figures. Small numbers come through other ports of entry. We have a presence in Rosslare Europort, where there are regular arrivals on the ferry. That is managed for us by Wexford County Council, while hubs in Limerick and Cork are managed by the Department of Social Protection. Ukrainians will be met by somebody on arrival.

We arrange for an NGO presence in Shannon Airport or Cork Airport and they are directed to the information hub to have their needs met.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. In relation to accommodation, I am looking at what criteria the Department would set outside of larger settings such as hotels. I accept that there is an unprecedented emergency crisis. What criteria would the Department put on, for example, location, services and amenities available for the refugees? On the scale of accommodation, can Mr. McCarthy outline what the Department would be looking for in relation to all of that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I have to be honest in saying that our commitment is to provide safe shelter and accommodation. The vast majority of the 23,000 people who have been provided with accommodation so far are in either hotel, bed and breakfast or guesthouse accommodation which is of a good standard. We would be satisfied that it is of good standard. In contracting that, we would ensure that certain minimum requirements are met in terms of the number of meals a day, etc.

We have had to rely on more emergency accommodation as we have met surges in demand over the course of the past three months. We have had local authorities standing up emergency accommodation for us, particularly over weekends, at times. Sometimes that involves camp beds in community halls or other congregated types of settings, which are not of a standard that we would want to be providing to people and are not sustainable in terms of offering anything more than immediate accommodation on arrival, but there would obviously be a requirement for fire safety standards to be met as a minimum. Local authorities would inspect any premises that are in use, if there was any concern around the standard of what is on offer. However, it is the case that while we endeavour to secure and provide the best accommodation that is available to us, we have been securing accommodation that would be of a standard that, overall, we would not wish to be putting people into.

What would Mr. McCarthy's views be on a development in County Meath of between 500 and 600 units by two organisations with regard to provision of accommodation for Ukrainian refugees? Has there been any engagement with the Department regarding this project?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am not certain. Meath County Council may well be involved in trying to identify options.

But the Department is not aware of that particular development.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am not fully aware, but I can look at that. We are not involved in that.

I am asking in relation to the type of solution that the Department would consider.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I might expand.

In the case of this particular one, between 1,500 and 2,000 people, or more, would be accommodated. This is a single project or development. Would that be something the Department would consider?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

What I would say, to be blunt, is that we consider everything. Our role in this is to identify short-term accommodation options that can be made immediately available to Ukrainians on arrival. There is obviously a wider challenge of looking beyond the immediate time horizon.

When Mr. McCarthy says "short-term", would he define that? Would it be two years or six months?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We have contracted hotel accommodation out to the end of this year, for example. We would have contracted some accommodation out beyond that period. We have to be careful in terms of how much accommodation we commit to over the long term because none of us knows at this point the future trajectory of demand.

I was about to ask Mr. McCarthy that because the development in question pertains to temporary accommodation over a five-year period.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In a case like that, the real question would be whether there is a demand or a use for that beyond the immediate Ukrainian crisis. We are certainly looking at accommodation solutions that might offer immediate accommodation as part of the Ukrainian response but might have a role beyond that, in terms of White Paper accommodation into the future for wider international protection demand, a social housing demand or some other public demand for accommodation.

This particular development involves, as I said, 569 modular homes. They would be modular homes of 33 sq. m. They are down as a emergency temporary accommodation campsite. Obviously, they will be modular homes such as bedsits. How would the White Paper and the directive to move away from emergency accommodation and direct provision centres marry with such a development? It is over a five-year period but it could be extended. Mr. McCarthy stated the Department is determined to move away from that type of accommodation. How would something like that marry with the Department's move?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It may not. We would have to look at any potential development or any proposal on its own merits. Without knowing the detail of the particular one that Deputy Munster is talking about, I would not be in a position to say whether there would be a long-term requirement for that. We would certainly be happy if there is information available in respect of the particular development the Deputy is talking about. If we are not already aware of it, we would be happy to be made aware of it and assess whether there is a potential interest from the point of view that the Deputy is describing.

Maybe the Deputy would come back to the committee with further information.

I will. I thank the Chairman.

I apologise if I am going over ground that was discussed earlier. It is one of those days when I am trying to bilocate.

There are three areas I wanted to talk to Mr. McCarthy about and the time is short. Obviously, the most important aspect of foster care is that it meets the best interests of the child. However, there are different costs depending on what is available, and whether it is with a family member, a foster parent or a private provider. I received a reply to a parliamentary question some time ago in relation to the number on the panel and the number of children. In some locations, there is a clear shortage of foster parents. Is that the determining factor? I imagine that there is specialised care required for some children, but what would be the determining factor? What involvement would the Department have in that general policy in placing children or in deciding? There is a different cost depending on what is available but my point is that it should not come down to cost.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. The fundamental consideration would be the best interests of the child. Tusla would assess the potential of any placement option from the fundamental point of view of what is in the best interests of the child.

Is there a shortage? I received a reply to parliamentary question that tells me, for example, that there are 447 available places in north Dublin and 747 are required. There are other places where the need would be met. Is there a shortage of places? Is that determining something where one will get a more expensive and a less optimum placement?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Tusla will seek the place that best suits the needs of the child. In cases where there is not an immediate placement available, it will do what it can to try and secure a suitable placement, which would be within the community, if not within the child's family or extended family which would be the first port of call. That is always the fundamental driving factor.

In terms of foster care overall, there has been a reduction in the number of foster carers between 2021 and 2020. The Deputy may have seen earlier this year that Tusla embarked on an awareness raising campaign. It is an area where, obviously, we are heavily reliant on foster care provision. It is the best form of provision for children.

My time is very short. I do not need to be-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am sorry.

I appreciate that. One of the Department's remits relates to the Traveller and Roma communities.

I do not know what the population of the Roma community is but I know the Traveller population is in the order of 40,000. The suicide rate among male Travellers is seven times higher than among the general population. For female Travellers, some of whom are children, it is six times the suicide rate than among the general population. Exactly what relationship does the Department have with mental health services? What are the key performance indicators in that regard? When people do not survive, it is a pretty traumatic fail if that is a key performance indicator. What exactly is spent and what are the Department's outcomes?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We have overall responsibility for the Traveller and Roma inclusion strategy, which is an all-of-government strategy. Obviously, the Department of Health has responsibility for the provision of health services but through the implementation structures for the overall all-of-government strategy, we would seek to hold other Departments to account for delivery of the strategy.

What of the key performance indicators?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There are key objectives set out in the Traveller and Roma inclusion strategy, which is currently under review. One of the challenges for us in developing the new strategy is to try to ensure that the actions are sharper and that the performance outcomes identified in respect of actions are more concrete.

Would Mr. McCarthy regard that level of suicide as a complete failure?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We absolutely recognise that historically the Traveller community has been under served by public services-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

-----in this country when one looks at outcomes on a range of fronts, and life expectancy is the most fundamental of those. It is not acceptable that any part of our community-----

How much does the Department spend in this regard?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will get a budget figure on that for the Deputy.

Mr. McCarthy might also give some overall idea as to when the new reviewed strategy will be published and what the key performance indicators are. It is really quite shocking.

With regard to cyberattack and its impact, Tusla originally had a link to the HSE before it came to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Some 90% of Tusla systems were hit by the ransomware attack. Has the Department identified whether those issues have been resolved at this stage? What did this cost? Was it identified in advance that there were weaknesses?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Tusla was operating off HSE IT systems at the time of the cyberattack. This operation was a legacy of the split out from the HSE, when Tusla was-----

I do not have the time for that.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is fine. I just say this as part of the context. They are investing heavily in their own IT systems, which will be live later this year. I will get the figures on that for the Deputy. Tusla has grown its numbers hugely in terms of its own ICT department. We have invested heavily in Tusla to ensure it has independence for IT and IT security.

Mr. McCarthy has said "invested heavily". By how much?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will give the Deputy a figure on that, if I can identify it. I just do not have it in front of me. There has been very significant investment in IT systems within Tusla.

On the cyberattack, Tusla is working through the impact of that. The chief executive of Tusla is on record saying that there is an implication for the potential compromising of Tusla data. Tusla is planning to come to the Department shortly with a programme of actions for how that is addressed in terms of engagement with anybody who might be affected.

Has anything been identified that will compromise individuals? Have those individuals been notified if that is the case? How would the Department deal with that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

An exercise is under way at the moment to assess the nature of the information that may have been compromised, the number of people who may have been impacted by that, and to develop a plan of action in notifying and communicating that to the individuals concerned.

But they do not know yet.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That exercise is near finalisation, as I understand it.

Okay. Was there a risk register for the computer systems? What system was the Department working off?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Tusla would have a robust risk register and risk assessment system. I would expect that this identified cybersecurity as a potential risk issue for it.

Does Mr. McCarthy know that for a fact?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not know that for a fact.

Will Mr. McCarthy check that and come back to us?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We can establish that, absolutely.

