Other Questions
27. Deputy Denise Mitchell asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if survivors of a home (details supplied) will be facilitated in gaining access to redress in advance of the final report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. [18725/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraWill survivors of the Bethany Home be facilitated in gaining access to redress ahead of the final report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes?
Bethany Home is one of the institutions included within the terms of reference of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. This particular institution was one of the first identified for inclusion when the scope of the investigation was being decided. Decisions on the issues to be investigated by the commission were informed by the serious concerns about the care and welfare of children in the institution.
As I have outlined in response to an earlier question, the final reports of the commission are expected within the next ten months. It is important to note the independent commission of investigation has to date made no findings about abuse or neglect in any of the homes within its terms of reference. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the Government to put in place a redress scheme for matters within the scope of this investigation prior to the commission submitting its findings and conclusions.
In the interim, the Government has agreed to consider the health and well-being needs of former residents. The establishment of a collaborative forum is a progressive approach to assist former residents to prioritise areas of concern for them and their families.
Given the issue of mother and baby homes has not been central to any previous inquiry, the commission must be given the opportunity to advance its investigation and to establish the facts of what happened in and around these institutions.
When the Ryan report was published in 2009 there were a number of calls for the residential institutions redress scheme to be extended to include additional institutions, including the Bethany Home. The then Government decided not to extend the scheme and it has been closed to new applicants since 2011. This decision has been reviewed on a number of occasions by previous Governments and most recently following the publication of the commission of investigation’s second interim report last year. The Government again concluded it was not possible to reopen the scheme.
The challenges for Government in considering such matters at an interim stage of a commission’s work were further highlighted in the special report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the residential institutions redress scheme.
As I previously indicated, when the final reports of the commission are available, the Government will listen to and respond to the full account of the commission’s conclusions and the matters regarding the treatment of former residents.
I cannot understand the attitude of the State to this small group of survivors. There are fewer than ten survivors. They are getting on in years and they fear the State is using this as a stall and hoping they will pass away. The second interim report by the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes clearly stated its view that the survivors of the Bethany Home had a strong case for redress and that both the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Health should re-examine the decision to deny the Bethany Home survivors redress. We recently saw the decision to reverse access to redress for Magdalen laundry survivors. Why can it not be done for the Bethany Home survivors? I will say it straight to the Minister. These ten survivors will be very disappointed; they will feel let down.
Will the Minister be the one who puts it right?
I have a deep understanding of how upset and disappointed the survivors, especially of the Bethany Home institution, feel. I understand what the Deputy has described. I am aware of it and fully aware of what the commission of investigation stated in its second interim report and brought those arguments to the Government. That is why we took a long time to deliberate on the report, with a detailed analysis by officials of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and other Departments of the rationale for some of the commission's statements. The consensus from a series of discussions which involved the Attorney General, the Ministers for Children and Youth Affairs, Public Expenditure and Reform and Education and Skills was that there would be insurmountable difficulties in reopening the redress scheme or scoping an alternative scheme, whether statutory or non-statutory. One of the primary reasons for this is that to date the commission has made no finding about abuse or neglect in the homes. That makes it extremely difficult for the Government to decide to offer redress. As a bridge to the final report, having understood and empathised with the concerns, particularly those expressed by the Bethany Home institution, I encouraged and achieved consensus with other Ministers that the Government could begin discussions with the former residents to examine meaningful targeted supports, particularly health and well-being supports, that could be provided for them prior to receiving the final reports of the commission and the Government's decisions which would follow them.
I do not doubt that the Minister feels for the survivors, but they have been listening to that response for decades. Other Deputies and I believe that is not right as it is denying the survivors justice and redress. Why has the commission not made a finding? Is there something deliberate going on? The Minister has met the survivors; she knows them and knows that they have been campaigning tirelessly for decades.
The commission is independent. I have had meetings and conversations with it and it has insisted that it needs more time to speak to and hear from the people involved. Many more have come forward than initially anticipated. It needs time to consider their histories and conduct investigations before it can state what are the facts and its findings. All I can say is the commission has stated there is more work to be done and that it requires time. We have acceded to its request.
