Vol. 836 No. 1
1. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in view of the fact that she has has acknowledged that the review of child care funding schemes will be used to address the cost of child care, the changes she envisages making to the community child care subvention scheme to increase the accessibility and affordability of child care by low income working parents; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14426/14]
The Minister has acknowledged that there is an issue with the affordability of child care. She has also acknowledged that she is in the process of reviewing the community child care scheme, among other schemes administered by her Department. What changes does she envisage making to ensure that the community child care subvention scheme is fit for purpose and will support people on low incomes or who are unemployed in returning to the labour market?
Let me put the child care budget in context. Between 2008 and 2011, €384 million, or 60%, was removed from it. Between 2011 and 2014, I increased overall funding to the early years child care sector by €14 million. These are the financial and overall economic challenges that we face in dealing with the issue of affordable and accessible child care, which the Deputy rightly stated was a key issue.
My Department administers two targeted schemes that provide subvention for low-income parents to take up child care places, namely, the community child care subvention, CCS, and the child care education and training programme. As the Deputy is aware, two new elements were introduced in 2013 to support eligible parents in taking up employment opportunities and to provide child care for community employment, CE, scheme participants.
The CCS programme provides funding to community child care services to enable them to provide high-quality child care at reduced rates to low-income working parents. The programme is also accessible to parents who have relatively average incomes on the basis of their entitlement to hold general practitioner, GP, visit cards. As well as assisting families with the cost of such child care, the objective of the programme is to ensure that funding is focused where lifetime benefits are highest for families. We want to provide high-quality child care for children as well.
A number of issues have been identified with the schemes, including varying rates of subvention and different eligibilities, leading to inefficiencies and difficulties for those operating the schemes. I have decided to review the two programmes to consider how best to structure future child care support for working families and to incentivise labour market activation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The participation of the wider child care sector in the review will be considered as the internal review progresses. It is not possible at this stage to determine when the review will be finalised.
Around €260 million annually is provided to support the child care programmes. This figure includes €175 million allocated for the free preschool year under the early childhood care and education programme. The total number of children benefiting from support under the programmes is in excess of 100,000. It should be noted that while a review of the schemes should support more effective targeting, I do not expect that this review on its own will result in increased capacity. Any overall increase in supports is likely to require additional investment. The difficult position in the public finances that this Government has had to contend with has worked against increased investment to date but, as they recover in the coming years, it will be important to channel any funding that becomes available to schemes that fulfil their objectives as effectively as possible.
We are all as one in agreeing that high-quality child care is paramount. However, the Minister did not answer my question. She provided a history of what happened, but everyone is aware of that. The early child care supplement of €1,000 was abolished by the previous Government, but it was also replaced by the first universal free preschool year. The latter was a welcome development, as the Minister acknowledged.
Recent months have seen two reports: the Indecon report commissioned by the Donegal County Childcare Committee, DCCC, and an OECD report. Both highlighted how the cost of child care was preventing young families from returning to the workforce. At a committee meeting on 20 February, the Minister confirmed that a review of the schemes had started. What will she do about these schemes to support families that urgently need the State's help?
It is important to understand that child care costs what it does because the subvention did not target child care places and a couple of hundred million euro has been removed from the sector. I am examining our two schemes to determine how they can operate more effectively. Even though we are providing support to more than 100,000 children, it is clear that a review of the schemes will give us more effective targeting. However, the review on its own will not increase capacity. Any overall increase in supports is likely to require additional investment. I have maintained the free preschool year and ensured an extra €5 million in supports for quality child care, targeting training and mentoring, a scheme on which I announced yesterday. I have continued to fund the preschool year and increased the number of community employment, CE, scheme places. Extra places will require additional investment. The review of the schemes should lead to greater targeting of those families that need child care the most.
I am slightly worried by the Minister's comments. She refers to greater efficiencies in the schemes, but she does not envisage major changes in how the Government treats child care. She mentioned targeted direct payments. Her Government has twice reduced targeted direct payments of child benefit. It decided to tax maternity benefit one week after the Minister launched a report recommending that maternity benefit be paid for 12 months.