Perhaps Mr. McCarthy can tell us what operating system the computers were operating on.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It was the HSE system that was affected and Tusla was drawn into it when the cyberattack occurred.

Some €8 million has been invested in ICT capital, to date, under Tusla's strategic ICT-----

Is that following the cyberattack?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is, yes. It was initiated in 2021. The cyberattack was in mid-2021, in or around May 2021. The spend to date is €1.5 million and that will give it independence in ICT.

Tusla has been fined on two occasions for breaching data protection rules. What was the extent of those fines? Are there any other such issues pending?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not have information on the extent of the fines, but I can certainly provide that information for the Deputy. I am not aware of other data protection issues but given the scale and range of data that Tusla handles, it would not be uncommon for some data protection breach to arise. I am not aware of it. We can certainly get a report on that for the Deputy.

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

I thank the witnesses for coming in this morning and giving us a full and detailed explanation of the expenditure.

I wish to deal with the issue of Oberstown Children Detention Campus and the spending there. What numbers of children are there at any one time?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I believe that Oberstown has a licence for 46. The maximum occupancy is 46.

That is costing us €24 million per annum. In 2020 it cost us €24 million. I presume that figure has now gone up.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The current figure for Oberstown is the 2022 allocation of €27 million. This is €25 million current and €1.25 million capital.

What is involved in those capital works? What changes must be made that are costing that kind of money?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That capital provision compares to €3 million in the previous year and €3.8 million in 2020. Some of the capital works that were under way, going back to 2020, included mechanical and electrical works in the Trinity House school, as well as some IT capital works. There were also Covid-related adjustments, which involved some capital spend over the period.

What is the total staff number in Oberstown to serve 46 children at any one time?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will try to find that staffing number for the Deputy. I may have to come back to the Deputy with the staffing number.

Given the kind of money we are talking about, which is now €27 million per annum in real terms, the cost per individual is extremely high.

Has the Department looked at whether there are better ways to try to assist people who are going down the wrong road and who eventually end up in some place like Oberstown? Could more expenditure be put into those areas before a person ends up in Oberstown? I was involved with a number of projects in Cork that were extremely successful. The Garda would have referred people to training facilities and worked closely with them. Have we enough of those around the country and would we get better value for money in following such a process? In the facility I mention, we were looking after 50 people at the time. Approximately seven or eight years ago, the facility cost in the region of €600,000 per annum to run. Is there a better way of dealing with this and do we have sufficient facilities?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

From a cost-effectiveness perspective, there is no question that the best investments are early intervention and support - specifically, the kind of supports mentioned by the Deputy that would avoid any child having to spend time in a facility like Oberstown. The Oberstown model is clearly expensive, particularly by virtue of what it does, which is very much trying to provide education, training and welfare, rehabilitation and therapeutic supports to very small numbers of children. It is a very intensive model of intervention for those children who reach a stage where they need to be detained or remanded to Oberstown, unfortunately. There are 33 young people there at the moment. The Deputy is right to point out that, per capita, it is a very expensive model of provision. It is a necessary element of the overall hierarchy of provision where the fundamental and primary objective is to provide necessary supports to all young people in the setting and through the means that have the best impact. That is early intervention, support and training.

Looking at the project, has any research been done? Taking a group of 40 people who may have been there five years ago, has anybody analysed where those individuals may be now? That would be a true reflection of whether the project is working.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am not aware of any specific research, longitudinal or otherwise, around outcomes for children in Oberstown specifically. It is an interesting point.

Is it worth doing?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

If it has not been done, it would certainly be worth doing. It may have been done but I am simply not aware of that research.

Mr. McCarthy might revert to the committee on the matter. I remember research being done on the projects with which I was involved. For example, we found that five years after we had these people in training, more than 70% were in full-time employment. I am concerned about whether we should be doing research in respect of these projects in order to see where we can provide improvements and better value for money. Technically, this project costs approximately €500,000 per detainee per annum. Does Mr. McCarthy agree with that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes, it is a very resource-intensive model of provision and intervention. The fewer children we have in Oberstown at any point, the greater it would be as an indicator of success in the system.

If we are spending that kind of money, is it not also important to research to see whether the system is working?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. I suppose remanding somebody to Oberstown is absolutely a last resort. There is much research regarding what interventions, services and supports serve children and young people best in their development and rehabilitation, where they have offended and their personal development as young people. Remanding somebody to a facility like Oberstown would not be anywhere up the list of desirable interventions for any young child. Unfortunately, in some cases, other settings simply will not meet the particular child and the nature of the offences or whatever may give rise to a need for the setting to be utilised in an individual case. It would not be the setting of choice.

I will move to the question of Ukrainian refugees and, specifically, their being allocated houses or accommodation in circumstances where people have volunteered to provide such houses or accommodation. Is the Department involved with that? I have received a huge number of complaints from people who volunteered to take in refugees more four months ago but who have heard nothing since. What involvement does the Department have with that matter?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The pledge process was launched by the Red Cross and the Government partnered in promoting that. We have been working with that organisation and supporting it in the context of ensuring that anybody who made an initial pledge of property was contacted in order to make sure the capacity was there.

People who have come to me are saying they have registered but have not been contacted. Some have said they missed a phone call and when they returned the call, they got on to one of the numbers in the Defence Forces. It was a 1800 number that was used. When they returned the call, they were in contact with an office in the Defence Forces. They were told that office had nothing to do with the process. That was when they rang the 1800 number back.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not know the detail of particular cases, but I know that more than 40,000 calls were made to people who pledged properties. A number of people proved uncontactable after three or four calls and emails. For the most part, however, people were contacted by the Red Cross.

That is not what we are hearing from people on the ground. The people in contact with me have said they have received no contact of any description but when they check, they find they are still registered on the system as having given a pledge.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. A number of efforts would have been made to contact those people, as I understand it. We supplemented the Red Cross resources with support from the Defence Forces in order to work through those calls. That was to ensure everybody received a call. There is no question that there are people who proved to be uncontactable for whatever reason. I do not know the circumstances of the particular cases that the Deputy is aware of. They would not have come about because of a lack of effort on the part of the Red Cross.

I do not agree with the witness. The evidence I have is that people have not been contacted and in many cases if people missed a call, when they returned the call they ended up getting on to the Defence Forces. Whoever answered the phone said they were not dealing with the matter and they did not know to whom the caller should be referred.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

For anybody in that position, there is a number on the Red Cross website for contact.

Will that be made available to the public, especially in view of the fact that people seem to be unaware of it?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is on the Red Cross website. We can forward the details to the Deputy but it is available on the website.

Okay. I thank Mr. McCarthy.

I welcome Mr. McCarthy and thank him for the briefing information provided in advance of the meeting.

I will stick with Oberstown to start with because Deputy Burke was speaking about it a moment ago. It was mentioned that there is capacity for 46 inmates and is it fair to say they are the higher end of the more challenging youths, as detention centres go in the State? Would it be classified as that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. In the hierarchy of intervention, Oberstown would be where children have the greatest need.

Mr. McCarthy mentioned funding relating to Oberstown, which increased over the past while. I think €24 million was expended under the programme in 2020. He also referred to education, training and other supports for those who are on licence there. What kind of uptake is there in that centre for the services that are there?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

All children would be offered training or education appropriate to their need or to their desire. It is mainly 16- and 17-year-olds in Oberstown. A number of those go on to complete the leaving certificate or would be on alternative education pathways, whether it is Youthreach-type interventions or other forms of qualification.

What was the percentage uptake in that regard?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will get the Deputy figures on that. I do not have figures on the uptake or indeed on the educational outcomes but we can provide that information for him.

That would be helpful. On the €24 million, what was done? Was there an extension or refurbishment?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The €24 million was current funding.

It was current funding, okay. In terms of capital funding, what was the spend?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It was €3.8 million in 2020. There was very little spend on that in 2020, however-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

-----simply because of the Covid restrictions. Those restrictions had an impact on construction activity. The intention of that, and it would have carried forward into the subsequent years, was to undertake significant mechanical and electrical works in the main and IT investment as well. Works were carried over into 2021 and 2022 as a result of that.

Was that €3.8 million an increase or decrease on the 2019 figure?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not have a 2019 figure so I cannot confirm that for the Deputy but I will-----

Mr. McCarthy might come back to us.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

-----confirm it, yes.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. Our time is limited.

On ECCE and programme B specifically, in the Department's appropriation accounts, under the heading "Agency services", it is stated that Pobal administers that particular programme. There was an advance of €518 million to Pobal in relation to note 6.1. What was that advance for?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am sorry, which figure is the Deputy referring to?

It was €518 million advanced to Pobal in 2020.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is in note 6.1.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Note 6.1.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

These are the total amounts that were transferred to Pobal.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes, so that would have been the total transfer over the course of-----

Was the change in the Department? Was there a change and transfer from it?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

No. Transfer of funding would be - the funding was transferred to Pobal in order to administer on behalf of the Department. It would largely be the schemes in the early years area, whether it is ECCE, AIM or the national childcare scheme.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is spending on that front. It is advancing funding to Pobal which is advanced monthly or as required in order to meet the requirements of those areas.