28. Deputy Denise Mitchell asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if she has spoken to the Minister for Health about delays in access to mental health and well-being supports for survivors who have engaged with the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18726/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am deeply conscious that giving testimony to a commission and revisiting difficult personal experiences will be distressing for many former residents. I know that some people may need to access various supports around this time. I also acknowledge that the Deputy has raised this issue recently and thank her for highlighting this important matter.
I have previously advised that any person affected by experiences connected to mother and baby homes may wish to contact the Health Service Executive, HSE, national counselling service which provides free professional, confidential counselling and psychotherapy services in all regions of the country. I have ensured relevant HSE contact details are available on the website of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
With regard to the commission of investigation, it is important to recognise that the statutory commission is independent in the conduct of its investigations. I am aware that it does ask former residents attending as witnesses if they have access to supports and whether they would like information on available services. I understand that, if they so wish, this information is provided. The individual arrangements with witnesses are, of course, a matter for the commission and I have no role in that regard.
If the Deputy wishes to provide me with details of any specific case, I will be happy to raise them with the Minister for Health. Officials of my Department have been engaging with counterparts in the Department of Health on the issue of health and well-being supports. This is in the context of the establishment of the collaborative forum which I am in the process of setting up.
As the Deputy may be aware, I have embraced the concept of "nothing about us without us" which has emerged from my engagements to date with former residents. Former residents, rightly, want and deserve an input into the decisions which affect them and their families.
Health and well-being supports are one of the priority areas to be considered in the collaborative forum process. Participants in the forum will identify and prioritise actions and recommendations on issues of concern to them and their families. I have asked them to examine in particular the matter of health and well-being supports as a priority and come back to me with recommendations.
The Minister and we all know that the women are reliving traumatic events when they appear before the commission of investigation and should not be left for over a year before they gain access to counselling. Will the Minister discuss this with the HSE and the Minister for Health to reassure anyone who wants to gain access to a counselling service that she will not have to wait for one year or more?
If the Deputy has a specific cases she wants to bring to my attention, I will be happy to bring it to the Minister for Health, specifically as I understand the women may require counselling as a result of engaging with the commission and offering their testimony. Health and well-being supports are under discussion and consideration has been given to those who were resident in the institutions and would like to access such supports. This issue was discussed in the initial consultations, as well as in the consultations on what would be considered at the collaborative forum. I certainly want us to be able to offer these supports. Officials in the Departments have asked if that is the case and whether we want to decide on how they will be provided in a way that is most accessible to the women and in a manner that they will be able to access them when they need them.
I will forward some names to the Minister. Many women have been attending counselling services during the years at a cost to themselves. When they make their initial appointment, they find they must move from that counsellor. Many women who have developed a relationship with the counsellor they have attended for years have to move to a different one. Can some mechanism be put in place to ensure survivors will be able to stay with the counsellor they already have?
I thank the Deputy for raising that very specific practical issue. I know from personal experience that it is very important. That kind of issue has been and will continue to be considered in the context of how we can offer these supports once we have discussed the matter and decided we can do it.
The practical issues take time to sort out but they are important in order that all of the women about whom we are speaking can have access in a timely manner and in a way that would be most useful to them.
29. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs when the Elliott report into an organisation (details supplied) will be available for review. [18849/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra32. Deputy Sean Sherlock asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs her plans to restore State funding to an organisation (details supplied). [18784/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy question originates from scouting at a grassroots level and the 40,000 scouts, leaders, parents and Garda-vetted volunteers who want to see safe scouting in their communities. The Elliott report will form a significant part of the Minister's decision in terms of what will happen in scouting. When will this report be available and will it be published?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 32 together.
I have not yet received a copy of the Elliott report into the handling of allegations involving the alleged serious sexual assault by an adult volunteer. Scouting Ireland commissioned Mr. Ian Elliott to carry out a review into the organisation’s handling of this allegation of a serious sexual assault on an adult volunteer by another adult volunteer.
In 2017, Scouting Ireland engaged Mr. Ian Elliott to conduct a review of its child safeguarding-protection policies and procedures. An interim report was produced in October 2017 and a final report was produced in January 2018, both of which were subsequently submitted to my Department in March 2018. In view of the information available to me relating to the governance arrangements within Scouting Ireland, I decided to withhold the drawdown of further funding to the organisation under the youth service grant scheme until I am satisfied that the organisation's governance standards are up to the required level.
