Ms Tanya Ward:

As the Deputy said, childcare is critical, not only for helping parents access the workplace but also because it is the great equaliser. The large meta-studies tell us they can predict whether a child will progress to further education based on their social and emotional skills at the age of three, particularly in the case of boys. That is not always the case, but the studies tell us we need to get this part right.

The Labour Party supports a public childcare model and the funding model recommendations may push us in that direction. A few issues arise in this regard, one of which is that most countries in Europe have a public childcare model, not a for-profit-led system. In Ireland and the UK, we do have a for-profit-led system because of the gap whereby our governments did not establish a childcare system, as happened in other countries. The data generally tell us those not-for-profit approaches deliver better outcomes for children.

The question is what we should do when it comes to the Irish model and how we can get the best outcome model that other European countries have. Norway is a good example to follow in this area. It had a for-profit-led system and transitioned to a public childcare model. It developed a national scheme and services could opt in or out. Over time, services opted in, but one of the conditions of being part of that system was it was a not-for-profit model. That is something to think about. As I understand it, what the Government is recommending will be an opt-in scheme as well. It will be interesting to see how it is managed. I understand the Government will try to control the market costs through particular measures and not require choosing between for-profit or not-for-profit. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. Perhaps the same outcome can be achieved. It will be important to examine.

There is a need to have a discussion about the for-profit and the not-for-profit models. There is fantastic practice and great outcomes from many different providers, but one issue we sometimes hear about from members relates to the costs it takes to be a provider and run a local centre. The larger entities are able to do it because they are larger and can consolidate their costs, whereas the smaller programmes find it much more difficult. I would imagine that, in a move towards a national programme, we will probably need higher levels of subsidisation for some of the smaller centres to keep them open. I suspect we may need to deal with the issue of for-profit and not-for-profit.

In the area of direct provision, obviously, the country is moving towards a not-for-profit model. There is a long lead-in time and a new programme is coming, but providers are adapting. They are becoming social enterprises and changing their models. There have been other examples in Ireland, therefore, where there has been a move from a for-profit to a not-for-profit model.