Mr. Conor Stitt:

Exactly. Similarly, the Department stated it was running against time and had a difficulty in doing so. Again, to reflect Tusla's comments last week that its lead is to the statistics, those statistics indicate a 500% increase this year in the number of referrals to Tusla of separated children and unaccompanied minors seeking international protection. As mentioned in our submission, without explicit guidance under the childcare Act, the type of arrangement and subsequent aftercare of unaccompanied minors and separated children are conducted without legislative clarity. There are often situations where there is a lacuna in legislation whereby it is unclear as to such children's status, as either care leavers who might receive an allocated aftercare worker, an aftercare plan and respective supports, or as children who are international protection applicants and are possibly being referred from their residential care placement to direct provision, where they receive significantly diminished supports compared with availing of aftercare. That lacuna is a big problem. To have that visibility and guidance in the 1991 Act is critical.

I will mention one provision relating to voluntary care. A new policy on such care is being proposed by the Department whereby, if there is no prospect of reunification, a child should not come under a voluntary care arrangement. It is often the case that we see unaccompanied minors being brought in under such an arrangement. I understand, if there is no prospect of reunification, that other statutory care orders might be sought. That should be welcomed.

On the joint protocol, EPIC published research into the area of children in care and care leavers with disabilities in March of this year. Our study reinforced many of the other findings that civil society in this sector has found. Inclusion Ireland and the Ombudsman for Children's Office have done a number of pieces in this area. We have all reinforced each other's learnings in this space, including that there should be a joint protocol for collaboration between the HSE and the Child and Family Agency. While there have been improvements in that process, significant impediments remain to effective interagency collaboration for children in care. When we look at a duty to collaborate, we have to benchmark it against those who need interagency collaboration to work against and those for whom it is critically needed.

I will reference the Ombudsman for Children's main report in this space, Mind the Gap, which noted three main points. These are that children with disabilities are overlooked in legislation and policies relating to children; children with disabilities are not effectively included in consultations and research on legislation and policies that affect them; and children with disabilities are broadly invisible in data, resulting in an insufficient evidence base to understand the impact of legislation and policies. There are similar findings relating to central planning and organisational disjuncture for children who are seeking access to child and adolescent mental health services, which has been recently recorded by the Mental Health Commission. In addition, through EPIC's advocacy service, we also noted the same critical issues in respect of therapeutic supports, some of which relate to addiction services or therapeutic supports for eating disorders. Critically, organisational disjuncture has also been noted in the youth homelessness strategy as one of the reasons we see critical points of care-leaver homelessness. All these different outcomes indicate why we need the joint protocol and need it to be addressed.

Last week, the Department relayed that the swathe of this new section was so that other agencies could support the Child and Family Agency with information and support it in conducting its role, whereas EPIC sees the role of this section, and what it needs to address, as ensuring the in loco parentisrole of the State towards the child is an all-of-state approach. Whether it is a housing, health or justice need, it has to be fulfilled by the respective State agency. The Child and Family Agency can only achieve so much in relaying that service for a child. That has to distil down to the point where, at the child case conference in any part of the State, a new arrangement for collaboration should leave no ambiguity as to who goes away with responsibility for this critical point of a child's care.