The report mentioned by the Deputy is not yet completed. Following on from the report on child protection matters, Scouting Ireland engaged a barrister to conduct a full investigation into the allegation, particularly with regard to how the matter was handled by senior volunteers. I will receive both reports once the investigation is completed.
As I said in response to a previous question, I met Scouting Ireland on 19 April and I was informed of the organisation's plan to reform the governance of the organisation and to put new structures in place. The organisation also confirmed its commitment to implement the recommendations relating to safeguarding and to carry out a full review of historic cases. Scouting Ireland is implementing the recommendations of the first report in terms of safeguarding and it is awaiting the second report. Both reports will be submitted to me.
There are a number of steps to be taken before I can be assured that Scouting Ireland has the proper governance arrangements in place to allow me to restore funding.
I note that the Minister has met the board of Scouting Ireland and that she has not yet received the report. Does she believe the board of Scouting Ireland will be able to implement the necessary changes before next June and how confident is she in the board? Also, does she have a contingency plan in the event of the board not being able to deliver the necessary changes such that she may be left with no options at the end of June?
On the timeframe, as I stated in my earlier response I have met the board of Scouting Ireland. We had a strong and robust conversation. I put a number of questions to the board and it indicated the actions that it proposes to implement to reform the governance of the organisation. The drawdown which the organisation has will continue to resource it. The board also indicated to me that it has reserves. The timeframe within which actions are implemented in order that I am provided with assurances that governance is appropriate and of the standard required of an organisation in receipt of public moneys is a matter for the board.
I thank the Minister for the update. How confident is she that the board will be able to implement the necessary changes and, in the event that it does not do so, what contingency does she have in place? Has she set a timeframe within which the process of implementing the changes must be up and running or is she allowing the board to move at a pace which it deems fit? Has the Minister set a deadline for completion of the report, is she expecting receipt of same over the next few days or weeks, and will she publish it when it becomes available to her? How confident is the Minister that the board can deliver on the changes required?
In light of the conversation I had with the board, I believe it is honest and that its ambition and intention is to make the necessary changes. I know from its description of the processes that the putting in place of the necessary reforms is dependent on a number of factors and people. As the Deputy is aware, subsequent to my meeting with the board, a number of board members agreed to stand aside until such time as the process of investigation is completed. I believe this demonstrates the understanding of the board of the seriousness of this matter from my perspective. The board knows that it needs to get this right and I agree that the stepping aside of the chief scout and others was the right thing to do.
On contingency plans, the organisation has moneys available to enable it to continue operating. My Department is not the only Department from which it receives funding. As I said, the board indicated to me that it has reserves. It is the responsibility of the board to ensure that funding and resources are made available to Scouting Ireland to enable it to carry out its great work.
30. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if she is satisfied that Tusla is adequately resourced to deal with its workload in view of the recent introduction of mandatory reporting; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18803/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraIs the Minister satisfied that Tusla is adequately resourced to deal with its workload in view of the recent introduction of mandatory reporting and will she make a statement on the matter?
I was pleased to secure an additional €40.6 million for Tusla in 2018. This is the third year in succession that Tusla has received a significant increase in its funding, which now amounts to more than €753 million. I am satisfied that Tusla has sufficient resources to act on mandatory reporting.
I support the work of Tusla and I am committed to supporting the agency in meeting the growing needs of children and families. The extra resources secured for Tusla in 2018 will assist in meeting key priorities. The additional investment will allow Tusla to recruit a range of additional staff to respond to areas of identified risk and to meet increased demand for services, including an anticipated increase in referrals following the introduction of mandatory reporting. This increase in funding is also enabling the further management of unallocated cases. In addition, Tusla is in the process of recruiting more administrative staff to support social workers in their child protection duties.
In 2018, funding is also being used to establish a single national out-of-hours social work service, building on significant progress made in recent years in strengthening this service. The extra resources will also support enhanced collaboration with An Garda Síochána, additional on-call social work capacity and a new out-of-hours support service for foster carers.
I have requested that Tusla develop a robust workforce plan which addresses succession planning, retention, career pathways, training and development, future workforce needs, priority gaps and a strategy for tackling the priority gaps. The workforce plan will be a key part of dealing with a rise in referrals due to mandatory reporting and in helping to reduce unallocated cases.
