Ciara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman. I thank all the witnesses for their contributions. I know some of them better than others. I worked in the area prior to my election to the Dáil. I thank the witnesses for preparing their submissions and attending today’s meeting.

I am interested in finding out the reasons for the stubbornly high rate of child poverty. I do not disagree that the situation is more difficult now than was the case previously. There is no question about that. In 2007, there was plenty of work, yet joblessness increased. One must ask why that was the case and examine what was not working. Unfortunately, this issue has been in the shadows in this country for many years and a holistic approach has never been taken to it. That is where the system has always fallen down. I could not agree more with what Mr. Duffin and Senator van Turnhout said about there being too many pilot schemes and not enough mainstreaming.

In my constituency in Waterford, the community of Ballybeg has undergone significant investment in terms of the services provided and the school but that is one of only ten in the entire country in terms of early years intervention. The system was never mainstreamed even though we can see it is producing results. The line in the budget was significant, if not a small start then at least a step in the right direction in terms of an area-based approach to poverty.

I am fully convinced that we must be able to measure outcomes. There is no doubt there is a dysfunction in the HSE system, but the kind of reform that will deliver for children is the type of nerdy, technical reform which we do not always hear about. I refer to the accounting systems, the measurement of the inputs and how one measures outcomes. Outcomes are not rewarded in the systems as currently constructed in the areas of health and children. They are not identified as value for money. The kind of things the organisations do are what we must inject into the Civil Service. I am interested to hear what the groups would like to see done differently in terms of structure and a broad strategic approach that would lead to good, outcome-driven, needs-based services. That is what we all want, in particular when it comes to children.

Prevention rolls off the tongue now but one could ask what it really means. It is not just about targets; it is about universality as well. Mainstreaming something ensures all children benefit and then the children who need a more intensive service will be more readily identified. There will always be a cohort of children and parents who come forward to seek help but it is the ones that do not who often but not always go on to have difficulties in school and they fall out of the system. Some of the longitudinal studies show that for every euro we invest in a child between the ages of zero and five we have a return of €16. That is an incredible return.

Some of the organisations were involved in examining the Scandinavian model of child care. It is interesting to hear about what those countries did during recessionary times. All of the Departments, not just education and children, but jobs, finance and local government, prioritised investment in young children and they reaped the dividends in the kinds of innovation that emerged. Big companies such as Ericsson came to fruition following such different thinking and investment. The change will not be delivered by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs or the Department of Education and Skills. It must be a priority of Government and of every Department.