Okay. I thank the Mr. McCarthy for that.

On procurement compliance, there the 151 contracts spoken about earlier and €91 million relating to the provision of international protection accommodation. I hear what he said about how we are kind of at the upper end of that budget for this year given the numbers and that is excluding the Ukrainians who are coming into the country. Then there was one contract for €29,000, in excess of that, for the commission of investigation and one contract in relation to €74,000. I heard what was said as well about reforms and note also that "Audits are conducted to DPER/CIIA standards" and "The internal audit function is reviewed periodically". How often is it reviewed?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The internal audit function.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I would have to confirm that for the Deputy.

Would it be annually or biannually?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I cannot tell the Deputy. I would have to confirm that for him.

I ask that Mr. McCarthy come back to us. Are the officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who are on the line be able to come in on how often that review is done of the internal audit?

Ms Jessica Lawless

We would not be able to give the Deputy that information. That would be a matter for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth's internal audit function. We do not have the details as to when the review is carried out.

It is stated that the audits are conducted to Department of Public Expenditure and Reform standards, and not by that Department. Pardon me. That is fair enough. I ask that Mr. McCarthy come back to us on that if he would not mind.

I noticed there were a number of legal cases in the information. It is in note 6.2, which is headed "Compensation and legal costs". I noticed there were 20 injuries in the course of work in 2020. Were they cases that were just taken and that arose in 2020 or were they ones that were paid out in 2020?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

My understanding is they were payouts in 2020. I cannot say when the injury arose.

Okay, and obviously cases take different times.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. By the way, my colleague has just confirmed that the internal audit is reviewed annually. Just to confirm that.

It is annually. I thank Mr. McCarthy.

Under "Other claims" there are three. What do they relate to, as they are claims by employees, if they are not injuries in the workplace?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not have detail on what those particular claims relate to but we can certainly find that.

Okay. Then there are nine personal injury claims and a challenge to the children's referendum that dates back to 2019. What was that relating to?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I understand there was a case brought against the Government regarding the children's referendum in 2012. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed a petition to overturn the result, so legal costs were ordered.

It took that amount of time, until 2019, to deal with it.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. Clearly.

Wow. Okay.

In the last few minutes I have left, I have another question on the accounts. There was funding from the EU under a heading that was highlighted. It is "EU receipts", with €6 million being an estimate of what was to be received in 2020 and the outturn €5.4 million in respect of the asylum, migration and integration fund. Is that separate to the fund we were speaking about earlier when Mr. McCarthy said referred to asylum or international protection? How does that EU receipts funding differ from what we were talking about earlier in terms of us being under pressure with our current budget for 2020?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

As I understand the matter, it relates mainly to programme refugees. It is an EU fund that is aimed at supporting the fair and even distribution of migrants across Europe. Supports are provided to member States that participate in the programme. Ireland has an option to opt in so we incur expenditure in receiving and resettling refugees under that programme and some of the expenditure then is claimable under the asylum, migration and integration fund.

Given we were talking about the IPAS system and the funding for 2020 and the current year. As well as that funding in 2020 for the EU receipts, which was nearly expended, it is fair to say - there was €600,000 shy of the estimated provision for it - would it be fair to say the money that is allocated to our refugee and asylum programmes is under strain in the current year, with everything that is going on?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. There is a funding pressure this year as a direct result of the numbers presenting on the international protection front. There is obviously a much more significant funding pressure as a result of our response to the requirements of the humanitarian response to Ukrainians arriving here-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

-----so that will be a very significant cost pressure and we will be bringing forward proposals in consultation with our colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to agree supplementary Estimate requirements.

I refer to the intervention programmes for children and young people. Given the year that was in it, there was a shortfall in expenditure in 2020 of €922,000. There were delays in projects associated with expenditure. Have those projects been subsequently funded to the maximum and are they back on track now?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am sorry. Which heading is the Deputy talking about?

This is subhead B8, which relates to intervention programmes for children and young people.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

As far as I know, 2021 will have seen a return to expected levels of expenditure on those fronts. Obviously, 2020 was an exceptional year for the obvious reasons.

We saw a reduction in activity on a number of fronts. I do not have the spend outturn figure for 2021 under that heading.

Mr. McCarthy might come back to us on that. It would be really important to ensure that cohort of children and young people are not losing out.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely.

We will take a short break and resume in ten minutes.

Sitting suspended at 11 a.m. and resumed at 11.10 a.m.

I welcome our guests. Mr. Kevin McCarthy provided correspondence to the committee which stated not only that his Department is responsible for providing accommodation and services to Ukrainian refugees but that further significant responsibilities would fall to the Department when specialist community-based disability services were transferred from the Department of Health in 2022. Is there a timeline for that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are working towards a target transfer date of 1 July. We need to go back to the Government in advance of that. We have been seeking to agree a number of issues with the Department of Health about future joint governance arrangements over the HSE, financial governance arrangements and so on. The legislation which enables the transfer has now completed its passage through the Houses. The two Departments are working closely with the HSE and agreeing final arrangements which will involve an overall memorandum of understanding between the Departments and with the HSE. There will also be detailed operational agreements in respect of various functions and so on. A number of detailed arrangements are being worked through. The objective is for the transfer to take place on 1 July.

There was not an awful lot of detail there. I understand the process is still in train but I am interested in the details. Will the Department for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth become responsible for the child disability network teams, CDNTs?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is correct.

That cannot just transition between Departments. There must have been an awful lot of discussions as to how it will work to ensure nothing relating to children and people using those services falls between two stools, as it were. Has Mr. McCarthy a plan he can share with the committee? Can he outline how the transition will happen? The target date is only a month away.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, as the committee knows, has overall responsibility for disability services and is co-located between the two Departments. We have established a disability division within the Department. It was headed by an assistant secretary. We currently have acting arrangements in place in respect of that. Staff in our disability unit are engaging actively with colleagues in the Department of Health who will be transferring to our Department as part of the transfer. Over a number of months, there has been a lot of intensive engagement on all policy matters relating to disability services to ensure that the transfer is seamless in terms of policy continuity.

How many staff will it take?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In our disability unit, an assistant secretary will head up the division. There will six principal officer, PO, areas overseeing different aspects of the disability service.

Is that currently the case or will it be the case in the future?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The is the intended position after the transfer. A number of those staff are transferring from the Department of Health to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. There are vacancies which we are actively seeking to fill.

What kind of vacancies?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There are posts that have not yet been filled.

That is what a vacancy is. In what areas do those vacancies arise?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I would need to check that and confirm the situation for the Deputy. I know there is at least one PO vacancy in our Department because we had to divert a PO resource to the Ukraine response team.

That is why I am asking. What level of funding will come with this transfer?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The overall budget for specialist community-based disability services within the health Vote is of the order of €2.3 billion or €2.4 billion.

Will that transfer to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It will. The precise scope of the budget and services has been the subject of detailed engagement with colleagues in the Department of Health and the HSE. There has been detailed due diligence in that regard. One complicating factor is that the objective is to deliver mainstream services to people, whatever their needs, insofar as possible.

I recently met a little boy named Leo Dixon, who is nine years old and applied for funding because he requires a wheelchair. Will such an application land on the desks in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth or will that responsibility remain with the HSE?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

As of now, responsibility resides with the Department of Health.

I know that. What will happen in the future?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Individual cases will obviously be managed by the HSE. It will continue to deliver services in partnership with section 38 and section 39 providers.

That funding is not coming from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. That is what I am asking.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am not sure, to be honest, whether the situation the Deputy is describing is precisely within the scope of what is transferring. I expect it is.

The reason I am concerned is that I know Mr. McCarthy is not sure. We are only a month away from the handover. Leo Dixon's application sat on a desk for nine weeks when he needed a wheelchair as quickly as possible. I sense that the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is under quite a lot of pressure because of the Ukrainian crisis. We find ourselves in an unmanageable scenario but we are committed to making these people's lives better and being as accommodating as possible by allowing them to live here. We know it is not possible because we do not have the required housing and facilities. I do not want to see children falling between two stools for the want of staffing, handover and understanding whose job it is. I do not want to contact the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on an issue, only to be told it is not the responsibility of that Department.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

To be clear, the scope of what is transferring is, and will be, extremely well-defined. All the preparatory work that is going into the transfer is aimed at ensuring there is that clarity. The specific case in respect of the provision of a wheelchair that the Deputy has raised would clearly come within the ambit of what is transferring. The current on-the-ground service arrangements in that regard, as managed by the HSE, will continue as they are. The funding and oversight responsibility and the policy responsibility will transfer to our Department. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that disability services for the future are developed and supported in the best interests of service users.

