Claire Kerrane presses for Temple Hill inclusion after High Court ruling

Minister, I want to ask you about the landmark High Court ruling that was made in February of this year. It specifically looked at two institutions, Temple Hill and St Joseph's, that are excluded from the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme. The judge at that time had directed you to consider adding these institutions to the scheme, and I would like to seek an update on that direction, please. Thank you. Thanks very much, Deputy. The Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme, as you are aware, provides payments and health benefits to people who spend time in any of the Mother and Baby or County Home institutions. These were institutions that were identified by the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation as having a main function of providing sheltered and supervised anti- and postnatal facilities to single mothers and their children. The institutions covered by the payment scheme are set out in Schedule 1 to the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act, Chapter 2 of the Social History section of the Commission of Investigation details the different types of institutions that existed and whether they could be considered Mother and Baby institutions. Whilst the 23 Act lists all of the Mother and Baby institutions identified by the Commission, Section 49 of the Act further provides that if it were to come to light that an institution in which the state had a regulatory or inspection function fulfilled a similar function with regard to single women and their children, as those included in the payment scheme, the then Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, may insert an additional institution into the schedule. The Government recognises that there are people who suffered stigma, trauma and abuse in other institutions. It should be noted that the payment scheme is just one of a large suite of actions being undertaken to respond to the legacy of these institutions under the Action Plan for Survivors and Former Residents of Mother and Baby and County Home Institutions, and the current programme for government has underlined continued commitment to its ongoing delivery. Of the seven major commitments set out in the Action Plan, six are now delivered and in place, whilst the seventh is actually underway. Key initiatives in the plan include access to birth information, the services of a special advocate and counselling support, all already in place, as well as the ongoing development of a National Centre for Research and Remembrance. The Birth Information and Tracing Act, which commenced in October of 2022, has seen more than 17,700 applications for information completed to date since services opened. The Institutional Burials Act and the establishment in 2023 of an independent office under the Act to lead the intervention at the site of the former mother and baby institution at Choom, you are aware that work is underway there. The appointment in 2024 of a special advocate for survivors, the provision of counselling services and out-of-hours counselling for survivors and the administration of a commemorative grant scheme for survivors who wish to hold events. In relation to the case of Michael Grant, I have raised the case of Michael Grant in this Chamber and in committee many times. He spent the first year of his life in Temple Hill. He was a healthy child and his mother paid rent for him to remain there for the first year of his life before he was fostered. Temple Hill appeared to have been identified as a hospital. I do not know of any hospital in the state where you pay rent to keep a child. I think that is an omission and I think that is the ruling and the finding of the judge that considered both Temple Hill and St Joseph's so carefully. You mentioned yourself as shelter for children. That is exactly what Temple Hill was for Michael Grant. I would ask you if you could give us any information in relation to the direction you have been given. I want to acknowledge that the Department of Children is responsible for overseeing the administration of the mother and baby institution's payment scheme. It must do so in line with the legislative scope and the intent of the Mother and Baby Institution's Payment Scheme Act as enacted by the Oireachtas. I do want to say that there has been considerable consideration of the legal advice that has been rendered. You are correct in terms of the seeking of two institutions to be added to the scheme, but I am obliged to take the advice of the Attorney General. The advice is unequivocal on the need for an appeal of the High Court and recognising that as a necessity. The reason for this is that, because of the grave degree of uncertainty generated by the judgment in terms of the interpretation of the Act and the related scope and parameters of the scheme, in a very detailed and comprehensive judgment the State's position on a number of relevant matters was agreed with, but there was an indication also that there had been an error in law in one issue. I also acknowledge that there is a review coming up. I would hope that you might be able to tell us that, as part of that review—I understand the review is maybe quite niche—if we could have confirmation that that review, towards the end of this year, will look at the institutions. The special advocate who has been put in place to do a job has been very clear in terms of seeking the urgent expansion of this scheme. My genuine fear, having met Michael Grant and his daughter, Rachel, is that he may not live to see such an expansion to institutions like Temple Hill. I think there are other survivors who are in that situation as well, and I think we need to do right by them. I ask you again, Minister, in terms of the upcoming review, will that look at institutions excluded and will it look at exclusions to the scheme as is? Thanks very much, Deputy. I do not at all take away from the individual cases that you reference. I absolutely do not. I do have to say to you in sincerity that I am obliged to accept the legal advice that is presented by the Attorney-General and the legal teams. The legal advice that I have received is quite categoric in that it proposes that the decision as it stands would create a number of significant unintended difficulties. That is the clear-cut legal advice. I do want to say that in terms of the scheme in general, more than 7,000 applications have been received, 6,500 notices of determination have been issued, over €78 million has been paid out and over 2,800 approximately have qualified for health benefits. The scheme is open for five years until March of 2029. I want to acknowledge as well the UK Government's recent announcement in terms of the disregards that they will allow when people who are in the UK are being assessed for social welfare benefits in the UK. I do want to acknowledge as well that we want to see more and more applying for the scheme. So over €1.8 million to date has been spent on advertising. There will be a review, you are correct, before the end of the year. It is very much so meant to be a technical review. We will move on to question number 1 and 2 on the name of Deputy Clare Curran. Minister, I want to ask you if