Vol. 1025 No. 2
80. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the impact there will be on core funding for the early years sector in the event that no employment regulation order is agreed, if only one employment regulation order is agreed or if a graduate premium is not agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36797/22]
What impact would there be on core funding for the early years sector if no employment regulation order is agreed, if only one employment regulation order is agreed or if a graduate premium is not agreed?
Core funding is designed to support a range of objectives, including the drawing up of an employment regulation order, ERO, to determine minimum rates of pay for workers as well as supporting career pathways in graduate employment.
Of the €221 million core funding budget, approximately two thirds is intended to contribute to improved pay rates across different categories of staff. This portion of the budget cannot be made available without assurances that the funding will be channelled towards achieving this intended objective. Accordingly, a precondition of the funding agreement is that core funding is contingent on EROs being in effect to cover all roles across the sector, as defined in the early years services joint labour committee, JLC, establishment order. In the event that there is no ERO, or an ERO only covers one role in the sector, core funding cannot proceed.
If there are no EROs, the entire €150 million allocated for improved pay and conditions under core funding risks being forfeited. In the event of a single ERO that covers just one role, a substantial portion of the €138 million allocated for improved pay and conditions under core funding risks being forfeited. The value of funding forfeited will depend on the ERO agreed. In the event that there are EROs without graduate premium rates, the additional €10 million allocated for graduate premiums under core funding risks being forfeited and alternative arrangements for funding for graduates will be put in place. A return to the previous higher capitation payment is not envisaged. A failure to agree graduate premium rates will significantly undermine the development of further policy initiatives to support the employment of staff with higher levels of qualification, given the limited assurances that State funding will be channelled towards achieving this intended objective.
I am fully supportive of improved pay and conditions for this valued workforce and achieved significant investment from the Government in budget 2022 for this purpose. I urge the JLC to continue its negotiations to agree EROs for all grades in the sector, including minimum rates for graduate lead educators and graduate managers.
The Minister and I are probably in agreement on this matter. As he is aware, I have strong feelings on it. As we all know, those in the sector do incredible work. Many of them have degrees and are graduates. I recently visited several early years facilities. Many of the workers are going on to do a masters degree. The level of qualification of the workforce and their commitment to the sector is incredible. For a long time, I have advocated for improvement in wages, terms and conditions and the establishment of a wage scale. While I would probably have preferred the introduction of a wage scale, I support the joint labour committee and the talks. I want that to come to a successful conclusion. We definitely need to get it over the line. Many people are wondering what will happen if we get to September and there is no agreement. Where will that process go then? Will it be extended?
The ERO is the only game in town. It is the one mechanism available under the existing industrial relations mechanism that will ensure our fantastic childcare professionals receive the substantial additional funding the Government announced in the budget last year through better pay. The only way to guarantee that is through an ERO. No one in the sector, from either the employer or employee sides, has been able to suggest a better mechanism. My focus is on providing the money. The Government has provided the money and it is now up to the various partners to bring about those agreements on the various rates.
It is important to state that to support the workforce, we have to do more than set rates of pay. There have to be clear pathways and progression frameworks. That is why we have the workforce development plan, Nurturing Skills, which sets out additional supports and continued professional development, along with funding for that, in order that we can continue to allow childcare professionals who are on the initial entry rate to advance further in their careers.
I agree 100% with that. It is frustrating for those who are working in the sector. They feel that they have been undervalued for many years. Everyone can say how great they are but their getting a pay increase is the best way of illustrating that. We want there to be a wage scale in order that people can progress. Continuous professional development is a key part of this. A point that is made regularly is that in the school system there are in-service days for teachers but there is no such provision in the early years sector. We definitely need to move to providing in-service training such as that in the early years sector.
I support the JLC talks and the employment regulation order but if they cannot get that over the line, even with the best will on the side of the workers, what will happen then? Will the funding be fully withdrawn? Will it be extended if they are halfway through the talks or progress seems to have been made? When will a decision on that be made? I am conscious that it is now July and it is hoped the process will be completed by September.
My focus and that of the Department is on supporting the delivery of the ERO and I do not wish to second-guess that process. I genuinely do not know of a way that we can as effectively support better pay for staff without an ERO being in place. That is why all our focus has to be on that mechanism. I welcome the Deputy's support for the ERO.
The Deputy is correct. Staff have felt undervalued. When one takes account of what many of them are being paid, one can see that they are undervalued. That is certainly one of the things that has been raised with me by the childcare professionals I have met in my constituency or while travelling around the country. On the idea of having an entry rate, the ERO has set it at €13 an hour. It is more than the living wage, but it is a starting rate. There is a need for additional rates for those who have a graduate qualification or are room leaders or deputy managers. It is also about wider supports such as continued professional development, and financial support for that, as set out in the workforce development plan, Nurturing Skills.
81. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he has plans to review and possibly expand the access and inclusion model, AIM, programme, given the vital role it plays in early learning and care, ELC, and school age childcare, SAC, settings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36798/22]
My question relates to the AIM programme. I ask the Minister to review and possibly expand the AIM programme, given the vital role it plays in the early years sector. Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy. Since 2016, my Department has funded the access and inclusion model to ensure that children with disabilities can access the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme. Its goal is to empower preschool providers to deliver an inclusive preschool experience, ensuring that every eligible child can meaningfully participate in the ECCE programme and reap the benefits of high-quality early learning and care. AIM offers tailored and practical supports, some universal and others targeted, based on need and not requiring a formal diagnosis of disability. Close to 20,000 children with a disability have benefited from targeted supports under AIM since its introduction.
One of the commitments in First 5, the whole-of-government strategy for babies, young children and their families, was to undertake an evaluation of AIM and, subject to evaluation findings and other relevant developments, consider enhancements to or extensions of AIM, such as to all early learning and care services, to all school-age childcare services and to children with additional needs other than a disability.
The AIM evaluation commenced in 2021 and is now close to completion. The final report is due to be published in quarter 3 of this year. The findings of that evaluation will inform further development of AIM. This is a commitment in First 5.
In the meantime, I recently allocated additional funding to AIM to support children with disabilities to access the ECCE programme. Specifically, from September this year additional capitation provided through AIM to enable a lower adult-child ratio is expected to increase by 14% from September 2022, rising from €210 to €240 per week. This will benefit approximately 3,500 ECCE services throughout the country.
I thank the Minister. The recent increase is welcome. Is there any possibility or are there plans for AIM to be expanded outside of the ECCE programme for the younger cohort? This comes on the back of a visit I made to a family resource centre which I believe the Minister also visited in Limerick, namely, the King's Island facility. It has a high level of demand for the AIM programme. What often happens is parents can access AIM through the ECCE programme yet the child may be in full daycare. This means that people do not then understand if it is said to one child that he or she cannot access the full day. It is not that it is stated that they cannot, but it is very difficult for them if they do not have that AIM support. There are not very many autism spectrum disorder, ASD, preschools throughout the country. When expanding AIM beyond just the ECCE programme, might it be possible to consider supporting those children?
Nothing is off the table in regard to broadening AIM. I know how good a programme it is. I have spoken to parents who have experienced the value for their children. I have spoken to services which have seen they have been able to do much more for children. My starting point is to expand access to AIM. I like to do things after the research is completed in order that I can understand what the current situation is. I have acted on the many reports that we have done in childcare so far and I hope to be able to act on the AIM evaluation that will be coming in quarter 3 and to be able to expand it. It will probably be an incremental expansion. There are different approaches such as to focus on the zero-to-three group or on the school-age childcare or to give it to the existing group but outside the ECCE hours. Obviously there are financial considerations in all of that. It is such a good investment.
Like the Deputy, I was in King's Island and saw the amazing work the team does there. We are also working on the DEIS-type model as well as a broader support for socially disadvantaged young people. It is to be hoped that the possible merger or crossover of the two will provide more support for children who need it most.
That is welcome news on the review of AIM. It is a more recent programme and we have seen incredible benefits. There are many elements of it. Because the benefits for children are seen, there is high demand for it. It can be expanded certainly to the children in full daycare. There are many sections to that but it is good. In regard to the research which the Minister hopes will be completed between September and December, is there consultation with the early learning group and the interdepartmental group as well? That is important because facilities such as the one in Limerick and others have so much knowledge on this that their input would be invaluable.
I can get back to the Deputy with more detail on the process. It started in 2021 so it has been quite a lengthy and detailed process. I imagine the researchers have engaged with providers that have undertaken this work. The real strength of AIM is its flexibility. The DEIS model used in primary and secondary school is "all or nothing" - you get DEIS status or you do not - whereas AIM has graduated levels of supports from one to seven recognising that a situation in different services and indeed different children may be different and should be tailored as such. Our approach to supporting disadvantaged children, and we are looking to advance this, will probably be like that. We will make it somewhat more tailored to the needs of a particular service, recognising that you can have a service in what is regarded as an affluent area but because of renting and different social circumstances of people, some children there may need additional supports.
82. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he will ensure that all children and families in direct provision being moved from congregated living are housed in own-door or independent living accommodation as close as possible to the community in which they have been residing. [36285/22]
Previously when we discussed direct provision the Minister assured me that moving all remaining families currently in congregated living to own-door independent accommodation was a priority. He did not mention that there was no assurance that this move would consider the wishes of the families concerned or the connections those families had made in communities. Are families being moved far away from their communities to suit the Department rather than the well-being of the families themselves?