What discussions has the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth had with regard to ratifying the UN optional protocol in full? Have there been discussions in that regard?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are heavily involved in discussions on that.

Is there a timeline?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There are legislative requirements in the first instance with the passage of the supported decision-making legislation. I am struggling for the correct terminology. The intention is that once that legislation is commenced, it will pave the way for part of it. There are also cross-Government dimensions involved. The Irish Government has always taken the view that we should not opt into UN protocols until we are satisfied we are in a position to deliver on the obligations.

That is only natural because otherwise we would be flooded with complaints. At the same time, it is discriminatory against those for whom we are not providing services if we remain outside the protocol. Those people have no one to whom they can complain. I asked the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, if he is committed to ratifying the protocol. He says he is. The committee was told in 2020 that the protocol would be ratified in 2021. We now have the whole of the UN and Covid-19 to blame for the delay. Do we have a defined timeline now? I was unaware that we are lagging in respect of the legislative requirement. I was under the impression we had not compiled our first report to the UN since 2018 and we were not going to see ratification before that was completed.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, have expressed their commitment to ratifying the protocol as soon as they are satisfied that we are in a position to meet the relevant obligations.

I understand that a legal review of potential redress mechanisms that are required under the protocol is under way. As the Minister and Minister of State have expressed, we are committed to being in a position to do that as soon as possible

Is money required for that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There may be resource implications but until we understand what the requirements are, we are not in a position to confirm that.

Regarding Tusla, the Department's interventions and the funding, does the Department provide for respite care for the Tusla children groupings such as foster carers in a capital plan? These include foster carers who have taken care of autistic children for years but there is no respite for them. Is the Department's responsible for overseeing that with Tusla or is it Tusla's responsibility?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

If they are children with particular needs, be they disability needs-----

It is a respite-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They would have access to respite services for children generally in the same way as any other child.

That is my point. They do not, so I am asking whether there is a capital fund or capital infrastructure fund from the Department to provide that respite.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Tusla would not separately provide its own respite services.

It would or would not-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It would not provide them. It would rely on HSE respite services in respect of children with particular needs who are in care.

So the Department has no input into that.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Tusla works closely with the HSE in terms of accessing services and ensuring there are protocols around access to services for children in care whatever their needs are. Obviously, mental health needs tend to be a very strong feature of that in terms of the particular protocol around access to mental health services.

The Department does not have any input into-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We do not control a respite budget for-----

Does the Department make recommendations?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We would engage across government around the needs of children in care and seeking to ensure that whatever services are required to support them are there.

The Department is aware of the significant lack of respite. Could it share with the committee whatever correspondence it has had in that regard from a recommendation perspective as to where it is going?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is fine.

I do not see Deputies O'Connor or Carroll MacNeill yet. I will let members back in for a second round. It depends on who shows up but Deputy Verona Murphy is guaranteed a second round of questions with slightly less time. The Estimate for the guardian ad litem executive office in 2020 was €145,000. The outturn was €127,000, which obviously left an underspend of €18,000. At the time, that was attributed to the delay in legislation being enacted. What is the update regarding the establishment of the guardian ad litem executive office?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The legislation on that has passed through the Dáil and is coming into the Seanad.

We have the spend for 2020. What was the spend last year?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The office has not yet been established so I would not expect there to be any significant spend.

I will move on to direct provision. I understand that residents from four centres in Dublin were moved to the Skellig Star Hotel in Kerry and there was an issue regarding lack of separate bedrooms and kitchen equipment. There was also a serious outbreak of Covid. What was the problem there? The Department obviously examined that. What was the main issue there? Was it the contractor?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am not familiar with the detail beyond what I would know as being in the public domain around that particular case, not having been involved. It was the Department of Justice that was involved at the time. I do not know if Ms Baxter wants to offer any insight into her understanding of what was involved.

Who was the contractor?

Ms Carol Baxter

I think it might be unfair to the contractor, which did its best to meet the requirements of the residents at that point, to mention its name. The Chairman will remember that this was at the height of the Covid crisis. When there is an infection there, that can be difficult but the contractor definitely did a huge amount to respond-----

Was Aramark the contractor?

Ms Carol Baxter

No.

Regarding international protection, the outturn in 2020 was €183 million. What was the outturn in 2021?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The outturn in 2021 was €200.46 million.

How much?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Sorry, the figure was €190 million.

That figure is fairly similar. What does that work out at as a cost per person?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In 2021, there was probably an average of around 8,000 people in direct provision in the system. The numbers have risen since then. We are up to around 12,000 at this point. I would have to confirm the precise figures. I do not have a cost per person.

Could Mr. McCarthy repeat that? How much did he say it was per person?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There would have been in the order of 8,000 people in the system over the course of 2021.

So the average per person would be about €23,000.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That sounds about right.

What is the longest stay at the moment?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There are almost 3,000 people with status in the system. These are people whose applications for asylum have been processed and completed and who remain within the direct provision system. I do not know what the average length of stay or longest length of stay is among those people but you would be talking about people who are there a number of years.

Four or five years?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Potentially.

Ms Carol Baxter

There can be but the Department of Justice has done huge work in terms of reducing processing times so many people are getting first-instance decisions within months. Typically, if somebody is in the system for very long periods, it generally is because he or she has received negative decisions at some point in the process and is appealing them.

Would it run over seven years?

Ms Carol Baxter

It could.

In cases where properties have to be upgraded, who pays for that? Is it the Department or the owner of the premises? I am talking about where a building would require upgrades to make it suitable; for example, a former hotel. Who pays for that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Is the Chairman talking about accommodation in the international protection programme?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The ultimate decision would be ours in terms of ensuring that the accommodation can meet the standard required.

Who pays?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We would meet those costs.

Would the Department meet those costs 100%?

Ms Carol Baxter

The owners are required to provide accommodation to a specific standard so they would take on those costs but, of course, that can come through to us in the daily rate as part of the contract.

Has the Department ever closed down a centre? If so, what would be the reason for this?

Ms Carol Baxter

We have closed centres where they did not meet the standard. We have closed centres that did not comply with regard to fire safety and we will close centres where the contractor persistently does not meet standards.

What other reasons would the Department have to close a centre? Fire safety is one.

Ms Carol Baxter

Another reason is persistently not meeting the contractual obligations and not coming up to our standards. We have an inspection system for centres and if that system persistently found issues that contractor failed to-----

For the 3,000 plus in the system who have Irish citizenship and are working, is the main or sole reason they are there the issue of accommodation?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is important to say first and foremost that they remain there voluntarily, as does anyone in the international protection system. They are free to leave at any point in time. However, that is not an option for people where there are constraints and pressures in the rental market. We provide supports to people with status to move on. We commission services to work with them on trying to find accommodation.

Have they achieved Irish citizenship by that stage?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They have the right to remain, but that is distinct from enjoying Irish citizenship.

There is a great deal of discussion of a new model, and the White Paper was mentioned at this meeting, but what are we talking about exactly? Is it own-door accommodation? There is a challenge in this respect. Who will provide the accommodation? A year or two ago, there was some talk about the State providing it directly, or approved housing bodies or contractors providing it, similar to the approach in direct provision. What is the plan? Are we discussing modular units – own-door accommodation – like those that Deputy Munster mentioned?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The objective is own-door accommodation. There would be a number of reception centres, described as phase 1 accommodation, where people would ideally stay for four months under the objectives of the White Paper before moving on to their own accommodation, which would be phase 2 accommodation. This could be singles, accommodation acquired through our rent-a-room scheme, apartments or houses.

Would the first step outside direct provision be accommodation that was owned by the State, including a local authority, or a contractor?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Under a proposed model of ownership involving approved housing bodies, the bodies would fund and own the accommodation and rent them out to persons. There is the potential for the Department to own properties directly and manage them as an alternative if the approved housing body route does not provide sufficient accommodation.

Given the situation in Ukraine, we have to help those people. For people stuck in direct provision who have made progress in terms of naturalisation, it is better if they are able to work and participate in society. There is also the housing crisis. This is the perfect storm, with three major pressures and where we have to meet a range of demands. While I welcome the White Paper, will we be able to implement it practically within the next two or three years, given all of those pressures as well as issues with supply lines, labour shortages and retrofitting in the construction sector?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is the environment in which we are trying to achieve this. We recognise the challenges that it creates. It would unquestionably be a more achievable objective in a different and wider housing environment. However, we are committed to the objective set out in the White Paper, which is to achieve full implementation by the end of 2024, recognising that a number of the assumptions underlining the original implementation plan have now changed. We need to assess the impact of that, and an exercise to do so is under way.