When will the review be completed? Will there be wider consultation on it with the sector? Will the Minister examine a key recommendation of the Indecon report - that is, to offer tax relief to parents who avail of registered high-quality child care providers? In June 2012, when a colleague of mine asked the Minister for Finance about offering tax relief to working parents who were availing of child care, the Minister was unable to extrapolate the cost of child care.
However, that has been done now, and a fully costed report has been carried out with the Department. What consultation has the Department had with other Departments such as the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Finance?
I have to call the Minister now.
When will the review be published?
The idea of the review is obviously to examine the two schemes available at the moment, but I have made it quite clear that developing more supports for child care will require additional investment. That is the reality. I am facing a situation in which 60% was taken from the child care budget and I am working to build up that budget again. That is what I have done. I have particularly focused on training, mentoring and quality supports, because what parents want is high-quality child care. It is very important we put that in place and build up the quality available in child care settings. The sector wants that and I want that. There will be consultation on the review. It has just started and it is being scoped out, and I will give the House further details on the progress of that review when I have them. It is important to review the schemes.
It is equally important to maintain the free preschool year and build towards a second year. The way to build towards a second year is by ensuring that the quality is there and that the staff are trained, and the legislation I recently brought to this House ensures that there will be higher standards and that people will have to do training. The learner fund I announced yesterday means that there will be higher levels of training in the sector, subsidised by the Government.
They do not know the standards. They have yet to be published.
People will not have to pay for their training. My whole agenda is to have high-quality affordable and accessible child care, but there is a considerable challenge in this country arising in respect of that, given the resources that are necessary and given the prior history of direct investment and direct payment to families.
Thank you, Minister.
Looking at the OECD chart, one can see we are very high up in terms of direct payment. There is a history of under-investment and there has been a withdrawal of over €300 million from the sector between 2008 and 2011. I intend to rebuild the sector-----
I am sorry, but we have to move on to the next question.
-----and that will result in more affordable and accessible child care being available to parents who need it.
2. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the measures she is taking to advance the prospects of potential adoptive parents seeking to adopt from abroad; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14274/14]
My question seeks to establish what progress has been made towards the conclusion of bilateral agreements on inter-country adoptions with non-Hague countries, and seeks an update on the current situation with post-Hague declarations through the Adoption Authority of Ireland.
I would like to put the Deputy's question in the context of changes in inter-country adoptions. Recent years have seen a significant fall-off in the number of inter-country adoptions taking place internationally. The total number of children adopted into the top 12 receiving states in 2004 was 43,142. In 2011, this figure had dropped to 21,911, which is a drop of 50%. The United States, which receives by far the largest number of adoptions, has seen a reduction of almost 60% over this period.
These trends reflect the significant decline in recent years in the number of children, particularly infants, available for adoption, as child protection safeguards have improved in developing countries which previously placed large numbers of children for adoption. In many cases, these reforms in countries of origin have been given expression and impetus by their ratification of the Hague convention. The convention requires members to strengthen protections for children, birth parents and prospective adoptive parents in the adoption process and to prioritise the improvement of systems for the care and adoption of children.
The rate of inter-country adoptions into Ireland has been comparatively very high. In 2008, when adjusted for population size, it was higher than for all other European countries and others such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Therefore, in 2008 Ireland was still experiencing a higher rate of inter-country adoption at a time when a sharp downward trend had commenced globally. However, reforms in a number of countries of origin from where most Irish adoptions took place meant that adoptions from these countries had peaked. Vietnam, from which 182 adoptions into Ireland took place in 2007, closed to foreign adoptions in May 2009. There were 160 adoptions in 2007 from Russia, but this had already fallen to 117 in 2008.
With the passing of the Adoption Act 2010, Ireland ratified the Hague convention, and this had important implications for the number of adoptions in Ireland. Very significant efforts have been under way on the part of the Adoption Authority of Ireland - with strong support from myself and the Department - to promote co-operation. I visited Vietnam and Washington DC in relation to adoption matters. In both cases, we successfully concluded administrative agreements.
We have been working on bilateral agreements with Russia. We have made a proposal to the Russian authorities. We have done everything to encourage and support the development of a bilateral agreement that will work. We are awaiting a response in April from the Russian authorities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In the case of Vietnam, it was the first such agreement concluded with any country. The Adoption Authority is currently engaging with a number of Hague convention countries in relation to inter-country adoptions, including the central authority for India, which I visited last year, China, Thailand and the Philippines. Haiti is due to enter into the Hague convention next month and a delegation from the Adoption Authority is due to visit there next week.