I believe that the level of Exchequer funding of more than €753 million available to Tusla in 2018 provides it with the resources to increase its capacity significantly to respond to areas of identified risk and anticipated demand. The introduction of mandatory reporting will no doubt bring challenges but the resources to help Tusla deal with these challenges are in place.
I appreciate the Minister's answer but I am going back to last September when the chief executive officer, Mr. Fred McBride, suspected that €40.6 million would be insufficient to introduce mandatory reporting and a host of other services. When he appeared before the Oireachtas committee he said that mandatory reporting was going to increase Tusla's workload by 150%. Month on month we see HIQA reports where it has gone into various centres and we see the basic fundamentals on Garda vetting and so on are not up to scratch. We see also that there is a lack of engagement of social workers. I am not as fully convinced as the Minister, but she has the Department to best advise her. I do not believe that Tusla has the resources.
Another concern is Tusla's workforce plan. When will we have a timeline on a workforce plan given that more than €700 million is going into that operation? I would like to see how this funding is being spent and how it plans to spend it going into the next budget. Mandatory reporting is up 20% since it was introduced last year.
Of course I am aware of the CEO's remarks. The CEO, my officials and I have continued the conversation throughout this time. The Deputy is aware that I made the decision to bring mandatory reporting of child abuse concerns into effect on 11 December 2017. I do not think the sky fell in.
In advance of the commencement, Tusla put in place the structures and processes necessary to facilitate the intake of mandated reports. Mandated reporters are required to make their reports in writing and they have a legal entitlement to an acknowledgement. Since 15 January, Tusla has an online portal to receive mandated reports. People can register online via the Tusla website. They are then in a position to submit reports directly to Tusla.
There were 4,477 referrals to child protection and welfare services in February 2018. This was a decrease of 8% from January 2018. The February 2018 referrals represent a 10% increase from February 2017 referrals and figures. At this early stage, it is not possible to establish if overall numbers of reports to Tusla have increased with the introduction of mandated reporting. It will be kept under review in 2018 in the normal performance of monitoring engagement between Tusla and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I am confident that with the implementation of the obligation for mandated reporting Tusla is responding, has put measures in place and, as the Deputy is aware, has worked with an inter-departmental group for the last couple of years so that other Departments were prepared also.
We supported and welcomed the introduction of mandatory reporting when it was brought in. We believe it is a step in the right direction. It may or may not have been a throwaway comment, but the sky is falling in for the 898 children who have not been allocated a social care worker. Last year the One in Four charity raised its concerns about Tusla. It explained that Tusla was not adequately resourced to monitor two out of three of the cases the charity had raised with a credible report of child sex abuse that had been made. The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, has raised its doubts over Tusla's ability to protect children given the repeated failure of many Tusla care facilities to pass HIQA inspections. Yet again I am sure the Minister is in negotiation with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, for her Department's budget. She will be looking for an allocation for extra resources and I am sure it will go back to the workforce plan Tusla will be putting forward. I am sure the Department is looking critically at the numbers around mandatory reporting. Does the Minister believe she will be pitching for more money in the upcoming budget, solely on the back of the CEO's remarks?
My reference to the sky not falling in referred to the system. The system did not crash. With regard to the unallocated cases, I have already acknowledged that where there are cases of children and families not being assigned a social worker, it does not mean that social workers are not communicating with them. Duty social work teams are ensuring those families are being communicated with regularly and ensuring there is no risk to children. I have confidence in that.
Of course, I will be looking for more resources for Tusla for a number of our priorities. As I have tried to describe in answers to other questions, it is a real challenge to get social workers in order to reduce those unallocated cases but even with the increase in referrals, the trend in respect of the number of unallocated cases is going down. This does not necessarily make a family that has not been allocated a social worker feel any better about it. I appreciate this and I have empathy. We are, however, looking at the overall trend going down. At the same time, we need to recruit more. We have had a draft of the workforce plan. Our officials are discussing this and are working very closely on it so that it meets all of the requirements, which I have already identified.
33. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the status of the implementation of the recommendations of the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, report into the school completion programme; and the future status of the programme. [18606/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraWe are returning to a conversation we have had before around school completion programmes. Following the ESRI report and the Tusla commissioned employment audit, perhaps the Minister will give an update on the status of the school completion programme and her views on it.
