Ms Ciairín de Buis:

On Deputy Robert Troy's question about the reason we are focusing on one element, I do not think anybody here was focusing on any one element. We all spoke about the need to invest in early years education, which includes centre based provision, childminders, paid parental leave and work flexibility. It is a range of aspects rather than any one specific element. Again, the perspective from which Start Strong is coming is what is beneficial to children and what is most in their interests. Our key focus is on the child's early years, from birth to age 6 years, and what is of most benefit during that time. All of Start Strong's recommendations are focused on children and range across the settings in which children are to be found and where they benefit from early care and education.

The aforementioned links with the point made by Deputy Sandra McLellan in that the terminology is crucially important. Within Start Strong we tend to use the phrase "children's early care and education" because our focus is on the early years and early education. The term "child care" is convenient shorthand. In terms of the terminology used, it is what people are familiar with, but what we are talking about is children's early care and education, the foundations of their learning which carry through into their adulthood and throughout their lives.

There were some specific questions about qualifications, departmental roles and so on. I agree that one Department needs to have responsibility in this area. Currently, responsibility is fractured, which leads to a fragmented approach in policy and solutions and a lack of clarity as to who is responsible for which area and so on. It is important that the next Government, regardless of make-up, assign responsibility for early years education to one Department. I also suggest, at the very least, that there is a need to have a Minister of State with responsibility for early years education.

On the specifics of inspections, the Department of Education and Skills recently announced that there would be education focused inspections. While it is welcome that there is finally to be an education focus in inspections, it is, to say the least, unfortunate that it is another layer of inspections. We need to reform and merge the current inspection system to ensure it is focused on children and their early care and education, including bringing it within one home.

On the issue of qualifications and the reliance on community employment schemes and so on, there will shortly be a requirement for minimum qualifications for all of those working in this area. However, they are minimal. We need to look at increasing them and moving towards a graduate-led workforce, which would bring with it many issues in terms of funding, structures and how schemes work.

On children with additional needs, access to services, the low number of children who have the option of splitting across two years, SNAs and so on, as stated, the take-up rate of the preschool year is 95%. Ms Corbett referred to the missing 5% of children. I suspect a significant proportion of them are children with additional needs whose needs are not being met. There is a tendency to look towards the SNA model, but I am not sure that that is what would work for children. There is a greater issue around ensuring those working in the sector can provide the supports needed and that there are additional resources in place across services, whether they are centre based or provided by childminders, in order that they can provide the services needed.

For some children, that may mean the splitting of the free preschool year, while for others it would not. We also must remember that the free preschool year covers a short time and there are additional needs outside that as well. We need to ensure that those resources are put in place and can be accessed. Much of this relates to training and ensuring that services can access the additional supports if and when they are required.

There is the question of what a high-quality service looks like. The greatest proxy in looking at a high-quality service is the qualification of those working with children. That really does not answer the question of what such a service looks like. From a child's perspective, he or she should know the adult with whom he or she is working. The adult would have been there last week, is there this week and will be there next week. These children should not have to build a new relationship with somebody new because of the churn of staff. That is no reflection on staff. If I was paid the minimum wage or just above it and knew I would be laid off in the summer months, I would be looking for something more. We have heard about the women who would be paid more in chippers and other areas. I am aware of one woman who was qualified and left an early years centre to work in a bookmaker's office. What does it say about us as a society that we would pay such a woman more to work in a bookmaker's office than to work with our youngest children? There are issues in this respect. In a quality service, the learning is child-led and play-based. We are not talking about having school a little earlier and this is very much about young children and how they learn. Play is the work of young children.

Senator Colm Burke raised the family leave issue. We look at this from a child's perspective and what is good for children. We have all argued that it is good for children to be at home for the first year. There is a need to examine how we structure that family leave to ensure that all parents, and not just those in employment, can avail of a paid parental leave period. There must be some portion allocated on a "use it or lose it" basis so that both parents will spend time with the child in the first year at home. Fathers, in particular, would be enticed to spend some of that time at home. As my colleague, Ms O'Connor, mentioned, it is also crucial that the existing maternity leave provision stays as it is. There are World Health Organization recommendations in this regard to ensure that a mother can breast-feed for the first six months if they choose to do so. In the early months, mothers are under enough pressure without having to see if they need to split leave with another parent. It is important that all parents, regardless of being employed or self-employed, can have the first year. The process should not just stop with the first year, with parents getting back to the treadmill, and there should be flexible work leave policies in place so that parents are not faced with deciding what they can afford but rather what is good for them and their children. Cost should not be a primary consideration, although it must be a factor. It is a hard enough role to be parents to young children without having the additional stress of deciding what is affordable.