Sharon Keogan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Feely and Dr. Corbett for coming here this morning to our committee. The role of the civic organisation is to act as a voice of conscience that forces the Government into action. The alliance represents more than 160 organisations. The Children's Health Alliance is before the health committee. Some of the groups come from the disability sector and the inclusion sector and the alliance's voice is important in speaking also for children with disabilities.

Why is the Government's score higher this year than last year when the report shows that children's welfare has worsened and we have more children at risk of poverty and homelessness? We continue to have gaps in home visits and counselling, which have all worsened. The witnesses referred to child placements and the lack of available spaces. Why was there a better score? The alliance has already highlighted where we are failing, so why would it give the Government a good score?

I want to focus on two areas - child poverty and family support and alternative care. In light of the findings of deep income inadequacy, has the alliance considered the administrative and physical implications of introducing a child-specific audit mechanism for targeted payments like the child support payment to ensure that the funds are being directed for the benefit of the child?

Given the report for benchmarking social welfare to the minimum essential standard of living, what is the alliance's position on introducing a tiered payment model that adjusts supports based on the age and development needs of the child, in particular for older children who face higher costs?

Has the alliance explored the implications of integrating the child support payment and the working family payment into a unified means-tested child income support, as proposed in some ESRI models? What governance or data-sharing challenges might arise in implementing such a reform in family support and alternative care?

Beyond a call for increased Tusla funding, what are the witnesses' views on the national framework for evaluating the effectiveness of family support intervention, in particular in terms of measurable child outcomes such as school attendance, health indicators and so forth?

The alliance highlights the need for expanded home visiting programmes. Has it explored how these services could be integrated with existing community-based supports to avoid duplication and ensure cost-effectiveness, in particular in rural and under-resourced areas?

Has the alliance conducted any research on the possibility of oversight to ensure family support payments, in particular those to households with a history of domestic violence, addiction or neglect, are being used to directly benefit the child and not to sustain dysfunctional environments? I welcome hearing the CRA's views on conditionality or direct in-kind supports.

For me, the most shocking statement this morning was that, during the month of April, Tusla received 8,580 referrals. That is absolutely shocking. The more we roll out counselling programmes in primary schools, the more the number will increase. We do not have a system set up to support children who could be in desperate need. I warn the witnesses about that. Residential placements are not the right solution for children. Unfortunately, this is what is happening. The witnesses can go into that. Perhaps they could answer those few points for me.