I am very conscious that the school completion programme delivers a valuable service for some of our most vulnerable young people. However, the ESRI review referred to by the Deputy highlighted the need for a fit-for-purpose structure with effective governance and employment models in place.
With this in mind, the board of Tusla convened an expert panel to identify and examine a potential revised model of good practice and governance of the school completion programme.
The panel comprised an external legal expert, representation of the Tusla educational welfare service, finance, human resources and legal units, representatives from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It was chaired by the Tusla CEO.
The expert panel has concluded its work. When I examined its findings, I decided to carry out some further discussions with a number of other stakeholders. To this end, I hosted a very informative school completion consultation event in Farmleigh House on 29 January 2018. Matters discussed included best practice and governance within the school completion programme. There was a range of views expressed as to how both these elements could be improved to ensure that the best service possible is delivered to those who need it. Following the Farmleigh event, I asked the facilitator of the day to do some additional work on a possible way forward, and I have received this input very recently.
I have deliberated carefully over this process for some time because the issues are complex and I want to achieve the best possible results for the young people who use the service and for the professionals who deliver it. I wish to see plans for the development of the school completion programme advanced in this quarter. I am very much aware of the positive outcomes that have been achieved in the school completion programme. For example, the proportion of students in DEIS schools who completed the senior cycle has increased from 68% in 2006-2007 to 82% by 2016. This illustrates the benefit of the programme.
I can assure the Deputy that my Department and the Tusla educational welfare service are fully committed to the future of the school completion programme and will continue to work to ensure that it will deliver the best possible outcomes for young people at risk of early school-leaving.
There is a lot to be taken from the Minister's reply. It is good to hear about the progress that has been made and the steps the Minister has taken. It is the reality that, for many reasons, there are children who find it difficult to stay in school. We know how important it is for a young person to stay in school for as long as possible. It is good that school principals were generally positive about the impact of school completion programmes and the staff involved. We can see how the programmes secure improved educational outcomes for young people. The Minister and I both come from constituencies where we can see the reality for those who do not stay in school and for those who do not engage in education. We are aware of the need for the extra supports that can go in there. In all the consultation that was held with those who deliver the programme, will the Minister clarify whether their voices were also heard? Did the people who deliver the programmes take part in the initial audit and the review with the various officials mentioned by the Minister?
I concur with everything Deputy O'Sullivan has said. Subsequent to the larger event to which I referred, I have been to a number of schools.
I always seek out the school completion co-ordinators to hear from them directly about any concerns they may have about their own position, the project workers, contract workers and sometimes teachers who work with them on the programme, how it is and the challenges principals and members of the board of management of the school see with governance issues that have been raised. I have been able to hear all those things first-hand in the context of a number of schools as we deliberate about the best way forward to reform the governance, the programmes that are offered, the services in the context of the educational welfare service and the challenges relating to the employment of the people who do the work.
I need to go back through the Minister's answer, look at the more recent developments from that event in Farmleigh at the end of January, and perhaps come back to the Minister on this. It is significant and central to the school completion programme that it is flexible, can address needs in an area and is not a rigid programme. I know there are certain parameters within that programme but it is good that there is movement outside it. The relationship between school completion programmes and the home school liaison officers is very important. I imagine we will come back to this once I look at the other events at Farmleigh and where it led.
I agree with the Deputy that it is important to look at this in the context of the education welfare officer's and the home school community liaison work, so that we move forward with a holistic view. I agree with the Deputy that the space for flexibility and innovation in the context of the delivery of the school completion programme is absolutely key. I know, within the context of Tusla's work with the school completion co-ordinators and programmes throughout the country, that they have worked very diligently to provide continuous professional development, working with school completion co-ordinators, some of which relates to focusing on that flexibility and space for innovation, while at the same time ensuring, having identified the needs in those particular communities, if they want and decide to use models of best practice, that that is also within their remit.
I inadvertently overlooked question No. 31.
31. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the confusion and anomalies caused by the age limits that her Department has imposed as eligibility criteria for the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18799/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy question is to ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the confusion and anomalies caused by the age limits that her Department has imposed as eligibility criteria for the ECCE programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Since the inception of the early childhood care and education programme, ECCE, age limits have been used to determine eligibility for the scheme. These rules are a necessary component of any Government scheme and ensure that Exchequer funding is used for its intended purpose. In 2010, only one ECCE year, or 38 weeks, was available. I enhanced this in 2016 and, on average, children benefitted from 61 weeks. From this September, the additional investment I secured in budget 2018 will enable all children from the age of two years and eight months to be eligible for two programme years.
While children will be eligible for two years of ECCE, not all parents choose to avail of it. There are two factors that prevent absolute standardisation of how much time children will utilise from the two years available. As Deputies are aware, school entry occurs at one point in the year, September, but children are born across the full year. Parents can opt to start their children in school at either four or five years of age. I fully accept that the use of age limits in a scheme such as this creates a situation whereby a child can fall just outside the age range. Under current rules, children born in January are most affected. However, we have to place an age cut-off at some point, whether this is at two years and eight months, or higher, or lower than this. The scheme as it exists provides eligibility for two years but enables parents to decide how much of ECCE is in the best interest of their child. I have asked for a consultation with the parents of children with disabilities, as I think the Deputy is aware, with regard to how the age limits affect them and I am due to receive the report on this consultation in late June. I will be happy to update Deputies as soon as possible thereafter on any changes to the scheme as a result of this consultation. I am conscious that age-based rules can be somewhat confusing, but my Department will continue to promote good communication of the ECCE scheme, so that parents and providers are clear about the rules involved.
I thank the Minister and acknowledge that the ECCE scheme has been extended to the two years. I also acknowledge that she has brought it back to one entry point. There had been much confusion about that. Going back to the entry point, children that are two years and eight months old on 1 September cannot enter into the two-year ECCE scheme. That is where the problem is. Can the Department look at this in another way so that two years before a child starts school, he or she would be allowed to enter into the ECCE scheme? I know what I am saying is simplistic but age has been a barrier here and it has been so prescriptive that the childcare providers themselves have to know exactly who they will get funding from. I can see it completely from their point of view. Parents might choose to let their children be that little bit older or younger and, as the Minister said, children born in January are particularly caught. Is there any way the Minister can work with the Department? She did it already, which I have to acknowledge, with the upper age limit. She has already overcome that obstacle. Is there enough time between now and September to make it non-prescriptive, so that children can get their two years?
My Department is looking at all sorts of possibilities. I understand the Deputy's concerns and think they are real. She represents her constituents very well. I thank her for acknowledging that we have almost got over that exemption issue. We are finalising the consultation and expect to come forward with some results in light of that. I have indicated that it is possible that the outcome of those consultations may give rise to policy proposals that might have a wider impact on the ECCE scheme in general as well as the issue of the school age exemptions. We may be able, in the context of that consultation, to consider these wider issues. Maybe decisions or recommendations will have been found. As the Deputy would be aware, any changes could have financial implications, some of them significant.
I acknowledge the financial implications but if the child falls into that January category, the parent ends up footing the bill for the difference even though he or she was technically within the rules, that is, that we would give two years ECCE to all children. We are looking at approximately 58,000 children. It is not 58,000 children who will be impacted by any manner or means. It is a cohort of children who are that age. If we say we are giving ECCE to all children and that we are doing early intervention, we should give them that opportunity. We would be giving a little control back to parents. Also, if childminders or childcare providers in crèches know that flexibility is there, which the Minister is talking about the possibility of, is now not the time to iron it out and to have the conversation from the start to the end so that we can give that clarity to parents?
That is what I am trying to describe to the Deputy. These considerations are happening in the context of that other consultation. I understand that if the policy is to offer two years, parents hope to be able to access that. To give the Deputy a practical response, specific to what we were speaking about there with regard to the January issue, to resolve the concerns being raised, my Department would have to further lower the age limit to two years and five months, possibly. If we were to do that, this would have cost implications. A further €20 million per annum would be required. It would place a greater burden on ECCE providers as many children in the age group are not toilet trained. It could also have an impact on ratios. These are the kinds of issues being considered in the context of those very real questions and concerns that parents are raising about children's age.
I would like to be able to continue discussing this issue with the Minister.