Given the various circumstances and pressures, when will the first people move from direct provision to the new model? Will it be this year or next year?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are actively acquiring properties. The first of the phase 2 properties will come on stream later this year. The intention is for the first people to move into phase 2 accommodation later this year.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I wish to ask about provision for Ukrainian refugees. Specifically, is Aramark going to be contracted to provide catering facilities?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I believe we have contracted more than 350 accommodation settings, be they hotels, bed and breakfasts or other forms of accommodation, including former convents, where facilities management services would need to be provided. Aramark has two facilities management services contracts – one for the Green Glens Arena in Millstreet, County Cork, and the other for the Ballyogan rest centre in Dún Laoghaire, which are larger settings accommodating large numbers of people. Ballyogan is a rest centre where people can be accommodated for a small number of days before moving on to other accommodation. We have contracted facilities management services at a number of other locations. Aramark has at least two other contracts of which I am aware.

Relating to this matter.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes.

I am familiar with Ballyogan, which is on the edge of my constituency. How many people are being provided for there?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Its capacity is 300.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In Ballyogan.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The capacity at the Green Glens Arena is similar at 300 or 350. Actually, it is 400.

I am curious about the process that the Department went through in terms of that contract. Prior to it, local providers were engaged at, for example, vaccination centres during Covid. What was the process by which Aramark-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Is the Deputy referring to both contracts?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In both of those cases, as well as in a number of wider ones, we approached a number of facilities management companies. Ultimately, only two were able to meet our needs. It was a directly negotiated contract in both cases. Obviously, that is not compliant with procurement rules, but it was a factor of the emergency response in which we were involved. We are trying to procure and bring on stream additional accommodation daily to meet the demand that has been arising. The majority of our accommodation is serviced accommodation. In other words, it is hotel accommodation where there is a provider on site.

The issue would not arise there.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We had to make arrangements for facilities management urgently, including linen supply, catering, security, etc.

How long did it take to conclude the contract? What parameters were used that reduced the number to two providers?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It was a negotiated procedure. There were discussions with each of the four providers that we recognised as potentially having the capacity to meet our needs. I do not know how long it took in any of those cases. In all instances, though, we were operating to tight timelines to try to agree arrangements. In each instance, we sought to get the best value in terms of matching our standard pricing requirements.

What I am hearing on the ground is concerning. I am curious about the process that the Department went through in assessing not only value for money, but also the range of food that was going to be provided to people who had come here in traumatic circumstances. In this regard, what consideration was given to issues of diet, culture, religion, how long a person might be in the accommodation, whether the food was fresh or frozen and whether microwaves would need to be purchased to reheat frozen food? These are sensitive places and there is an obligation to look after people particularly well. I am curious about the process the Department used to assess how this or any company was going to provide that care.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We defined our requirements in those contracts.

That was my first question, so if Mr. McCarthy does not mind-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Apologies. We defined our requirements in terms of the levels and standards of provision that were required.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I can provide the Deputy with further detail.

I do not know the full level of detail but it would certainly be intended to address the kinds of issues the Deputy is identifying around dietary choice and requirements, the quality of food provision and the fact that fresh food is obviously required. All of those things would be addressed within the contractual requirements. We inspect properties as well, when we receive complaints from Ukrainians who are here around the standard of what is on offer. If any issues arise, we are in a position to address those. However, because the Deputy is asking me the question in the context of a particular provider, I have to say that I am not aware of any issues in either of the locations. To my knowledge, the standard of provision is absolutely what we expect and would have sought.

That is why I am asking Mr. McCarthy this now. I imagine if I was a Ukrainian person there, the last thing I would have the energy to do would be complain about food. I might just absorb it. It is probably appropriate that we proactively ask the questions. It might be helpful if the Department provided the committee with the weekly menu in order that we can see it and for people to have sight of the consideration and care that has gone into the food that has been provided.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We can do that.

Will the Department send that to us?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes, we can arrange for that.

I ask that it include whether the food is fresh and whether other things had to be purchased to support that. Does the Department know who is doing the catering? Is it an Irish company?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The contract is placed with Aramark in the two cases to which the Deputy is referring.

Is there a subcontracting element to the delivery?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Not that I know of.

One of the questions that was asked about the provision of services, especially in those centres, was whether any commercial partnerships or donations had been considered in that respect. Is that something the Department considered at any stage?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Did the Department consider it in those particular centres?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I cannot comment on the two centres. To be fair-----

I ask in terms of the process generally. It does not have to be specifically about those two centres. What is the Department's thinking as it approaches these difficult questions?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There is a Government portal for any goodwill offerings around support or contributions that private sector organisations may wish to make, which the Open Government Partnership, OGP, established at an early stage. If there are offerings that are available in terms of direct supports to Ukrainians who are here, there are arrangements in place for making those connections.

It exists separately and was not part of the process.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There are community response forums in place in each of the local authority areas, which bring together all of the community and voluntary organisations and public bodies. They are a vehicle for ensuring that whatever supports are needed, at a local level in respective centres in the area, are provided. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown local authority also has NGO partnerships in respect of Ballyogan. That is also a feature in Millstreet where a number of NGO organisations, community and voluntary organisations or State providers come on site to meet specific needs and provide particular supports. I am well aware that many private sector organisations have made themselves known to centres where Ukrainians are located and accommodated and have offered services of a variety of types. All of that goodwill is wonderful to see and is availed of.

How long is the contract? Will it be up for review? Is it of an indefinite duration? What is its nature?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The Deputy is referring specifically to the Aramark contract. The intention is to regularise those contracts by putting out a formal request for tender in those locations where an initial emergency contract was placed, in order to meet the immediate needs and ensure that people were fed on arrival.

What is an appropriate timeline for that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The intention is to do that within six months.

Is that within six months of the awarding of the contract?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Given the scale of the response and activity and the scale of contracts required to be put in place to accommodate almost 24,000 people in a short space of time, there is a degree of catch-up in terms of regularising much of that.

I understand and appreciate that. What I am interested in is that we can see the parameters of that at an early stage. I do not want the Committee of Public Accounts to have to come back to this in a year when we could have asked these questions now. It is my understanding that the Department will provide us with a sense of the parameters that it put around the contract when it was whittling it down from four to two to one, in terms of what its determinations or requirements were. The Department will provide that to the committee and sight of the menus and what is being provided to people in those two sites over a week or a month and the concentration on fresh food versus frozen food, .

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We can provide a note on all of that.

Advice could be taken from the Chair in terms of the breakdown of the cost per person. It may not be able to provide that at that level. Will the Department give us a sense of the structure of it and what is being provided? We do not want to have to come back to this later.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We are compiling cost information in respect of the overall response and the accommodation requirements that have been committed to. There is a considerable scale of investment involved in accommodating 23,000 people and rising.

I am interested in the value-for-money piece and how that is being assessed by the Department and might be assessed over the six-month period before the contract is regularised. That is really the question. How is that value-for-money assessment is being conducted by the providers?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I understand. The Deputy is referring to the costs of those contracts per person. That will be part of the negotiated contract. We can certainly provide information on that. What we found, in approaching the four, was that two providers were ultimately in a position to meet our needs across the number of facilities for which we sought to procure contracts of this nature. It is a concern to be honest, because as we expand our accommodation provision across independent facilities of this nature, we will be reliant on facilities management organisations to be able to provide services to them. There is potentially a capacity question in the sector.

When I say value for money, I do not necessarily mean cheapest.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely.

We have dealt with that at this committee before and that is why I am asking the questions about quality. There is also the opportunity to use local providers. It is a broad value-for-money question on quality.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

When I described their capacity to respond to our needs, I am taking about their capacity to provide the quality of service that is required, at the price that is required.

I welcome everybody today. I apologise that I am late. I am trying to cover a number of committees this morning. I will start with the Department's remit around Traveller services. Where are we with the national Traveller and Roma inclusion strategy? I know it finished in 2021. The Minister recently said that the review was undertaken and should be finished in quarter 3.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is currently being evaluated. The timeline is still quarter 3.

Is it an in-house evaluation?

Ms Carol Baxter

We have contracted an external evaluator. This contractor is evaluating the national Traveller and Roma inclusion strategy, the migrant integration strategy and the national strategy for women and girls, very much with a view to looking at the effectiveness of the strategies and making sure that we have good implementation mechanisms for future strategies.

Is the Department allowed to disclose who the evaluator is?

Ms Carol Baxter

It is the Centre for Effective Services.

Is that an Irish company?

Ms Carol Baxter

Yes.

I presume the Centre for Effective Services has the various figures that we spent on the 2017 to 2021 plan. We looked at this in 2021 and of 149 actions, 12 were fully complete. These figures could be out of date. Obviously there are actions that are ongoing, but is there a ballpark of how many actions were complete at the close of the 2021 plan? What was the spend over the course of that plan?

Ms Carol Baxter

We can come back with that.

Ms Baxter does not have any off the top of her head. Is it more than 12?

Ms Carol Baxter

Definitely.

Is it less than 50?

Ms Carol Baxter

I would have to come back to the Deputy on that.

It would be especially useful if Ms Baxter could come back with the figures on that. Will the Centre for Effective Services report go to the Department?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We commissioned the report.

Will it be made public?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. A report of that nature will be published.

