Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for this opportunity. As other members of the committee have said, this significant and historic scheme is welcome. There are concerns in relation to some aspects of it, however. The Minister said in her opening statement that 10% of people will not be better off and will require transitional arrangements. Who might be in the 10% group? What categories of children might be involved? How long would such a transitional arrangement continue for?

The Minister spoke about the community model. I do not require a response to this point, but I am merely seeking to put it on the record that, as the Chairman suggested, the necessary capacity to support the expansion of the scheme does not exist. It is very important for the Department and the Government to place a significant emphasis on capital investment in the community sector in the interests of expanding capacity. This initiative needs to have a substantial capital element. I suggest that the community and public end of child care provision will be absolutely crucial in this regard.

One of my biggest concerns relates to the cost of delivering child care and sustainability. Like Deputy Neville, I am a member of a board of a family centre. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask questions about the sustainability of community facilities. I raised this issue last summer, before this scheme was announced, in the context of the change in the regulations. I echo Deputy Rabbitte's point that early years education needs to be an essential part of this initiative. We should not confine our focus to job activation. While the provision of 15 hours might be of value, I am concerned that some people who previously enjoyed substantial numbers of hours of child care will miss out on those 15 hours because of the pressure that will be on spaces and because of the first-come, first-served nature of the child care sector.

I have significant concerns about those in the earliest years, those from nought to three. The ratios are obviously significantly lower in this regard. From nought to one, the ratio is 1:3. For one year olds it is 1:5, and for two year olds it is 1:6, whereas it rises to 1:8 from three upwards. I am concerned that, because of the nature of the ECCE scheme and the affordable childcare scheme, ACS, many community facilities and probably facilities across the board will now focus significantly on the older cohort of children. I am concerned about this because it is from the ages of one to three that early intervention is most valuable. The investment in the first few years is of greater value in tackling disadvantage than the investment after three. It is not just about qualifications because this is about the capacity of the community facilities to take on staff. Some of them simply cannot afford to do so. While the subsidy from the ACS might be substantial in many respects, a facility must have adequate staff from the get-go to avail of it. Therefore, I emphasise the need for the provision of funding to ensure such facilities have the ability to take on additional staff now. This is absolutely necessary.

I will not labour points that have already been made. With regard to pay, the reality is that the scheme is budgeted for on the basis of pay of roughly €10.79 per hour. The living wage is €11.50 per hour, however. The budget is on the basis of low pay, therefore. It is worth putting that on the record. It is a fact.

A policy paper we received makes reference to maintenance payments being deductible. I understand from the submission of One Family that this relates only to legally enforceable maintenance payments. That could exclude many people who are very reliant on maintenance payments. They could find themselves in hardship on that basis.

The family income supplement was raised. I still have concerns about that. Parents could decide to work less than the 20 hours to obtain adequate child care provision. In many respects, that goes against the grain of what we are attempting to achieve on the labour market activation side.

The relevant tax year is going to be important in terms of calculation. I have slight concerns about that. It could be 2015 for some families, depending on circumstances. Circumstances could have changed drastically since then. I am not sure the model is necessarily the best or whether there are other possible models. There could be significant changes in people's incomes and their need for a substantial subsidy, for example.

On my final point, I am slightly unsure. Reference is made to the ability of sponsor organisations to ensure people get the full subsidy. We received a submission from Barnardos expressing concern that children in care would get only 15 hours under this scheme whereas they would have had many more hours previously. I seek clarification on that because a reduction in the number of hours for children in care would be a regressive step.