It is important to recognise that although a country may be a member of the Hague group, legal and administrative obstacles may remain. There may be no children available for adoption or restrictions may be imposed on the categories of children or prospective adoptive parents qualifying. I am also aware that Ethiopia is currently seeking to bring its adoption standards up to those required under the Hague convention and I have asked the Adoption Authority to keep me updated on the position.
Russia has not ratified the Hague convention. However, my Department is continuing its discussion with the Russian authorities with a view to exploring the possibilities of establishing a bilateral agreement. I visited Russia last year to further these relations and my Department and the Adoption Authority subsequently hosted a visit from the Russian authorities.
The international statistics are welcome in so far as this is about children in the first instance, and giving young children a new chance of a home for their care and happiness through life. However, it is important to recognise that there has been a very poor level of success in progressing post-Hague inter-country adoptions for families here. Rosita Boland wrote a very fine article earlier this month in The Irish Times and I understand from it that there have only been 11 adoptions since the Hague enactment on 1 November 2010. That is a very low number. It is fair to say that there were 457 adoptions over the same period-----
Does the Deputy have a question?
-----but only 11 of them were in that particular area; 446 adoptions were to pre-Hague declaration holders. I am very anxious to know progress on the bilateral arrangements, particularly in respect of Russia. I know officials from Russia were here in October. I engaged directly at the time with the Russian Embassy out of my interest in this particular area. There is much frustration out there, because it is not just about people hoping and wishing to share their parental capacity with a young child.
Thank you, Deputy.
It is that there are still many young children in situations that deserve serious address and that adoption is indeed the best means to-----
Thank you. I am calling the Minister.
This is impossible. With all due respect, the Chamber is so full, they are all crowding in here this morning to eat up the time. You are in a big hurry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I am thinking of everyone's rights on all sides.
I know. I am thinking of the rights of young children who need to be adopted.
I know that. I can make an exception.
The legislation passed in 2010 referred to adoptions with non-Hague countries, but the whole purpose of the change is to have adoptions with Hague countries. In fact, just this year the vast majority of adoptions are taking place from Hague countries, which is the right way. We want to have adoptions with countries which have signed up to the standards of the Hague convention. Having said that, the history in Ireland was of adopting from Russia, Ethiopia and Vietnam in particular. Vietnam has signed the Hague convention. In respect of Russia, completing a bilateral agreement with that country involves finding compatibility between our Constitution and the demands of that country, such as for post-placement visits, which is contrary to our Constitution. Once a child is adopted in Ireland, that is a very final legal situation for the new family.
Thank you.
Let me just say that there have been many discussions. A proposal has been put to the Russian authorities and we are awaiting their reply. This is the latest in a series of proposals to them. A huge amount of work has been done. We are working on a bilateral agreement with Russia but we await the outcome. There are quite complex legal considerations, but we have put the effort in. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been involved. The ambassador in Russia has been involved, as has the Russian embassy here.
I must call on the Deputy for a final question.
We await a final outcome from the Russian side, hopefully in April.
The Minister is hoping to hear in April, which is next month.
I wish to refer to another aspect of all this. I have great respect for Mr. Geoffrey Shannon and others who give service at the Adoption Authority of Ireland. However, I understand that the position of chief executive officer has been vacant since last September. The post is currently being advertised, so can the Minister provide us with an update on filling that position? Does the Minister have any concerns that the vacancy might impair the authority's ability to carry out its task? A criticism was exposed in the Boland article concerning Arc Adoption, one of the approved facilitators. According to the article, they have written on nine separate occasions to the Adoption Authority of Ireland vis-à-vis the US opening up opportunities for inter-country adoptions with Ireland. No reply has been forthcoming, but have replies been issued since the beginning of this month? Can the Minister assure the House and the people concerned that everything necessary is being done and that the most effective practices are in place?
I call the Minister for a final reply on this.