Is the Centre for Effective Services looking at value for money?

Ms Carol Baxter

It is looking at overall implementation and how one can make sure that implementation is very effective, especially in the area of indicators, performance, reporting and monitoring.

Does that imply that it will be engaging with the various stakeholders or the people on the ground?

Ms Carol Baxter

Yes.

Is that true in the case of Roma?

Ms Carol Baxter

Yes.

It is probably contained in the contract that there is a significant population of Roma in my constituency.

It is often a huge challenge to ensure we have the language capabilities and translators when we reach out to groups. Is Ms Baxter confident the proposal contained in the contract with the Centre for Effective Services will be able to do this?

Ms Carol Baxter

Yes, it is an expert organisation.

To be clear, Ms Baxter will send the information to the committee.

Ms Carol Baxter

Yes.

I will turn to disability. I know the Department is in the process of the huge handover and I want to speak about this. The date for it is 1 July.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is the objective at this point in time.

What does that mean?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is subject to final agreement being reached with the Department of Health and colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to ensure everybody is satisfied with the joint governance arrangements in place and with all of the details of the budget transfer, the oversight arrangements and all of the financial governance arrangements. We have given a commitment to go back to the Government to get agreement on the final arrangements before the transfer is confirmed.

Is it safe to say the Department is in the weeds of going through all of this?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It has been ongoing for a period of time. A huge amount of due diligence is involved in ensuring all of these points are agreed to the best extent possible. We will then be in a position to make the transfer happen.

I am trying to get at sense of what the process is like. It is between the Departments and not necessarily for public review. A vast array of services in Ireland cover disability and they sometimes sit in two camps. Was an audit done based on a rights-based approach to disability services? I am also a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters and I am running between the two committees today. The rights-based approach changes the focus and filter through which some services are provided. They may not now sit very comfortably in the Department of Social Protection. I feel very much that the communities themselves sometimes object to certain services being provided through the Department of Social Protection. In the process of deciding what service is going where, was an audit done through a rights-based lens?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

To clarify, the transfer is from the Department of Health and not the Department of Social Protection. The scope of the transfer was decided by the Government as part of the overall transfer of responsibilities. It is provided for in the underpinning legislation with regard to a definition of what is transferring. It is specialist community-based disability services. A lot of work has gone into defining what is the scope of this in terms of funding responsibility for services. There are services for people in the community who have disabilities that are mainstream funded for want of a better phrase.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They are funded as part of a mainstream budget. In other words, people who have a disability benefit from a particular service in the same way as everybody else. It is not possible to carve out precisely the entire scope of service that an individual person with a disability is getting and say it can neatly be transferred to another Department. This is where some of the complication comes in. Clearly, 70% to 80% of the services we are speaking about can be ring-fenced, defined, packaged and transferred but there are overlaps between what the Department of Health will oversee and what we will oversee. This is where the complication kicks in. It is in terms of ensuring we have the protocols, operational agreements and joint oversight arrangements in place to ensure we can look at it through a rights-based lens and be satisfied the right services are in place at the right time for the right people, that we have a clear line of sight on this and that there is accountability in respect of it while, equally, the Department of Health enjoys the continued oversight and responsibility it needs to exercise in respect of the mainstream element.

Mr. McCarthy rightly identified that the transfer is from the Department of Health and not the Department of Social Protection. There are many services in various programmes. For clarity, was there any point at which all of the services were set out and then identified as being best suited for the Department with responsibility for equality and inclusion? Was it constrained to transferring some services from the Department of Health to this Department?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The decisions on transfers were made by the Taoiseach on the formation of the Government.

I am really asking whether the Department undertook an audit.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We undertook a very detailed due diligence exercise in our engagement with colleagues in the Department of Health and the HSE to identify the range and scope of services. This was to try to define, as I mentioned earlier, what is transferring in terms of full responsibility, what is coming across as a shared responsibility and what will remain with the Department of Health. Disability services are provided across Government. We have a wider policy responsibility in respect of the disability brief to ensure the rights of persons with a disability are upheld throughout Government in terms of provisions in a range of Departments. There are arrangements in place through the national disability inclusion strategy and oversight arrangements in respect of it.

This is a good example. I agree with Mr. McCarthy that the Department is now seen as having an overall umbrella role. The national inclusion strategy is with the Department of Social Protection. Is that correct?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

No, it is in our Department.

Is it coming to an end this year?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The current strategy is, yes.

When will we see the new strategy?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It is part of the evaluation process that my colleague just outlined.

Without an audit we will find in the coming years that some services in other Departments should rightly be in this Department and its work as an umbrella Department for disability will be hamstrung by the continuing presence of those services in other places.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That may or may not be the case. People with disabilities should benefit from services throughout the Government and throughout Government bodies.

They should but it is also very important that there is a legible point of access.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. Our role, as the Deputy has quite rightly said, is as a fulcrum to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities are upheld. We absolutely have a central role in ensuring there are co-ordinated responses throughout the Government in identifying needs and ensuring those needs are met in the range of Government services.

How many childcare places in the State relate to children under three years of age? What percentage of overall capacity is this? I would like the figures only.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We will get the Deputy the breakdown of the figures.

Has the capacity changed since 2020? Has it increased or decreased? I would also like a figure for waiting lists.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

It might be helpful if we supply detailed tables to the Deputy on this. We do have a number of detailed tables but it is difficult to translate them. The table I am looking at does not break it down for children aged under three. It breaks it down for children aged under one, children aged between one and two, children aged between two and three and then older children.

What are the figures with regard to the places that are there?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

At present ECCE overall capacity is 142,815 and there are 19,000 vacant places. For school-aged childcare the maximum capacity is 37,823 and there are 6,288 vacant places.

Does Mr. McCarthy have numbers for waiting lists?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We do not have overall waiting lists. Pobal undertakes an annual sector profile survey. I am not sure whether it captures waiting list information. Perhaps Dr. Brooks will speak on this.

Dr. Anne-Marie Brooks

The Pobal sector profile captures data annually on capacity, enrolments and waiting lists. In the past month we have published the sector profile for 2021.

Waiting lists give a sense of unmet demand but because parents can put their children's names down for several facilities, the waiting list data are quite distorted.

What is the figure for children under three?

Dr. Anne-Marie Brooks

I ask the Deputy to bear with me while I get that number.

While Dr. Brooks is getting that, I note that an issue has come to light with crèches not providing for children under one year of age. I ask the Department to address that. It is creating a nightmare for parents at the moment.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We keep a close watch on provision for children at different age levels through the county childcare committees, which, as was mentioned earlier, stay in very close contact with providers in their area. They will have a line of sight at any point in time on where the supply pressures are and will work with providers to increase capacity and supply if there are shortages. We are aware that there can be pressure points in particular locations-----

There definitely are and it is causing untold stress for parents. I ask the witnesses to furnish us with all of those data on the waiting lists. There seems to be a huge disparity geographically but the other issue is bringing down the prices. The Department says it is freezing prices but that is not good enough. At what point is it going to bring prices down? I will give an example. A local teacher told me she was quoted €410 per week for two children, which is close to €900 per month per child. The nearest crèche she could get was 30 minutes from her home. Her current mortgage is €900 a month and her childcare is working out at €1,600 a month. That woman is the mother of a three-year-old and a nine-month-old. She has stretched out her unpaid statutory leave and her parental leave and there is no crèche that can provide full-time places. There is nothing for the child under one. There are people like that in every town and village across the country. What is being done about that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The move to the new core funding model from this September will result in very significant increases in public investment going into the sector. As the Deputy has acknowledged, one of the initial conditions of availing of core funding is that crèches freeze their fees at September 2021 levels but in effect-----

Freezing the fees is one thing.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

To finish the point-----

What is the Department doing to bring them down?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Ultimately, the aim of the new model will be to reduce fees for parents but that will require further public investment over time. The objective is achieve that.

Is there no commitment to do that with this new model as yet?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There is a commitment in the model.

What does that entail?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The initial budgetary provision allows us to ensure fees are frozen for now.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The aim of the Minister-----

If parents are paying a mortgage of €900 a month and their childcare is €1,600, there is nothing within a 30-minute drive of their home and very few crèches are taking children under one, what option have parents got? How will this new plan reduce - not freeze - those astronomical costs? Can Mr. McCarthy give me concrete detail on how a parent who is looking to get their child under one into a crèche come September will fare? What is being done about that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The impact for this September is that fees will be frozen. Our objective is to reduce fees beyond that but that is a budgetary issue. The Minister is very keen to be in a position to do that. As part of the upcoming Estimates discussions, we will be putting forward proposals to enable us to make further progress on the issue of affordability for parents next year and beyond. That is a budgetary matter for the Government. The other thing-----

I asked about children under one.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The universal subsidy under the national childcare scheme, NCS, will be extended to all children up to the age of 15 from this September, which will be of direct benefit to parents of children up to that age. That will bring several thousand parents into the net of benefiting from NCS payments.

