Ms Marian Quinn:

I will address comments and questions about the cost analysis. The draft document for the ACS refers repeatedly to decisions based on price-capping or whatever else about the cost basis being subject to an independent review. All the figures are estimates and guesses. Some are based on flawed evidence and some are based on more robust evidence. It acknowledges left, right and centre throughout that the decisions that need to be made and the proper investment is all subject to the independent review. It seems fundamentally flawed that the review is going to happen afterwards. It is as if one is saying one will put something in place for now and then get the costing right when one looks at it down the line. The difficulty with that can be seen with what I alluded to in relation to the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme. It was similar in that the figure was not costed in respect of the costs on a nationwide basis and for some people it was sufficient while for others, it made their services unsustainable. It has stayed since. It actually was reduced and then the figure was reviewed again and that reduction was changed. That has been since 2010 and it is now 2017.

The costs of delivering a service have increased over the years. We continue to talk about insurance having gone absolutely crazy. There is professionalisation, the cost of resources, materials, all of the things, as well as regulations that require more and more to be delivered for a higher quality service. Every single bit of that is right if one is looking for quality but it all costs. We have had seven years of having pretty much the same amount of money. One can throw in on top of that an increase in the minimum wage - as there should be - and we should not even be talking about minimum wage when it comes to this profession. We have all those costs across a seven-year basis, which has meant that scheme, which was eventually expanded, has made it more unsustainable for everybody that is in it and has compromised the level of quality that people can, want, and need to deliver. They still have to do it within that pot.

Our concern, and that of many people to whom I have spoken, is that we will introduce this ACS as is, because we will then see what can happen afterwards, where it can go and what level of investment is needed as it is a platform for the future. We are talking about the reality of now, however. We have been looking at that reality in respect of what happened with the ECCE scheme for seven years and with no sign of that changing. It got worse. Where will we be in another seven years? That takes us to 2024, 2025 or whenever for funding that would be available for increasing the model based on an independent review. We cannot wait. We cannot have that expectation or not know where or how things are going to be. At the moment we have people hanging on by their fingernails in terms of being able to stay open and to provide quality services and all that goes with providing those services. They are only holding on because they think that things have to get better. For years they have been saying that things have to get better.

Now we are finding that people are closing because they are going. It is the double-edged sword of professionalising in that people are saying hang on a second, I have this qualification, I will get extra, for example, as a support person in early years child care. People did not get into working in the early years sector because it was going to be a big money spinner or anything. They got into it because they want to deliver a high-quality service for the children and parents. That has been compromised and despite the fact that the ACS document talks about quality often, it also simultaneously makes references to working to minimum ratios and all of those things can impact on quality. If one has 11 children in a service and one provider with those 11 children, one can provide a service. If there is an extra staff member covering, floating, whatever, then an extra quality service can be provided. This is going for the minimum and we are aspiring for quality. That is a concern and that is why the cost analysis coming afterwards would be a big difficulty.

The matter of zero-hour contracts is a reality that we are facing. Page 105 of the ACS document refers to reducing staff members in times of low demand during the day, week and year in order to maintain high occupancy rates, and that is the concern. What happens if children get a bout of chickenpox? I do not know because we do not know the details of how this is going to work. If there is a bout of chickenpox, every provider will say that it will go through the service and it is down a certain number of children. Does that mean a staff member can come in on such a morning and be told to go home because the service will have fewer children and to not get paid because only a certain amount of money is available? It is a concern. Not having to sign on in the summer has the potential to make the job more stable. Again that is double-edged because there is the fact that if people are signing on for the summer, at least they do not have their child care cost, which is substantial. However, if they have a child care cost then maybe what they are earning in the service will not cover the child care cost for them in many cases. How will they manage to keep their family sustainable and out of poverty? There is a real fear about zero-hour contracts. For some places, it will be more a reality than others.

We do not have any information on the review, the cost analysis. We have asked when it will be rolled out. I do not know; other people might know more.

There was a question about why the ECCE scheme was not included from the start. I can understand the logic for not including it from the start given that it was such a tight timeframe to get the other schemes in place. There was so much difficulty rolling out the ECCE scheme, which was massive. I would not say it is completely bedded down; it is just about sorted. At least we have got one thing going right now after all the time. However, it would make sense if rolling out a scheme to have it all in there. That was part of the rush to get it out for September. As has been alluded to, there is a difficulty with that September date in terms of timeframe.

There is a big difficulty with the hourly rates. My colleague, Mick Kenny, has seen it already. He is managing a service in a seriously disadvantaged area. He is already looking at providing a sessional service, a part-time service and a full-day care service. Some parents have booked their high-needs children in for the part-time or full-time service because the children can get a meal. It is a warm environment for them and they are not getting that in their home environment for various reasons. So they are able to provide that level of support. If a parent collects a child early - for example, after 4.5 hours rather than five hours - that brings down his subsidy rate. Pobal is looking for that in its compliance audits. It is pointing out that on those days when the child is picked up early, it only counts as part-time, resulting in a reduced subsidy to the service, which means the food and heat and general support they provide for the children are threatened.

Regarding that hourly rate, how does one fill it? If somebody wants their child in for three hours and nobody wants the lunchtime space for whatever reason and then one wants them afterwards how does one fill it and how is one sustainable in that regard.? It will create a difficulty with the rate.

There are higher costs depending on the geographical areas. That will be a really difficult challenge. We know that the people's cost of living and the costs for buildings are huge. How do we get the balance for that? If a figure in between is picked, some services will do well and other services will effectively close. As was alluded to earlier, it is really disappointing that the reports that are evidence in terms of the costing and this document are those that point to sustainability. This is what it currently costs to deliver per unit and it is unsustainable. Some of the services based on this cost structure will be closing in three months, six months or a year. That is the costing that is put in which would be a real concern for us.