It is critical that effective practices, as the Deputy calls them, are in place. Clearly I would have preferred if there was continuity concerning the post of CEO. I have emphasised to the Adoption Authority on quite a number of occasions the importance of effective, high quality communication with people who contact them. They are a quasi-judicial body, so they are sometimes limited in terms of the responses they can give. Having said that, however, people in contact with the Adoption Authority are clearly in a stressful situation. They want to get as much information as is available and can be legally provided to them. I have emphasised to the Adoption Authority on more than one occasion how important that is and I believe they appreciate that. People who are dealing with the authority are obviously in high stress situations themselves while waiting for news. They are trying to obtain legal clarity and have decisions dealt with. On more than one occasion, I have raised the issues the Deputy mentioned here.
3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the basis upon which she has repeatedly stated that a birth parent has a right to privacy; and if this opinion is based on the IO'T v. B judgment. [14275/14]
I am raising this question in the context of the forthcoming adoption (information and tracing) Bill. It is important for people to be able to access information on their identity. The argument put up against this has been the alleged right to privacy, but on what basis has the Minister been advised that that is a block to somebody having a right to access the identity of their natural mother?
I thank the Deputy for that question. I have made a decision in line with parliamentary reforms that the heads of that Bill will go to the Committee on Health and Children. When they do, the complexities and parameters of the situation regarding access to information for those people who have been adopted will emerge quickly once discussions begin on the heads of the Bill. It will provide an opportunity to tease out the very question the Deputy has asked.
The right to privacy has been firmly established as a constitutional right through a series of legal cases which began in 1974 with the Magee v. the Attorney General case, which concerned marital privacy. It culminated in the Kennedy v. Ireland case in 1987 where a general constitutional right to privacy was recognised.
The right to privacy was also recognised in the IO'T v. B case, a Supreme Court case from 1998. The case concerned two people who were the subject of "informal" adoptions. The majority of the court held that a natural child had an implied constitutional right to know the identity of his or her mother, though this had to be balanced against the right of the natural mother to privacy.
In considering the right to privacy of a birth mother in the context of the adoption (information and tracing) Bill, as I have previously advised the House, very complex legal and constitutional issues have arisen in the drafting of the Bill. A particular difficulty has arisen in seeking to reconcile an adopted person’s request for information about his or her identity with the right to privacy of his or her birth parent. We are therefore in a different position to other countries that do not have a constitution.
While I am anxious to improve the legal basis for access to adoption records, my proposals to Government have to reflect the constraints on the Legislature in providing such access if they are not to fall foul of constitutional challenge. The Office of the Attorney General has provided comprehensive legal advice to my Department that has assisted in identifying the constitutional parameters within which the heads of the Bill have to be drafted. It is on the basis of that legal advice that I have indicated there is a need to take into consideration the constitutional right to privacy of the birth mother.
I understand that the legal advice did consider the IO'T v. B case, while noting, as I did earlier, that the circumstances there did not involve a case where an adoption order was made. In circumstances where an adoption order is made, thus under law severing parental rights and duties, a birth mother's right to privacy may have more force.
That is the legal advice I have at present. A huge amount of work has been done to date. I can say more in the subsequent reply concerning what actually can be done.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
My Department is continuing to work on the adoption (information and tracing) Bill and I hope to be in a position to seek Government approval to publish the heads of the Bill as soon as possible. Subsequent consideration by the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children will provide an opportunity to tease out the relevant considerations in detail and to hear the views of interested parties. I am anxious to provide access to as much adoption information as possible taking account of relevant legal and constitutional considerations.
I would like to thank the Minister but her response is quite worrying in some ways. The good thing is that the heads of the Bill will be going to the committee and I hope the Minister can given some indication of when that might happen. She seems to be adamant that the opinion being given, on what I would still call an alleged right to privacy, has some right way above the rights of children to their identity, which I cannot see. Maybe I will be enlightened at the committee but I cannot see the basis of it. The IO'T v. B case concerned a fostering arrangement.
I note that 11 years after the judgment, when in opposition, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter - who we have been hearing in recent days is the foremost legal expert of modern times - deemed that the issue was not rocket science. He said it had been addressed in neighbouring jurisdictions and that someone who was adopted across the Border in Northern Ireland had substantially greater rights than someone had in this State, and that it could be addressed here. Maybe his advice could be sought on this matter as well.
