Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. My colleague, Deputy Robert Troy, who is the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on children, conveys his apologies for being unable to attend. As spokesperson on health, I will do my best to step into the breach.

As a father of three young children, all of whom are in national school, I am well aware of the pressures and strains on many parents. One need only stand at the junction of any busy estate on any weekday morning to see the frantic routine involved in bundling children into cars to get them to school or child care before their parents go on to work. In many cases, families require dual incomes in order to sustain mortgages. The witnesses referred to regulation of all paid non-relative childminders. Is there any room in the future for Mrs. Murphy at the top of the road to mind one's child now and again or even on a full-time basis? When the existing regulations were introduced some years ago, my peers and I found that the first thing to happen was that child care became cripplingly expensive. We all are in favour of high-quality services and early intervention, but for the average family, regulation equals increased costs, either through taxation or front-line charges. Of that there is no doubt. The reality, of course, is that many childminders are still paid in cash and under the counter. That is what happens in the real world. In stripping that out, who is going to pick up the slack? If we amend the Child Care Act as the delegates are recommending, very few of the Mrs. Murphys will be able to comply with the regulations. Who then will look after all those children?

Regarding the reference to funding of 1% of GDP, international comparators from the OECD and so on, what we really need to know is how much any proposed changes will cost families. That is the critical issue. Parents are already burdened with significant financial pressures, as we know from empirical evidence and simply from living in communities.

When we opted for a child-care system, it was reasonable. However, for people living in Dublin, it was extremely expensive and there were those who found it impossible to use. That is my personal point of view and not necessarily that of my party, but universality is all very well if one has access to the profits from oil wells and gold mines. We live in a state which has limited financial capacity. In the context of universality of entitlement, it has been my experience that those at the bottom suffer most. Let us be clear about it - there is a need to devote more resources to those who need them most. If we give a universal entitlement without ensuring the full complement of resources is available, effectively we will give children who already have an advantage an even greater one. On the other side of the coin, those who are already under pressure in realising their full potential will have even less chance of doing so.

The report refers to the investment required in respect of universal entitlement. We will need a number of stepping stones to get to that point. If these stepping stones are not put in place, those who most need our help will suffer. Reference was made to early intervention. Some of the children in question cannot wait another week, not to mention a number of years. We need to intervene at a very early stage, particularly in the case of children who are vulnerable. Our guests should not misunderstand me - that to which they refer is the point we all want to reach. What can we do in the meantime to address the problems of children who are vulnerable and require assistance?

Will the Chairman indicate the amount of time I have left?