As set out in A White Paper to End Direct Provision and to Establish a New International Protection Support Service, my Department is currently working on implementing a new model of accommodation and supports for international protection applicants. Under the new model, an applicant for international protection will initially be accommodated in one of six new integration and reception centres. Accommodation in an integration and reception centre will be own-door for families and own-room for single people with specific supports for people with identified vulnerabilities. These centres will be newly built and operated by not-for-profit organisations on behalf of the State. Residents will remain in the centres for a maximum of four months during which they will undergo a programme of orientation, support and integration. Once the four-month programme is complete, if the applicant has not received a positive first-instance decision on his or her application or is undergoing an appeal process, he or she will transition from an integration and reception centre to accommodation in the community. A local authority allocation has been developed to determine the relative proportion of international protection applicants to be accommodated in each local authority area under the new model. As the White Paper is rolled out, efforts will be made to accommodate families close to communities to which they may have ties. However, this is dependant on where phase 2 accommodation is available and where it is located. My Department cannot provide absolute guarantees on that point.
In the interim, a request for tender was issued by my Department seeking additional accommodation for applicants for international protection that enables families to be accommodated in independent living options. This tender is a key plank in the strategy to end the current reliance on emergency accommodation. The aim is to ensure that all families in the international protection process are accommodated in independent living options once they have completed the initial reception process. The accommodation tendered under this process is now beginning to come on stream.
The issue is that the Department is doing some good, of course, but in a bad way. Everyone wants to end direct provision as soon as possible. Moving families from congregated settings has to be a priority but must be done in co-ordination with the people involved. A key criticism of direct provision is the undignified way in which people are treated and the infantilising, condescending treatment from being denied the right to cook their own food to being moved around to centres at the whim of providers and officials. Parts of this are being replicated when we decide where people should be moved unilaterally without that engagement with them. As the Minister said, after they have had four months of integration into a community, they then could be moved to somewhere completely different. Families could have built up social networks, children are attending schools and the few who are permitted to work have professional connections. Simply to move these families to where accommodation has been found, to suit the Department but not necessarily the people themselves, is not the right approach. Can this policy be changed?
Deputy Cairns is aware of the major pressures on accommodation throughout the country right now. Our Department, like others, sources accommodation where we can. Where we are able to facilitate families in terms of where they have integrated and made connections, we absolutely will seek to do that. Realistically I am not in a position to say I can guarantee that in every situation because there may be areas where we have not been able to secure accommodation. We all know the pressure that is there. We will do our best. We want to change the system. We want to put people at the centre and supporting the needs of individuals and families at the centre but I would be lying to the House were I to make any absolute commitments. It is not possible to make absolute commitments on that at this point.
Dignity is key here. Deputy Connolly's question is next, seeking an update on the plan to end direct provision but that process will be hollow if it is not based on consideration and respect. Unless dignified engagement with asylum seekers is embedded into the Department's interaction with them, any new system will have in many ways failed before it even begins.
Regrettably, Ukrainian refugees are being treated in the same way with no input into where they are being offered long-term accommodation. I appreciate that the Department is dealing with more than 25,000 people and the pressures on housing that the Minister spoke about but engaging with people to do our best to accommodate them in communities in which they are working and children are attending school is a better approach. Ultimately, such an approach would prove more efficient as it avoids delays and disputes caused by the Department dictating that it wants someone to go in one place and them wanting to stay in another place. My point is it is not a reason to not engage.
Moving on to the accommodation of Ukrainians, as the Deputy says, we are accommodating 28,000 Ukrainians right now. We are also accommodating 12,000 people in the international protection process. We are accommodating 41,000 people in total right now. This time last year, we were accommodating 7,000 people. It is a substantial increase in a year and that has put real pressure on the system. That means that the delivery of choice that the Deputy spoke about in terms of Ukrainians is simply not possible right now.
It is not a situation in which I or my Department are pleased to be but our objective in the context, which we must recall in terms of Ukraine is still a wartime context, is to provide safety and security. We have been clear - the Taoiseach has been clear with the Ukrainian President - that we are offering Ukrainians coming here safety and security but we cannot offer choice, regrettable as that might be.
83. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the status of the review of projected timelines for the implementation of A White Paper to End Direct Provision and to Establish a New International Protection Support Service; the person who is carrying out the review; the expected timeline for completion and publication of the revised implementation plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36525/22]
I ask my question in the context of the 21st year of direct provision and the Minister's commitment to ending it. Specifically, I am asking the Minister the status of the review of projected timelines for the implementation of A White Paper to End Direct Provision and to Establish a New International Protection Support Service, the person who is carrying out the review, and the expected timeline for completion and publication of the revised implementation plan.