The difficulty is that the judgment in that case made the assumption that a natural parent would not want to be contacted. That does not have any basis in reality, however, because most of the adoptions were forced adoptions. Some of those from the past were not proper adoptions at all. All experience shows that most parents do want to link up with their children later on. When they do not initially, it can be overcome and other measures can be put in place then.
The Deputy's points are very interesting. A certain amount of the scenario she has painted can be dealt with in legislation. For example, where a birth mother has no objection to contact being made, it is possible to put in place a scheme and a system, perhaps with mediation and counselling, whereby if there is agreement to contact, that can be facilitated. I do not think it has been facilitated enough in the past where there was agreement. In circumstances, for example, where the birth mother is deceased that could be dealt with in legislation. Where the mother cannot be traced but where it is reasonable to presume that she is deceased, that can be dealt with also. Perhaps we need to examine carefully what non-identifying information can be given.
A birth mother may be adamant and absolutely object to contact being made. I do not think we have evidence for what the Deputy has said, but perhaps it is instinctive to say that there may be many birth mothers who would be happy for contact to be made. In those circumstances, I believe the legislation should facilitate getting the records together in a way that makes them more accessible. I intend doing this as quickly as possible. There will be a statutory basis for ensuring that church authorities, GPs and whoever else has records would be under an obligation to provide those records and make it known that they exist. That is what I intend the legislation to do.
I would like to have an idea of the timescale for the passage of the Bill through its various stages. What is the Minister's starting point? To me, the starting point has to be the rights of children to their identity. If there are blockages to that, allegedly because of constitutional reasons or whatever, and if ultimately we say that is the case, then that should be addressed. I do not see a right to privacy being an absolute right in this case. In my opinion, the right to privacy is a waivable right.
Most civilised societies have a system of tracing which is perfectly straightforward and open and completely different from the set-up we have here. If there are impediments we must move to take them out. Sometimes, the way in which the Adoption Act has provided for a permanent severing of the relationship between the natural parent and the child has been unhelpful, particularly for unmarried mothers and their non-marital children, and this is a throwback. We should be rather open in how we change things.
To be clear, my starting point in respect of this legislation has been to provide as much information as possible. I believe the concept of open adoption is the way forward. I emphasise that in the case of future adoptions in this country I want this legislation to deal with that aspect and to provide for that information to be available. In the case of historical adoptions we will examine the legislation and ensure it will go as far as is possible. Where there are barriers, it may be possible, for example, to have a provision that would give access in certain circumstances, perhaps through the High Court, to the right to information. I will be bound and I am bound - the committee will see this as we discuss the legislation - to provide for a balancing between the strong constitutional provision relating to privacy and the right to identity. I take Deputy Daly's point that from the child's perspective or that of the adult who was adopted, access to as much information as possible is where we want to be.
Considerable work has been done. The heads of the Bill are close to completion and I hope they will go to the committee subsequently. I cannot give Deputy Daly an exact timetable because we received some legal advice in February and we must take account of that and build it into the heads of the Bill. I am keen to ensure the heads of the Bill are as clear as they possibly can be in order that the issues at the cutting edge, as described by Deputy Daly, can be dealt with most effectively and understood in committee.
4. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in view of the comparatively low numbers of children accessing the second free preschool year - the figures come to 261 and 232 children for September 2012 to June 2013 and September 2013 to June 2014 respectively - if she will amend the criteria for children with special educational needs to entitle them to two full years of free preschool education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14427/14]
In the previous question the Minister alluded to the fact that she was keen to see the free preschool year rolled out to a second year. Given the relatively low number of children with special educational needs who availed of the preschool year split over two years - I understand the figures were 261 in 2012 and 232 in 2013 - will the Minister consider the possibility of introducing a full second preschool year for children with special educational needs?
