Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

I thank Deputy Enright and Fine Gael for bringing this motion before the House. The issue has been debated several times in my short time in the House. In October 2007, when the community child care programmes were under threat, we debated a similar issue on the Adjournment and, subsequently, in November, the issue was debated once more.

One of the founding principles of an independent Ireland was that the Republic would cherish all the children of the nation equally. The recent publication of the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse demonstrates the appalling consequences of a failure to adhere to those guiding principles. The State, along with the important duty and responsibility to protect children, also has a responsibility to create an environment where children can flourish and reach their full potential. That is why the Labour Party has consistently argued for a universal preschool system, something Fianna Fáil has only belatedly come around to. Even now it seems Fianna Fáil's late conversion to universal preschool education has more to do with saving money than creating a high quality preschool system for children.

Despite references to Fintan O'Toole from the Minister of State, questions must be asked about how the Government arrived at this position. As my father would say to me, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Fianna Fáil might be locked into a position at present so inevitably it will get it right on occasion. Time moves on, however, and we must move with it.

With only seven months to go before every three year old child is entitled to a free year of preschool education, we still do not know what curriculum they will be following, if any, or if there are enough places or qualified staff to meet the demand. While investment in high quality preschool can pay for itself up to seven times over, research has shown that poor quality preschool education delivers no dividend whatsoever and can even hold children back.

While I welcome the announcement of a year's free preschool provision, the Labour Party will be monitoring its development to see if Fianna Fáil will yet again opt to be penny wise and pound poor when it comes to education. How did we arrive in this situation after child care being such a significant issue for the last 15 years?

There are approximately 25,000 attending University College Cork. If 10% of them are parents, 2,500 of them would have been in receipt of the €1,100 per year supplement. That would have realised a childhood campus to the value of €2.5 million per annum. The return the State, the parents and the children would have got for that money when times were better would go a long away for a very long time. Given our situation, we cannot ignore the changing needs of 21st century families or the importance of education for a child's life chances just because Fianna Fáil has blown the boom. The issue is still on the table; the question is how we address it. We need to act to protect children and develop their potential so this recession does not blight their future long after it has passed, and pass it will. The question we need to ask is where we will be at the other side of it and where education eventually brings us if we take the approach that education is a lifelong journey which begins at the cradle and continues through adolescence and adulthood.

The Government promised to abolish the early child care supplement in April's supplementary 2009 budget. This supplement was introduced in recent years and provided €1,100 per year per child to cover the cost of putting children under the age of five and a half years in crèches and day care. From 1 May this year the monthly supplement fell from €83 to €41.50 and from 1 January next year the supplement will be abolished. It is proposed to be replaced by a universal preschool year system where the State will pay for one year of child care before the child reaches school-going age. Some 292,000 families have been receiving the early child care supplement, providing a fund to 414,000 children.

When the scheme was first introduced it was criticised as a fudge. It would have cost less to introduce a universal child care service, as the Government opted to do in April 2009 and as mentioned in the example I gave of the UCC campus. The money given to parents was likely to cause further inflation in the cost of child care. Thus it did not solve the core issue facing many families, namely the expense of providing child care and ensuring children are in quality preschool education at a sustained and ongoing level.

Before being abolished the €1,100 supplement was estimated to cover a mere 10% of the cost of child care. Parents had to fund the remaining 90%, and this illustrates the complete failure of the supplement to tackle the cost of child care and suggests the supplement was responsible for placing much of the burden for children on parents. Some had even commented that the supplement was a deliberate fudge so the State could not be seen to be choosing between families with two working parents and those with one stay-home parent. The supplement, as first introduced, was not targeted at any particular sector of society and fits very well with the years of the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, and his philosophy that if one has it, one spends it, which was so dominant during the period of waste this Government delivered.

The Labour Party has called for the creation of a universal preschool scheme since 2003. It was part of our 2007 general election manifesto and the Government's decision to implement our policy in light of the economic downturn shows Labour always had the correct idea. Fianna Fáil's conversion to our policy of universal child care shows the key difference between Labour and other political parties. We support genuine public services which are equitable and cost-effective, and which play a role where only the State can. Labour has always shied away from using the State as a mere means to dispense largesse to bribe the electorate. We want decent child care for our children and have consistently argued that in this House.

The Labour Party has always understood that child care is also about the child. For example, investment in high quality preschool pays for itself, as I mentioned, seven times over in reduced spending on education, social welfare and prisons, and in higher income tax receipts. Investment in child care in the early years unlocks potential and the ability of each child to contribute fully to our society over time. It is a short-term investment that provides a long-term delivery.

The rise and fall of the early child care supplement is much like Fianna Fáil and its handling of the economy over the last ten years. It let the boom time roll on and now that the economy is in a dire position, every basic level of public provision is subject to cutbacks. Although the decision to launch an early child care and education scheme, which has been done in the recent budget, is welcomed by the Labour Party, there is no guarantee the scheme will be fully operational by 1 January next year. The Minister's comments in the House this evening add further to that concern.

Significant and unanswered concerns have been raised in this House this evening on the capitation grant of €64.50 to cover three hours of early child care for five days each week. Many preschools in urban areas charge approximately €500 per month, but the capitation grant will cover only €258 of this. This brings me back to the Adjournment debate of October 2007 when I spoke to the Minister about concerns in the community child care sector. That sector is very focused on its position in the new scheme, which is proposed to come in on 1 January. It is critical that this vital and important sector continues to do its vital work and is not sidelined into some sort of ghetto of providing a particular type of child care for the most needy that is not delivered in any integrated fashion and becomes some sort of secondary, second-class child care provision as a result.

There has been no decision on what sort of curriculum children in the proposed scheme will be taught. Will it be a sort of baby-sitting service or will it be preschool in the true meaning of the word where a curriculum, ethos and philosophy governs the type of provision and structure these children are engaged in? We do not even know if there will be enough places or qualified staff to meet that demand if those structures are put in place. In rural areas child care places are often divided on a pro-rata basis. Some parents want their children in care for two or three days a week. Under the Government's proposal, children must avail of the programme for five days per week and there is no provision to reallocate resource as needs dictate. This may act as a barrier to the success of the scheme. This is a central issue in that many people who avail of child care do so because they are in part-time education and do not require child care Monday to Friday but need a provision that is flexible and attuned to their needs. Anything structured on a whole-time basis will prohibit them from participating in it.

As with all forms of education, there is a philosophical question to be asked. Over the last 15 years, particularly during the McCreevy period, the philosophy of education in the preschool sector was to leave it to the private sector. If we ran our primary school systems like that - allocating schools a couple of thousand euro per year per child and telling them to look after the primary education themselves - people would be up in arms. That has been the State's approach to child care during that period. There has been no consultation with many of the stakeholders in the area and the policy decision this evening still smacks of a desire to cut costs rather than any real aim of providing high quality, affordable child care for families.

I hope Fintan O'Toole is correct and this is the beginning of a new type of Ireland where children are not only protected but cherished and allowed to flourish. I hope we are beginning to see a change in direction and that the Government understands that.

See this speech in context