Since the publication of the White Paper to end direct provision, my Department has placed a significant focus on delivering the new model of accommodation and supports for international protection.
This has included the recruitment of a team dedicated to drive the implementation of the new programme; the establishment of governance structures in the form of a programme board and an external advisory committee; the development of an integration programme to support the principle of integration from day one; and the development of a policy for the income support payment that applicants will receive in phase 2 and the launch in February of a dedicated website with updates on the progress in implementing the White Paper.
A new integration fund, offering grants to civil society organisations for projects supporting the integration of international protection applicants, is also currently in development and will be launched in the coming weeks.
However, as Deputies will appreciate, the war in Ukraine has had an unavoidable impact on timelines for implementation of the White Paper. Staff in my Department were temporarily diverted to fulfil Ireland's obligations, including members of the White Paper transition team. Upwards of 39,000 Ukrainian refugees have sought protection in Ireland under the temporary protection directive. As I stated earlier, my Department is currently providing accommodation to 28,000 of those.
A review of the projected timelines for the implementation of the White Paper is currently under way among senior officials in my Department and the International Protection Support Service transition team. This is a complex exercise. It will take account of the delays that have arisen as a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine and the significant increase in the number of international protection applicants.
In the coming weeks, I will be in a position to provide an update on the review's outcomes. However, it is currently planned that the transition team will move ahead to operationalise parts of the new system in late 2022. Key elements of the White Paper process, including strengthening supports at local level and involving NGOs more fully in the delivery of services, have become even more important as the number of new international protection applicants increases.
Notwithstanding the impact of the Ukraine crisis and the increase in international protection applicants, the implementation of the new model will continue to be a key priority for me and for my Department.
I realise the Minister is under extraordinary pressure given the crisis and the number of people who have come in from Ukraine. There are almost 40,000. It would be remiss of me not to point out that we have had numerous reports. We had the McMahon recommendations, as the Minister knows well, in 2015. We have had the Catherine Day report. We have various ombudsman reports and we have had the White Paper.
We are into the 22nd year of direct provision and now we have the completely unacceptable situation where we are distinguishing between different types of asylum seekers and people coming into our country. While we take in the Ukrainians - we all have thanked the Minister for that - with open arms, by comparison we have taken in a minute number of people from Afghanistan. I understand their number is even less than 700. The Afghan admission programme has a limit of 500 persons and they must be joining family.
We have Ukrainians here under the temporary protection directive, we have international protection applicants and we have refugees accepted under the Irish refugee protection programme, IRPP. Sometimes these all get jumbled in.
I will speak to the IRPP programme. We have taken, at this stage, 3,900 Syrians under IRPP 1 and 2. There is an ongoing commitment to receive more Syrians in, as refugees. A group of 80 came in in May of this year and more will come in later on this year.
My Department has taken in approximately 600 Afghans under the IRPP. That is separate to the Afghans admissions programme about which the Deputy spoke, which is a scheme run by the Department of Justice. We have also, of course, taken in a number of Ethiopians as a result of the conflict there. These are small numbers in comparison to the scale of these crises but we bring these people in directly. They have full refugee status and all the protections that offers. When one compares what we have done to what other European countries have done, our numbers stand favourably.
I do not think so. The Minister cannot stand over the distinction in the way we are now treating applicants from different countries. We have simply created an unacceptable division.
I understand Comhlámh has written a detailed letter to the Minister. I would like to know if he has responded to that. They wrote to the Minister on 20 June appealing to him to address new and long-standing human rights concerns and so on They echo the recommendation from the round table on the theme, "Migration in our Common Home", chaired by Social Justice Ireland, that the human rights first approach should be the blueprint for a reshaping of Ireland’s international protection system. As a result of the war in Ukraine, the Minister made an announcement on that same day, as it turned out, that we were on target for delivering the targets in the White Paper. Obviously, that has not happened.
I welcome the structures the Minister has set up, such as the transition team, but then some of its members were taken away to deal with the Ukrainian issue. Are they now back? Can the Minister deal with the policy issue? What will we do? Are we to continue with a discriminatory system because I could not stand over that?
Our response to Ukraine is set out under EU law. Our response to them is set out in the temporary protection directive and we are working under that.
In terms of a discriminatory response, I visited Citywest the week before last. The treatment of Ukrainians as they arrive into the country is identical to the treatment of international protection applicants as they arrive into the country.
It is. With all due respect, I was there. I saw what was happening on the ground.
Not in terms of entitlement.
In terms of what happens next, absolutely. However, that is not a determination of the Government. That is a determination of European law. With the greatest respect, it is what is set out in the temporary protection directive and we are operating to fulfil the temporary protection directive. That was a decision of European Union law but we continue to provide a full range of supports to people in the international protection system while we work to end direct provision.
I accept the Minister's restrictions but not his analysis.