I thank Deputy Troy for the question. Fully 68,000 children are availing of the free preschool year in the academic year 2012-13 at a cost of €175 million. As Deputy Troy is aware, there are several additional provisions to take account of children with special needs. These include an exemption from the upper age limit for qualification under the programme where a child is developmentally delayed. In addition, children with special needs can apply to have the preschool year split over two years on a pro rata basis - for example, availing of the programme for two days a week in the first year and three days a week in the second year. Applications for these exemptions can be made prior to the child's commencing the programme and they are granted to all eligible children. However, most children with disabilities participate in the free preschool year without seeking these exemptions. Therefore, the figure for the take-up of these provisions is far smaller than the number of children in the programme. There are many more children with disabilities in the programme availing of the general one-year scheme.
My Department has been actively working with the Department of Health, specifically the office of disability and mental health, in the context of building better supports to facilitate the inclusion of special needs children in mainstream preschool settings. Furthermore, budget 2013 includes a capital funding programme providing grants under four strands, one of which was specifically for grants to improve the accessibility of services for children with disabilities. This was secured and included by my Department in the budget.
I believe a second year would be particularly beneficial for children with special needs and I would like to be in a position to deliver on this. However, the introduction of a second preschool year for children with special needs alone at this point would require the introduction of a detailed evaluation and appeals process, which would require extra funding. I discussed the issue with the National Disability Authority last year. The representatives of the authority were not in favour of a second year for children with disabilities on their own. They took the view that it would not be in line with the mainstream policy for children with disabilities. In other words, they would prefer a second year to be available to all children, and children with disabilities would be able to benefit from that.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Future developments relating to early years care and education are being considered as part of the preparation of the new national early years strategy. The report of the expert advisory group, Right from the Start, sets out a wide range of recommendations for consideration and will contribute substantially to the final draft of the early years strategy. One of the recommendations in the report for consideration in the preparation of the strategy is to extend the free preschool provision, but only after achieving higher quality standards, more investment in training and mentoring and professionalisation of the early years workforce.
I do not expect the Minister to have the information I am seeking today. However, will the Minister come back to me and identify exactly the number of children with special educational needs who are availing of the free preschool year? The Minister said these numbers only reflected the people who take out exemptions. What is happening at the moment is rather ad hoc in nature. The HSE is involved, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is involved and the Department of Education and Skills is involved. The current contract for the free preschool year gives child care providers the option to refuse children with special educational needs if they do not have the resources to cater for their individual needs, and that is what is happening. This was raised when we discussed the matter under Private Members' business. There is anecdotal evidence of this taking place throughout the country because of the ad hoc nature of how the service is being administered. It raises the question of whether this is truly a universal scheme, since the legislation enables contractors to refuse a child with special educational needs on the grounds that the State is not giving them the necessary supports to ensure service provision for these children. Just as a child with no special educational needs is entitled to go to free preschool in mainstream education, so should these children.
This is an important area. I will come back to Deputy Troy with those figures. Part and parcel of moving to improve preschool services is to have a focus on early years. I have begun this by setting up the task force on early years and commissioning the report Right from the Start, which examines some of these issues and makes recommendations.
I agree with Deputy Troy that this area requires a special focus. It is a high priority for me to examine precisely the situation of children with special needs in their early years because I am absolutely of the opinion that early intervention for these children is critical. The best use of the free preschool year is part and parcel of this. There has not been such a focus on this area of the preschool year in the past. I am keen to ensure that children with special needs have the best possible access. This will require interdepartmental work involving my Department, the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Skills, and budget lines will have to be identified. I will come back to Deputy Troy with the figures as soon as they are available.
I appreciate that and I thank the Minister. The Minister has hit the nail on the head: early intervention is critical, especially for a child with special educational needs. Longer interventions are critical as well. This is why I am saying that at a time of tight resources we should be looking at introducing a second preschool year for these children. We should get in early and provide longer interventions. This will save money in the long run and leave these special children better equipped to deal with mainstream education at primary level.
I would welcome it if the Minister could give a commitment today to provide me with the figure for all children with special educational needs who are availing of the free preschool year. Will the Minister establish what it would cost to introduce the second preschool year for this section of society? Does the Minister not believe it is appropriate that the contract should be reviewed and that it is altogether despicable that a child care provider, in this day and age, can refuse a child with special educational needs entering mainstream child care? I believe it is despicable and I would welcome it if the Minister gave a commitment on the floor of the Dáil today to the effect that the contract will be reviewed to ensure this practice cannot continue in future.