What about crèches that are not taking children under one? What are parents to do in that situation - bring them into work?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They can contact their county childcare committee to obtain assistance in securing a place. The county childcare committees have co-ordinators in place who will work with parents and providers to try to source a suitable place for a child in that circumstance. If there is a need for additional funding support for providers in order to ensure additional places can be made available to meet the need, that is what will happen. There are mechanisms through which we can address any areas of undersupply where it arises. That is the means through which parents can make it known that they are struggling-----

I ask Mr. McCarthy to forward all those details so we can pass them on to parents and they can investigate whether anything concrete will come from it.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will.

On the waiting list figure the Deputy was seeking earlier, the 2021 services reported 22,304 children on waiting lists by age. When extrapolated, the figure could be as high as 38,987 nationally. The number of children on waiting lists is increasing.

I call Deputy Verona Murphy.

I just want to understand the numbers relating to the national childcare scheme. A lot of money was returned, €119 million. Can the witnesses tell me why the participation level for these programmes fell short of the target?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The year in question was 2020, when services were closed as a result of public health restrictions during Covid. There were service closures from March to the end of June. Supports were provided to enable services to reopen at that stage. There were a number of disruptions in service provision over that time. There was also a suspension of the schemes over the course of the year as a result. Even when services reopened, the experience was that, with remote working and parents working from home and so on, the uptake of places was a lot lower than originally anticipated because parents were in a better position to manage their own childcare needs. That was the central reason.

Has there been an improvement?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. Post pandemic, we are getting back to more normal levels. The discussion about the waiting lists for services bears that out.

The Department expects to fully utilise the budget then.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. There is significant additional investment for the current year in respect of the core funding model, which will deliver an extra €173 million to providers in the system to support quality in the sector and better pay for staff, which is very much about supporting quality of provision.

Again, there was a large amount returned to the Department by Pobal, €6 million. Was that due to similar circumstances?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That would be the balance at year end. I would have to check from an accounting point of view what that relates to.

I ask Mr. McCarthy to provide that information to the committee. I have a question about the suspected fraud. For the benefit of the committee, can the witnesses provide an update on that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will get a note on that. I have some information on the Pobal question. That figure related to a number of service delivery costs that were received in 2019 but not used.

There was €2.6 million from earlier years, including national childcare service costs of €1.5 million. The balance was mainly programme supports from previous years. It was funding that was advanced to Pobal that was not fully used.

It is strange because all the services that are provided by Pobal would generally say the funding is not enough.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

But Pobal can only use the funding for the purpose for which it was provided. It does not -----

I know, but over-funding them means there is €6 million caught up in the system that could be used elsewhere. That is the estimate, and it is significant. It is not the Department, but Pobal is involved with our day-care centre. The bereavement grant for those in need of counselling was removed during Covid. If we were not tying up this money, it could be used elsewhere. The following year the grant may or may not have been returned.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

On the fraud case, I gather there is an ongoing investigation on that.

Therefore Mr. McCarthy cannot provide -----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

If there is an ongoing investigation, I would not be in a position to provide information on it.

Is it safe to say that the way it arose has been taken care of? Is there greater oversight?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In any of those cases, the identification of a fraud is as a result of escalation of issues that are identified through inspection reports as provided at various stages of compliance.

How quickly was it identified?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not have the detail on how long it took to identify that. A fraud is identified when it is identified -----

I presume that at some time the Department will have a report that it can provide.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. On the overall oversight, the objective is that every service would be inspected at least once every four years. That is the objective we are working towards. Obviously, with the scale of investment going into the sector, we recognise the importance of scaling up our compliance function and oversight in respect to all that activity and funding. We are working with Pobal to scope out what is the requirement, taking a risk-based approach to identifying where we should be concentrating our compliance and oversight activity.

And the Department can provide the report to the committee.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Not at this point.

No, not at this point but when ------

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

If a fraud is identified, that feeds into our risk assessment of where we should be concentrating our compliance checks.

I call Deputy O'Connor. He has ten minutes.

I welcome the fact that representatives from the Department are before us. My questions focus, in particular, on issues facing children who are in very difficult and challenging circumstances. Something I have worked on closely is foster care. I have found the level of support available to parents who take the decision to become foster parents very disturbing. Sometimes the coverage in respect of this matter has been quite negative. There have been failings but, overall, the families I deal with are deeply passionate about the level of care they provide and about making the decision to take in children from other families because of the circumstances they have had to deal with growing up.

A point has been made to me that I would like to put to the Secretary General. I understand the level of support payments made available to foster parents has not changed in some time. Can he comment on increasing the level of funding for parents who wish to partake in the foster care programme in Ireland? Is there any issue on this? It has not changed in decades. I find that a matter of some concern.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The Deputy is right. The current rates of foster care payments have not increased since 2009. That is quite a long time. They currently stand at €325 a week per child under 12 years and €352 for a child over 12 years. Tusla is developing a new foster care strategy that it plans to bring to its board in July. In advance of that, it has produced a proposal on foster care rates which is with us now. We are engaging with them on that. Obviously, there are budgetary implications to any change on that and we need to reside any proposal for change as part of an overall strategy for supporting foster care. We absolutely recognise the importance and value of foster care. Some 90% of children in care are in foster care. It is a means of supporting children in need that we are absolutely reliant on as a State and it is entirely appropriate that we would support foster carers appropriately. There is an active consideration of some of the issues that arise on that.

Am I correct that on the Department's 2020 accounts there was a significant surplus.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

That is right, yes.

It is very hard for me as a public representative to try and stand over that level of money having to go back into the Exchequer as it is not being spent on really deserving projects around the country. It is an area into which we could have put investment, and I think there was a lost opportunity there.

I welcome Mr. McCarthy's comments about work that is being undertaken by State agencies and his Department but I would ask that it be done quickly. Frankly, having to wait for another review and another report in a situation where we now face record levels of inflation is of huge concern. It is a point that has been made repeatedly by different organisations that have come to my office. I know it is an issue throughout the country. There are families who are to the pins of their collars. We have to deal with this problem up-front and come up with a plan rather than waiting for another budgetary cycle to see what the Department may or may not do. If there is a surplus coming in to 2022, and I hope that there will not be a surplus for the accounts in 2021, that there is some focus on that area.

I understand that of the Department's funding streams available to youth organisations and youth clubs, much is devolved into local organisations. On the analysis of where that funding goes, does the Department investigate where the geographical funding goes to municipal areas?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I will come back on the surplus question, if that is okay. I want to make the point that the surplus that arose in 2020 was very much a one-off in the context of the impact of Covid on a range of activities across the Department's Vote. We sought to reuse funding to the best extend possible through putting a range of additional Covid supports in place to sustain in particular the early years sector where the viability and survival of providers would have been at risk if we were not in a position to do that as a result of the fall-off in service demand. All that was a one-off. I would not expect to see surpluses of that scale materialise in subsequent years. It would not be an option to divert what was a one-off saving in a particular year into a base-level adjustment. Something like changing rates of payment for foster carers would be a permanent change of your cost base. It obviously has to be negotiated and agreed through the normal budgetary cycle.

On youth services, we have a lot of interaction with the education and training boards which oversee the delivery of youth services funding on behalf of the Department. I am sorry, I have lost my train of thought on the Deputy's precise question. It related to the evaluation arrangements are in place around outcomes and so on?

I will elaborate my point. I come from Youghal. That is one of the areas I, as a Deputy, represent. I do not mean to be parochial but I want to use it as a good example. We find it very challenging to get funding down from the ETB to support programmes that are put in place through Departmental funding. Cork is a huge county. There is a city and county with a very large geographical area and different needs. There is an inner city through the local authority, Cork City Council, and there is a lot of social deprivation and many different issues that require huge State investment to try to improve.

However, there are also many rural towns where further investment needs to be put in for the benefit of children who come from backgrounds where, unfortunately, there are significant problems. Such children need additional support. That is something I want to highlight. With regard to rural towns, particularly those sharing with city centres, the Department is devolving funding to organisations but it is not reaching where it is needed. There is not a fair and equitable balance in the devolution of that funding. I have come across this on more than one occasion and, quite frankly, I am sick of it. It is not fair. It is particularly not fair on rural constituencies in counties like Cork where there are significant major settlements like Cork city that have their own needs. They need to be separated out from an education and training board, ETB, point of view when it comes to the provision of funds for very worthy projects. I came across this recently with regard to the Garda youth diversion projects. We raised the matter at a ministerial level but were unsuccessful. That is really disappointing. More has to be done on policing. I will ask the question again. Does the Department do a regional analysis where funding is being devolved to organisations to ensure it is being spread around geographically as well as on the basis of need?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In terms of the distribution of funding to youth services and support for organisations in this space, there is a mix of universal services and targeted services which seek to address particular areas of disadvantage or young people who have particular needs arising from disadvantage. We monitor the geographical breakdown, particularly of universal funding, to ensure the distribution is equitable based on the overall spread of ETBs and the numbers of young people they seek to serve.

