Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It was very interesting. Listening to them I realised, particularly in the case of the providers, how many of them are on the brink. I can feel the joy and passion for the work they are doing, but I can also see the stresses. I have seen that replicated in meeting many different providers. Part of me wonders if it is because the sector is so dominated by females and whether that is a contributory factor to the reality of why we are discussing this issue and the value we put on the sector. That is something we must take on board as policy makers.

I will go straight to the issues because we are all under pressure for time. Regarding the inspections, it would be interesting for committee members to understand the reality of the different types of inspections. There is a real issue here for the State in that there are so many different bodies going to the facilities to inspect. We must look at the costs for the State versus how it actually improves the quality outcome, and everybody in the room agrees that we want the quality outcome. I have a huge issue with the fact that I see advertisements for public health nurses, who have no expertise in an area, at assistant director level. I have no problem with the costs for the inspectors. Let us give them a high cost, but let them go in and inspect settings where one is not being paid for that non-contact time, because if one takes somebody out of the room the ratios are broken.

There are some serious issues for the State to examine in the interdepartmental group the Minister is considering. I appreciate that we have a focus on the providers, because they are giving us the reality, but there is a question for the State as to why we have Tusla, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Department of Education and Skills, Pobal and all these other bodies trying to assert their role in a sector that is already overstretched. We say we want quality, and some providers are making choices, as Ms Donohoe said, about cutting back hours and, therefore, cutting back on quality. Outcomes will then be affected. I am concerned about the capacity for the sector and its sustainability. We must look at that.

The issue of additional needs was brought up. I think it was Ms Reilly who said one of the only things that is happening is that we can do two days a week one year and three days a week next year. As a former employer, I am trying to work out how one employs staff for two days a week this year and three next year, because it is one child, but there are ratios. How is that a sustainable model, where one is only being paid for that time? I cannot compute how that can be done and it is very serious to hear of staff, who are so qualified, earning more money in other sectors, whether in bars or chippers. It shows where we are putting our value as a society.

The other issue I want to raise, regarding staffing, is laying off a very qualified person for 14 weeks. The question I have relates to the number of weeks per year, because we jump at this idea of the second year. Should we be looking first to extend the first year? Is this something that parents want? Is it something that children want? Is it something that is good? There are critical choices to be made. Does the sector have the capacity to do that and how do we grow that and ensure that quality? In anything the State does, we should be contributing to quality rather than overstretching the service.

My final point relates to the investment issue. The great thing about the free preschool year was that we changed the discussion. The discussion was, at last, about the outcomes for the child, and we moved the discussion away from whether the parents are working or not and what they choose to do. We were actually saying that it is good for a child to get early education, in the same way that it is good for a child to go to primary school and to secondary school. That is my difficulty with trying to link it in any other way. On the tax credit issue, the early child care supplement was tried in 2006 and it was withdrawn because prices went up immediately. It did not actually improve outcomes for children. I do not need to go to Australia for research. We saw it here in Ireland. It is clear that the answer is investment.

I welcome the remarks in Barnardos' submission about the first year of a child's life and the need to work on paternity and maternity leave and put emphasis on that. That is something I have also heard from providers. Nobody is asking that we go under the age of one. In our discussions, we need to remember that critical first year of a child's life, and the State must do everything it can to support it.