I have seen many examples of preschool services that are going above and beyond the call of duty to include children with special needs. There is no question that this is taking place.
I agree with the Minister, but it is on an ad hoc basis.
Furthermore, the fact that funding is now available to make the services accessible is important, and providers are taking that up.
I will revert to the Deputy with the outcome of the discussions among the Department of Health and Children, my Department and the Office for Disability and Mental Health. We are working actively to build better supports. I will revert with the figures. It is an area which requires intensive focus. It would be an extremely good outcome if children with special needs had comprehensive access to the free preschool year.
5. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the position regarding the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund; the funding to date; the range of facilities and services that benefitted; the employment achieved; her plans for the future of this fund; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14273/14]
My question relates to the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund, its work to date and the Minister's future plans for it.
My Department administers a range of funding schemes and programmes to support the provision of youth services to young people throughout the country. In 2014, funding of €50.5 million, including €750,000 capital funding, was made available. The funding supports some 400,000 young people, approximately 1,400 youth work staff in 477 projects and 40,000 volunteers - a very sizeable number - working in clubs throughout the country.
A range of projects are supported under the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund, mainly in areas where a significant drug problem exists. The focus is on the local drugs task force areas, which are in Dublin, Bray, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Carlow. The objective is to attract at-risk young people to divert them and give them alternative support. The fund aims to support marginalised young people in the ten to 21 year age group. The 242 projects supported by the fund typically employ two or more youth workers. In 2014, €18.4 million will be made available to these projects. In addition, funding of €1.15 million has been allocated to local drug task force projects in 2014.
I acknowledge the work that has been done on the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund since its establishment in 1997. When it was established, I chaired the north inner city development group, which I still do, and I know the difference the fund has been making to facilities, employment and programmes. Amazing work is being done by many projects throughout the city. The fund grew out of the particular circumstances relating to drugs at the time. Drug dealers targeted particularly vulnerable groups and a ready-made population of disadvantaged people, including early school-leavers and the unemployed.
When the fund was established I, as chair of the development group in the north inner city, had to attend with the representatives of Dublin City Council and the City of Dublin Youth Service Board frequent meetings with the national assessment committee to account for our recommendations and funding. Funding was particularly geared towards those who were most at risk. While one might say that everyone is at risk, there are communities which are more at risk than others. We had to account for that and assure the assessment committee that the funding was going where it was most needed. The committee had a very important monitoring role. One of the Minister's replies to the committee has been to the effect that there is no need for it to meet as no further funding is coming. However, the committee has a very important monitoring role. I ask the Minister to agree to call a meeting of the committee to do its monitoring work.
The Deputy mentioned her own area where €1.7 million is being provided to projects in 2014 under both rounds of the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund. Under round 1, €750,000 is being provided, with a further €985,000 being provided under round 2. I have the details of individual allocations which I will forward to the Deputy.
I will correspond with the Deputy directly on the point she makes on the national assessment committee as I do not have the details to hand. I will be happy to take up the points in correspondence.
The committee includes representatives of all the main players and is looking at the broad issue. It is vital that funding continues to go to where it is most needed. I am glad the Minister has made the commitment on that here.
Another aspect of the issue involves the approximately €6 million in funding that is being applied to positive mental health projects. There is a role for youth services in that area. I mentioned to the Minister previously that the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund at one time included a small grants fund for projects which needed a few hundred euro or €1,000 for a particular piece of work. It is all about the prevention and education pillar of the national drugs strategy. The other pillars of treatment, rehabilitation and supply control relate to matters after the event. We do not place sufficient emphasis on prevention and education, which is what this is about.
I can only agree with the Deputy. It is very important that where there is funding for mental health and young people, youth work groups and projects are involved and obtain support from it. There is no doubt that a hugely preventative role is played by all of these youth services, including Garda youth diversion programmes. The research we have demonstrates high levels of success and actual diversion from criminal activity through the Garda programmes. A focus on prevention and early intervention is critical. There are many projects, including the local youth club grants scheme, the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund, special projects for youth and local drugs task force projects. I assure the Deputy that all of these projects follow the line the Deputy has outlined on early intervention and support for young people, particularly those young people who are at risk.
The time for Priority Questions has expired and Other Questions will be taken in ordinary time.