On a general point, overall funding for young persons' services has grown over recent years. In 2020, it was €65.89 million. In 2021, that figure was €69.687 million and the budget in 2022 is €74.488 million. There is significant additional investment going in across the range of activity. There is a wide range of activity both through the ETBs and supports for national organisations in this space. As I said, there is a mix of targeted supports and universal supports aimed at young people between the ages of 16 and 24. The aim is to ensure that as many of those young people as possible have access to youth services through the various supports that we put in place.

To stress that point again-----

I ask the Deputy to be very brief.

I promise I will keep this brief. The payment for foster carer's allowance has not changed since 2009. In that time, there have been changes in everything from fuel allowance to social welfare payments. The Government provides a great many levels of support through the Department of Social Protection but the one payment that has not changed, as Mr. McCarthy outlined, has been this particular payment. The recipients desperately need an increase. I will be crystal clear. Given the circumstances of what is going on in respect of inflation, that issue has to be addressed urgently. Families who are involved in foster care are put to the pin of their collar. They provide an enormous benefit to the State. I ask Mr. McCarthy take that message home with him today. I hope something can be done in advance of the budget. It is something I would like to see urgent and rapid action being taken on and I will be raising the matter again with the Minister when the opportunity arises. I thank Mr. McCarthy for answering my couple of questions today.

On 9 or 10 October, the outcome will be known. I will ask Mr. McCarthy about the contract in respect of Ukrainians. I understand the context. It was an enormous problem. I acknowledge the efforts of the Department and everybody involved because it was an unprecedented challenge. Many people wondered how it could be done. I recognise that substantial effort has been made but, in the context of the provision of services, one company is providing services in 18 different centres. Is that correct?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I am not aware of that. Is the Chairman referring to the Ukrainian response?

Yes. I am talking about Aramark.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

No, that is certainly not the case. Aramark has four contracts for centres that I am aware of. If I need to correct that figure, I will, but, as far as I know, there are four. There are the two we talked about earlier, Millstreet and Ballyogan, and two other facilities we have contracted for.

Were 12 other locations offered to the Department voluntarily and are these providing services?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The Chairman may be picking up on the fact that there were 12 locations where we had to secure direct facility management contracts in a similar way. As far as I know, Aramark holds two of those contracts.

The Department had to hit the ground running with this and there was not time to tick all the boxes. However, much of this will become more long term. In situations such as this, when there is time to undertake proper procurement processes, along with looking at the quality of services being provided, including the quality of food and so on, which is an issue some of the Deputies raised, does the Department look at the employment practices of the companies it engages? These are substantial contracts. Is that examined? For example, does the Department consider whether companies pay a living wage or allow collective bargaining? Does it consider whether a company has a track record of union busting or whether many cases for unfair dismissal and so on have been taken against it successfully? Are such matters examined?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We would certainly expect any organisation we are contracting with to meet all-----

I am not asking about what the Department expects.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I apologise. I should have said that we require any organisation from which we are contracting services to meet all of its statutory obligations with regard to the minimum wage, employment protections and employment rights.

Where there are sectoral agreements, agreed by the Labour Court, and all of that-----

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We would expect those to also be respected.

Does the Department compel companies to respect them or does it expect them to?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I do not want to refer to a contractual agreement where I do not know whether it exists. I do not know what the contract would actually say in respect of these matters.

I do not want to focus on any particular company. I am asking, now that the Department has time to gather itself, whether it will require companies to meet any sectoral pay agreements and basic employment rights.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We absolutely require basic employment rights to be met.

These are State contracts.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We can consider the issue of employment agreements.

Will Mr. McCarthy briefly touch on the situation with Tusla and social workers? When Tusla was before the committee last year, we were told it basically had half the number of social workers it needs. We all know that we need a pipeline for supply. We can beat the HSE up in here all we like but the reality is that, unless we fix the supply pipeline issues with regard to education, training and qualifications and deal with the issue of unsuitable contracts of employment, we or whoever comes after us will be back here in ten or 15 years' time talking about the same things. At our last engagement with Tusla, Bernard Gloster told us that it only had 50% of the required staff. It has 1,170 but needs another 1,100. That is what he told us. We need to reduce the caseworker-client ratio. Each social worker is dealing with nearly 60 cases when they should have 30. That is the EU average. The situation is serious. What progress is being made with that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The issue of social worker supply is very challenging, as will have been acknowledged in the earlier discussion the Chairman referred to. We have a social work education group which involves ourselves, the Department of Health and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. We engage directly with that Department on issues relating to social worker supply.

Is Mr. McCarthy referring to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Yes. We have conducted surveys of providers of social work education to try to identify issues. At the moment, we are trying to establish a set of short-term actions that could have an impact on the social worker supply in the short term.

The Chairman is right. In the last few years, Tusla has effectively sought to recruit every social work graduate emerging from the Irish higher education system. We have also included social work on the list of professions for employment permit purposes to try to encourage the inward supply of social workers. Notwithstanding all of the efforts that have been made to increase supply, to increase Tusla's offering in terms of graduate recruitment and to bring in additional social workers, there is a real challenge for Tusla because it tends to find itself-----

I do not wish to highlight any particular case, but children are in very difficult circumstances. The fact that social workers are stretched and are unable to give each case the time and attention it needs can have appalling outcomes for the child, who has to be at the centre of all of this. Thankfully, of late I have not seen too many such cases. A few years ago, there seemed to be a lot of them. I wish to emphasis that from the committee's point of view, there is a budget there. Mr. Bernard Gloster said that Tusla needed an additional €100 million in funding. I believe Tusla received €61 million, so there is a bit of gap there. Perhaps that can be corrected. I am aware that there is an issue with the recruitment of staff, but retention is key. On the contracts young social workers are being offered, are they completing a one-year probationary period and then being offered a permanent job, or are they being offered a two- or three-year contract? What is happening there?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There is an element of probation in any public sector recruitment.

And rightly so. What happens after that?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

The social workers are offered permanent employment with Tusla. Tusla is doing its best to try to hold on to as many of these graduate entrants as it can. Tusla has focused lot of attention, through its new people strategy, on the retention effort to ensure that supports are in place for young graduate social workers who come into the organisation, and who are involved in what is very challenging work, it must be said. It is difficult and challenging work. That can be a factor in retention.

Absolutely.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

There is easier employment available.

Some 60 social workers left Tusla between January 2021 and July 2021. Ten went on career breaks, 20 went to new job opportunities, 13 went to other health agencies and more than 21 cited personal reasons for leaving. Around 33 social workers moved on to other jobs. It is obviously very challenging work.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Absolutely. We are working very closely with Tusla. We know there are funding requirements. We know there are social work supply requirements, which we are working with colleagues across Government to try to advance actions on. We know there are retention issues for Tusla itself, which it is working hard on. We will give it every support in respect of what needs to be done there.

Apologies for rushing Mr. McCarthy. I ask the Department to come back to us with information on the current pipeline.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

We can do that. I should also mention that a wider workforce modelling exercise is under way, led by the Department of Health, across the various therapy professions, which we are very much a part of. We expect that recommendations will be coming out of that exercise in respect of social work supply. However, we do not want to await the recommendations. We see an immediate need for an increase in supply to meet Tusla's needs.

I appreciate that. It is daunting for a young social worker who has just finished university and is recently qualified to be handed the work of two people. The social workers do not stay in the job, which compounds the problem. It is a similar story in other areas of the health service. Unless we can give people a normal workload, we will not retain them. We do not build up the institutional knowledge, which is important. It is important that when young social workers are working in teams, they are working with others who have perhaps five years', ten years' or 15 years' experience. It is a bit like going into the carpenter's workshop on the first day. It is important that that is there. I ask the Department to furnish the committee with a note, perhaps in the form of a table or a diagram, showing us where things are at, and particularly the progress that has been made in the past year. We need to see progress on that front.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I recognise the Chairman's point. It is absolutely essential, from the point of view of continuity of care for children who are in contact with social workers, that they have that continuity of relationship with a social worker. We absolutely recognise the importance of that.

It is also important that they have the same social worker. If a child's social worker changes, it causes problems.

I thank the witnesses from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for joining us today, and the staff in the Departments who were involved in preparing for the meeting. I also wish to thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff for attending the committee meeting and for assisting us as always. Is it agreed to request the clerk to seek any follow-up information and to carry out any agreed actions arising from the meeting? Agreed. Is it also agreed that we note and publish the opening statements and briefings provided for today's meeting? Agreed. I acknowledge the work of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and wish the staff well with it.

With the agreement of the committee, we will resume in private session at 1.30 p.m. to deal with housekeeping matters before moving into public session to consider correspondence and any other business of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.
Sitting suspended at 12.36 p.m. and resumed in private session at 1.33 p.m.
Barr
Roinn