Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I confirm I am on the grounds of Leinster House. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

I completely support the idea of a five-year plan. Early years providers need to know what is coming. They need a roadmap for how funding is going to be increased and how their services are going to be supported. They need to be able to predict what is able to happen, in the same way any organisation would make a business plan, and we should have clear visibility of that. The programme for Government contains a commitment to create a childcare agency, which was supposed to centralise all these issues and stop the multiple reporting to various entities. I understand a little work was done on it but I would welcome any feedback from the witnesses if they have heard anything further.

I know that I have not, but I would welcome hearing their feedback on that.

On the things that I really wanted to talk about, when core funding came out last year and the budget was announced in 2022 for 2023, Ms Dunne and I found ourselves in a couple of different interviews together. In that, at all times, I was reassured by the Department and the Minister that a sustainability fund would come into place to support services where the core funding came up short. A recent inquiry that was made into the Department showed that only three services have availed of that. It went on to give a rather convoluted explanation which was quite a departure from the original vision for what the sustainability fund was going to do. It said that applicants have to be in a case management process with Pobal, so it does not surprise me that only three services would avail of it. I would appreciate the witnesses' comments on that. It is something we were led to believe was going to be put in place - I fervently believed it would be of support to services - but it is not there or it is not functioning in the way that was envisioned.

I am disappointed that the budget did not put in place a specific red-circled increase for rates of pay. Otherwise, it will make any further negotiations even more contentious than they need to be, instead of reflecting the reality of what educators in early years need to be paid because of their services and the sheer investment for our children.

My second heading is capacity and I have two points to raise on it. The feedback I am receiving is that when it comes to the capital grants, the administrative system is overly burdensome. As a consequence, only a very small number of providers in the sector have availed of it. According to the figure I have, something like 2.5% of them are receiving funding under building blocks 1. I would appreciate feedback and information on that.

One of my own pet annoyances relates to the provision that developers must provide crèche facilities when the development is a large-scale development. It is intended that for every 75 units of housing, there must be at least 20 places for children. In big large-scale developments in Dublin, that should show an increase in capacity that is funded by developers. However, the opportunity to exclude one- and two-bedroom apartments from that is frustrating. In a lot of cases, that provision is never made. Where it is made, it is my understanding that even where services compete for it or tender for the work, it is not necessarily working the way it was envisaged either.

Third, and one thing that we have not really focused on, is that there was supposed to be an overhaul of the inspectorate. One of my frustrations, having worked in the childcare sector, is that on different days, different inspectors would interpret the regulations in different ways. They could walk past a door for ten years in a service, and then suddenly find a problem with it. It was unpredictable what the outcome of an inspection might be. There was also this terribly unfair thing whereby very minor issues were non-compliances that were published. That was very unfair to good services who maybe on the day rectified an observation that was made. I would appreciate the witnesses' views on that as well.

I could go on for hours, but my last point concerns the access and inclusion model, AIM. The feedback I am getting on the AIM is that the funding does not cover the cost of provision. In the context of the increased provision of SNAs in schools, with further funding for 1,200 SNAs, there is a fear now that AIM professionals are going to be more attracted to going into schools because there are better rates of pay and better opportunities for them there. I want to verify or test that feedback with the witnesses to see if that is their experience and get their views on it.

Lastly, I have always had a problem with the idea of funding staff for only 38 weeks of the year. What a nonsense. People have to pay their bills 52 weeks of the year and they are entitled to contracts of indefinite duration after four years. Providers and employers are then legally liable for people, despite the fact that Pobal and the State are not providing the funding for the entirety of the time. I find that annoying. That is my rant over.