Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

At the outset, I very much welcomed this idea because it recognised in a tangible way the value of early education and the role of pre-school in giving children the best chance of a good start in life and enabling them to maximise the benefit of all future educational opportunities. This is particularly true of disadvantaged children but the research underpins the point that all children benefit from early pre-school education. Given the way this scheme was introduced, however, I wonder if the Government is serious about it because it appears so clearly unworkable that it actually seems designed to fail and designed to create a scenario where the Minster could claim he went to the trouble of introducing a scheme and it was the pre-school providers who refused to co-operate, and so the money was lost. I hope the Minister is not so Machiavellian. I hope I am wrong and that he would not contrive to create a scenario where the scheme must fail. However, there are many issues with the scheme, including a dearth of hard information, which has gone on for some months.

I wish to deal with two specific areas, both of which have been raised by my colleague. The first is the decision that the cost of child care on average is €64.50 a week and that this will be the capitation fee per child. This may well be the average cost of child care to parents when one includes child care across the country, including heavily subvented and subsidised community play schools, low rent rural play schools and also urban play schools, such as those in my constituency where rents are mortgages are the highest in the country. If €64.50 is the average cost, then it is reasonable for the Government to pay that on average, which would mean less than €64.50 in the low cost areas and more in the high cost areas. However, to introduce a flat rate irrespective of location and other subsidies being received is the lazy, easy option. When this is coupled with the diktat that no top-up is to be allowed, it becomes an unworkable option which is bound to fail.

Put simply, the vast majority of urban providers cannot provide the service. For four weeks' work, this would yield €250 per child and for ten children would yield €2,500 to provide two salaries, rents, mortgages, materials, equipment, light, telephone, heat, insurance, water and bin charges, accountancy fees and, of course, income tax if there was any profit, which there would probably not be. The "no top-up" rule may initially be popular with the public but if it results in the local play school closing down, with all the family and educational disruption this entails, it will not win any popularity. If it is a principled position and the Government is genuinely opposed to a top-up, then it does not make any sense and is not consistent when one sees that every national school and secondary school in some guise or other charges a top-up fee to parents. Why is there one rule for State providers and a completely different rule for private providers? If this scheme could be introduced as it stands, the State would be the monopoly buyer of this service therefore, by dictating the maximum price, it is abusing its dominant position. If this were to happen or even be attempted in the private sector, it would be deemed illegal.

In the case of State schools where there is a top-up, parents have little or no choice as they must send their child to the local school. At least in the case of pre-schools, there is huge competition because there are pre-schools in many areas and they tend to be smaller. A top-up would ensure there is competition and that parents would not be fleeced. If it is a principled stand that the Government is against the top-up, the rate that must be paid must be the one that makes the scheme viable - that is the bottom line. If the scheme is to be viable, one must pay the rate. If the Government tries to go ahead with the scheme as it is, only a fraction of schools will sign up for it. Community schools which perhaps have a subsidy and perhaps some rural facilities, which are sparse enough as it is, would sign up but none in urban areas would do so, certainly none in my constituency, which means not one parent in Dublin South will avail of the scheme.

A point made several times by Deputy Enright is that there is no prospect of this scheme being introduced in January as planned because the basic infrastructure is not in place. Even at the current rate of fees, only a fraction of the places that will be needed are in place and, at the rate the Government proposes to pay, there will be even fewer places in January than there are today. This brings me back to my original question, namely, is the Government serious about this scheme or is it designed to fail?

See this speech in context