34. Deputy Martin Heydon asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs her plans to review the funding of existing family resource centres; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18845/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra36. Deputy Sean Sherlock asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the number of family resource centres here; and her plans to roll out more centres. [18787/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI very much welcome the 11 new family resource centres announced recently by the Minister, two of which will be in Kildare, doubling the number in the county. Athy family and community centre and Teach Dara in Kildare town are very grateful and worthy recipients of full family resource centre status. My question is about the funding model in place for centres which predate the 11 announced recently such as Newbridge family resource centre and Curragh Pride in Kildare, and plans for a review of that model.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 34 and 36 together.
As Deputy Martin Heydon is aware, family support is an important priority for me, as reflected by the increased level of funding for family resource centres in 2018. Family resource centres are front-line services rooted in the communities they serve. They act as a focal point within their communities and provide an holistic service to support children and families. They operate an open-door policy and provide many services and development opportunities at a universal level, while also proactively targeting specific cohorts within their communities.
As the Deputy is aware, 109 family resource centres were in receipt of funding from Tusla at the end of 2017. Tusla was provided with additional funding of €3 million in 2018 to expand the programme, with the inclusion of 11 additional centres, two of which are in Kildare.
Two.
The additional centres brought to 120 the total number of family resource centres.
I acknowledge that the Deputy's question is about existing family resource centres and the increases they can receive. This year family resource centres will receive an increase of up to €10,000 in funding. Funding for individual family resource centres varies, depending on a range of factors, including the size and population of the catchment area, the degree of economic disadvantage in the area and the existing distribution of services in the area. Decisions on funding levels for 2019 will be taken in the context of the Estimates process. It is not possible at this stage to advise what level of funding will be available to the family resource centre programme next year. However, I strongly value the work of family resource centres in communities throughout Ireland and will be making a case for continued investment in them in 2019 and beyond.
I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I note that family resource centres receive varying funding allocations based on the size and population of the cathchment area. Is there a mechanism for existing family resource centres to make a case to the Department or Tusla for additional funding for extra services? Are there plans to provide capital grants for such centres? Newbridge family resource centre is bursting at the seams. It is using prefabs as extra accommodation and needs a capital grant to enable it to extend the existing building. Will a mechanism be put in place through which family resource centres will be able to seek to expand their premises? We are coming out of the lost decade. As the economy continues to improve, it is to be hoped funding for the Minister's Department will be increased in the next budget, as it was in previous budgets. I support the Minister in her endeavours in that regard because we have seen the great value for money she has achieved for the funding allocated to the Department in the previous budget. As overall funding increases, we must play catch-up. Funding for existing family resource centres such as those on the Curragh and in Newbridge must be increased to make up for the cuts they endured during the recession.
The Deputy has made a good suggestion in looking at existing family resource centres. As he is aware, the priority in budget 2018 was to open new family resource centres, as well as trying to give more to existing centres, subject to the initial maximum figure of €10,000. There will be scope for engagement on different ways to make decisions on existing family resource centres according to the criteria I have identified. The Deputy's suggestion and raising of the issue are helpful in the context of their being the kind of things Tusla will consider as we move forward. I specifically highlighted the need for additional capital investment in family resource centres in the context of the development of Project 2040 or the national development plan. I will revert to the Deputy to specify my hopes in that regard for the coming year. I am aware of the need for capital investment in family resource centres.
I thank the Minister for her response. This is the time of year in which to make a case for increased funding in advance of the budget and clearly show what could be done with that funding. The Minister acknowledged the vital role played by family resource centres in their communities by recently opening 11 new centres, two of which are in south Kildare. However, we must also ensure provision will be made for the existing 109 family resource centres, including those on the Curragh and in Newbridge which I specifically mentioned and of which I have an in-depth knowledge. Such centres do fantastic work, as the Minister acknowledged, as does Tusla. We must ensure such centres can make a case for more funding where they see new programmes that would benefit the community or recognise that far more could be done with a little extra funding. It is to be hoped that in future budgets extra resources will be made available for such centres as the economy continues to improve.
As the Deputy may be aware, I spoke recently at the 20th anniversary conference of the family resource centre programme which was held in Dublin Castle. It was an incredible celebration of their great history. Centres are beginning to make representations, including those referred to by the Deputy. I will be delighted to continue to engage with them at a national level, as well as with individual family resource centres.