you are aware of the very serious concerns that have been raised by Guardium ad litems for some time now in relation to the new national service. Thank you. Thanks very much, Deputy, and I appreciate you raising the question and I do acknowledge that you have raised it previously as well. The Guardian ad litem service is a nationally organised and managed service established to ensure that children's voices are heard and their best interests are independently presented by an appointed Guardian ad litem in child care proceedings. The target for commencement of part 7 of the Child Care Act 2022 is 23 June, and the Department is continually working towards this launch date. The commencement of the national service marks a significant transformation of the sector. Children and their best interests are at the centre of the Guardian ad litem national service. The need to reform the Guardian ad litem role under the Child Care Act 1991 has been highlighted for many, many years. The lack of defined qualifications, role and status, as well as an absence of appointment procedures for the Guardians, has been widely acknowledged for many years. The new national service will create a national, professional, highly qualified service that better serves children in the courts. I am aware of the issues that have been raised by the Association of Guardians ad litem in Ireland in relation to the new Guardian ad litem national service. I received correspondence from EGALI on 30 January, setting out their concerns. I met with their representatives on 24 February. Specific issues raised by them were referred to the Attorney General's office. Department officials have engaged with key stakeholders, including court services, judiciary, EGALI, EPIC, IFCA, the NGOs, Ombudsman for Children, TUSLA and Care Experienced Young People. As part of the establishment of the national service, the Department hosted two policy consultations in Cork and Dublin to discuss professional standards, complaints and the Code of Conduct. We also hosted a town hall event with stakeholders, including Guardians, in Mesean Plaza in June 2025. The Executive Office has issued further invitations and consultations online from 11 May. These consultations will provide current Guardians with the opportunity to provide feedback on the appointment procedure, training and supervision policy and the practice audit procedures under the new national service. Go raibh maith agat. Thank you, Minister. If anyone wondered about the value of GALs, you only had to look to the Prime Time Investigates programme last night. We saw and heard from GALs who are powerful voices for the children that they look after, speak for and very much support through what can be a very challenging state care system. We also heard from Judge Dermot Sims in particular, who I had in here last month for a briefing, along with GALs, to speak to the very serious concerns they have, and he has, for the national service. On a number of occasions, the GALs have to, for want of a better word, go up against TUSLA in a courtroom to speak for and advocate for a child. I cannot fathom how you can retain the independence of GALs while they go up against TUSLA, both under the one Minister and the one Department, and that is where the question mark over independence is. As you know, there is an issue which I have raised many times in terms of legal representation, and I cannot understand how that cannot be maintained in terms of guaranteed legal representation. Thank you very much, Deputy. I don't for a single second underestimate the importance and the powerful advocacy of the Guardian ad litems. They are hugely important, and this process is to ensure that they have the appropriate supports, that they have the appropriate regulation and that everything is as it should be. Indeed, again, I would just reiterate, for many, many years there have been calls to look at this system to see how we can do better and to ensure that the voice of the child is very much so at the centre. So they are a very powerful resource. I don't take from that in any shape or form. Just in terms of the points that you raised there in terms of legal representation, there has been no question and will be no question in terms of access to legal representation. Advice will be available at all times, and in actual fact the head of legal has recently been appointed. If the Guardians are party to a case, bringing a case or it's a special care application, they will automatically also then have legal representation. In terms of their independence, there are many examples of ageist bodies under one department being entirely independent. So I want to be clear, the purpose here is to ensure that it is a service that does as it sets out to do, the voice of the child being heard. We're doing all that we can to ensure that that will be the case. Minister, when I hosted Gally and Judge Dermot Simmons last month, one case example I have asked for them to share with me they shared at that briefing, and they spoke about two children under the age of 16 who were received into care for the first time and they were placed in an SEA, which we saw much of in last night's programme. This was the first time they were placed into care, there was nothing else available. TUSLA had reported on the SEA over several months and they noted the staff were engaging positively with the children every day, the children were comfortable and settled, the placement was being overseen by an allocated TUSLA SEA supervisor. Now when the GAL went, met with the children directly, met with the parents, the school, TUSLA and the SEI staff, they uncovered the children were not being offered breakfast in the SEI, they were in school early enough to avail of the breakfast club but they weren't actually enrolled in any breakfast club. The positive engagement was an hourly safe and well-being check of the children in their bedrooms, there was no attempt at connection. These were children that were found to be caring for themselves and lastly the supervisor had visited the placement and was recorded as having met the children, met the staff and having completed a risk assessment in one 21-minute visit. So I think now more than ever we need the GALs to have their independence and we need that legal protection retained. Thanks very much. Again Deputy, I do want to reiterate that the entire purpose here is to ensure that the Gardaí Maitlidham service is doing what it should do. I want to recognise they are an incredibly powerful resource, hugely important in terms of presenting the view of a child. This is to strengthen that, this is to ensure that the system works. It is important that the system is regulated, there is absolutely no doubt about that. It is important that the cases that have been made in terms of access to legal support, that that is there and there is no question of that. There is no question of their independence either. We can quote many other bodies that operate within the ages of a department or whatever. I do want to say that in terms of the changes that are being brought in here, there has been extensive consultation right across the board in relation to this. Again we are seeing further consultations, you know, town hall events and meetings.