Ms Teresa Heeney:

There have been a couple of mentions of AIM, the access and inclusion model. I will assume that not everybody knows about AIM. It is a complex model for the inclusion of children with additional needs in early years settings. It has three elements that are universal and are targeted at all services. Ms Hilliard referred to the LINC training, which is leadership for inclusion. That training course has begun and 900 people are training in that at the moment.

Other elements of the universal aspects of the model include the development of diversity and equality guidelines, and there is training currently under way for that as well.

The elements that require much greater monitoring are the targeted elements. These address the needs of specific children. That includes access to equipment, access to mentors and it also includes access to additional capitation to employ somebody, either to reduce one's ratio or to employ an additional member with a grant. That is all in the mix. We are watching with interest what comes out of that and are talking to members who are engaged in that process. An application for funding needs to be made by an early years operator with a parent, which is a positive shift because it is not diagnosis led. It is a strengths-based approach where an operator and a parent can say, for example, that Johnny is able to do A, B and C but he cannot do D, E and F and will need help for that. Those applications are currently in train. We know from some of our members that they have received the additional, higher capitation, which is good.

To answer Senator Devine's question, the member of staff will become an employee of the service of the operator, which is also a shift. Up until now, the member of staff may have been an employee of a company contracted by the HSE. These will be employees of the service. Our members welcome that because it means that they can be included as a member of the staff team.

The Access and Inclusion Model, AIM, needs to be monitored very closely. It was quite a departure in terms of policy. There has been funding allocated to it, which is good because so many policies are launched without any funding attached to them. This one has funding. It is to be welcomed but we need to wait and see what the outcomes for children will be.

As to whether this scheme will help the community child care services, which is something that causes community services, particularly in disadvantaged areas, a lot of difficulty is the issue of bad debts. Parents have had to pay €70 or €80 per child per week for child care if they have been on one of the previous schemes. Those parents cannot afford that. They do not have the money to pay it. That becomes a bad debt that the service must bear. It is a significant problem, and drives many services into an entirely unsustainable position. This scheme changes that. If the capitation level is sufficient, then one hopes that the State will not become a bad debtor for the service. What happened previously, for example, in the Fatima centre, should not happened. The same parents would be eligible for the scheme but the Government would be paying it and the parent should not. I did not see the presentation the committee member saw, but, as we have read and as we have constructed, that should be one of the consequences and benefits of it.

Before I let Ms Hilliard answer, I will finish on the issue about the early years strategy. We need an early years strategy and we need to have a plan about where this is all going. In response to Deputy Function, the notion that it could all peter out next year depresses me. I would hate to see that happen. Having an early years strategy would support a plan going forward.