Mr. Darragh O'Connor:

We welcomed core funding. There is agreement as to what the problem is among many people within the sector and there is also broad agreement on what the vision is. It is to have a high quality, affordable, and accessible service. One must then get into the nuts and bolts of it. Core funding certainly looks like it addresses the fundamental barrier to solving the early years problems in the country, which is that if one is going to pump money in, how does one know that it delivers? If one accepts that point, it opens up the path to solving it. Core funding looks like it solves that and we are very optimistic about it. It does this because it is indirectly covering pay. A chunk of money is provided for pay and we go off to do the pay deal; that is happening.

There was also the introduction of the fee freeze. One might ask what good is the fee freeze to parents because these fees are being frozen at very high rates. It has been very well signalled now by a number of Ministers that they are going to ramp up the subsidies in subsequent budgets. It looks like they have a system now where we can put money in and achieve our goals. We will see how it all comes out in the wash but we would be optimistic that a big piece of the jigsaw has been put in place.

There are two other things I would highlight. Part of what Ms Byrne was talking about is around provision. What is the shape of the sector? Where are the providers, how big are they, and how long are they open? Are they open at night and open during the day for shift work and all of those kinds of issues? That is the next phase of the debate which we need to get into. Who pays for this? Services need to increase their fees to be able to get all that money in order to have capital investment but one is then compromising the affordability piece. We would need to have a look at capital investment by the State. There is then the question that if the State is going to pay for buildings who should own them? Should the State own them? This sounds like a fairly familiar story. In areas of very high demand where one cannot get a place for either love or money, one can ask whether the State should be building there or making some kind of capital investment. That is a very interesting discussion and is going to be the next phase of the debate as we go on. That is, of course, all a question of money and whether it is there on the part of the State.

This is all underpinned in a way by the values within the sector. For those who are working on it, including the vast majority of providers, they are there to deliver good quality for their children and not because they are making tonnes of money from it; this is what they want to do and have a passion for. That informs a good chunk of the sector. We know and can look over to England, New Zealand and Australia to see what happens when it becomes commodified and when international investment funds get their claws into the sector. They are there to maximise profit and are able to bring a great deal of political pressure to change the rules and laws to suit themselves also.

We are at a defining moment as to what this is. We talk about the direction, whether core funding is good, and where the buildings are but it is also a question of the values underpinning this and the vision, which may not be talked about. Is it a free-market free-for-all. I do not believe we are going that way but let us refine our approach to see where we are going. Is it publicly funded or is it publicly provided? These are two very different things and we seem to be taking something of the middle path. Wherever we are starting from here, that is probably the direction we need to get to.