Ms Marian Quinn:

In the context of investment, where should we start and what single issue should we prioritise, I wish to begin by stating that I am extremely upset in the context of how matters are given priority. I have worked in early childhood care provision for just over 20 years. Sometimes I signed on but on other occasions I just could not bring myself to do it, so I used to max out my credit card during the summer months. I now work in the public sector - I am a lecturer in early childhood in Cork IT and I am awfully conflicted because I am valued and I am in receipt of a wage about which I have no issue and to which, I believe, people should be entitled. I have no intention of taking away from the work I currently do. However, I would have thought that the work I did for 18 years prior to taking up my position in Cork IT was equally if not more valuable than that in which I am currently involved. However, that work attracted neither recognition nor value. Now I work a particular number of hours each week, I receive holiday pay during the summer months, etc. That is absolutely brilliant and I think I am entitled to it but I think early childhood professionals are equally entitled to such conditions. It is so wrong that people's conditions improve as they move from primary to secondary to third level but that the contribution of those who provide the foundation for all those students with whom I now work is not valued and so on. We must ask questions as to the vision we have for our children and the type of society in which we want them to live.

I do not like the society we are in at the moment. The challenge for the Cabinet, Government backbenchers and the Opposition is that we cannot work within the narrow frame we are in now. I was at the interdepartmental group and they asked what things should be prioritised. I was very cross and stated that I objected to being at a table where it was considered what one would do with the money that is there now with no increase in investment. I thought that was a conversation we cannot be having. When something in society is valued, money is found for it. Now that there is more money in the economy, we can see that money is being found for the public sector. I am not saying that should be taken away, but one might question where the priorities lie.

Qualifications and experience are equal and I would not value one over the other. Each one adds to the next thing and we have to start somewhere. Some people may have fantastic experience having gone for various training courses over time, which must be recognised and valued. We are in a narrow period of transition, moving towards what will be a qualified workforce because those coming into it now will get qualifications before they enter. We need the support because the people in it who have that experience can be retained, valued and supported.

The workforce development plan examined the recognition of prior learning to see what could be done so that people can put together a portfolio of all their experience and all the CPD qualifications they have gained. Work had been done on a model but it got dumped in the background.

As regards regulations and registration we do not know because we have not seen them. We asked for a consultation on the regulations and were told that they were not changing very much from the last ones. We were told that we were consulted on that years ago and did not need to input into it again. In reality, however, that is not true. One would hope the regulations will be significantly different, otherwise why is it taking so long to develop them?

Ms Hart and Ms McCormilla will give more information on the roll-out requirements for Aistear and Síolta. People have to be supported with the required training and resources. Some of it is for existing practitioners who can fully engage with it, but it also relates to the colleges. We have had Aistear since 2006 and Síolta since 2010. If comprehensive training was given to colleges and people delivering those programmes, we would have a whole workforce coming out now who are completely up to date with Aistear and Síolta. It would have a cascade effect instead of trying to put intensive supports in place.

During the strike in Germany, the poor devils were out for four or five weeks and then the unions pulled the rug from under them. Apparently it has now gone to mediation. When it comes to mediation and discussion, that is where we have been for years, yet we have advanced nowhere, so I am not very hopeful in that regard.

I agree that the scheme should be accessible for all and money should follow the children. If a child with disadvantage does not have a community setting, then that child should obviously be able to access it. It is not about who is providing it, it is about the child getting the absolute best. As Ms McCormilla said earlier, it relates to that kind of quality.

The Minister stated that a second ECCE scheme year could not be afforded, but if it was a priority it would be affordable. The fact is, however, that it is not a priority. The Minister also said that the employers choose what to pay, but that is rubbish because they do not. If the Government provides x amount of money to pay all of the expenses, then the Government is limiting what can actually be paid to practitioners.

A previous Minister told us that the Government could not interfere with the regulation of childminders because it is a private arrangement between the family and the childminder. Other than the ECCE scheme, what is happening in a centre base is a private relationship between a family and a provider. They are able to regulate that, however, so they cannot have it both ways. The authorities need to engage on this matter.

I have a lot more to say but I will leave it open to other speakers.