Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

For many years I have been of the view that we should provide a universal free preschool service throughout the country. In principle I welcome the announcement made by the Minister of State and I welcome the fact that this scheme is being established. My criticism of the Government is that such a scheme should have been established many years ago at a time when the State was not under financial pressure. It is of major importance that the scheme as implemented is flexible so that it addresses the needs of different families, and it is also crucial, in the context of the service providers, that the scheme is pitched at a level that makes it economically realistic to provide the service and ensures the essential standards that are now prescribed are fully complied with.

One of the great difficulties with the scheme when it was announced, which remains a difficulty to this day, is the provision of information so that both child care providers and parents know exactly how the scheme will work in practice. The Minister of State is correct in stating there is information on his website about the scheme. However, that information has changed from time to time, and the difficulty faced by many providers is that the cost of providing preschool facilities varies substantially depending on location. The Government's preschool plan pays a maximum of €64.50 for 15 hours per week, which is a total of €250 per month for the provision of a free preschool service. However, some providers charge closer to €500 for 15 hours a week, because in certain parts of the country providing the service is a great deal more expensive. Many providers claim that the maximum of €64.50 per week per child will not cover a variety of running costs, which include wages, relief staff, rent, rates, heating, light, insurance, water charges, waste charges, equipment, materials, snacks, food, and accountancy fees - all the usual expenses that arise in the provision of this type of service.

In the context of my constituency of Dublin South, a major expense incurred by all providers is the rates imposed by the council, which are exorbitant and are making it difficult for many providers to ensure they provide a service at a price that parents can truly afford. I doubt they can provide the service based on the expenses they have in the context of the financial parameters being imposed by the Government. This is a major problem. Primary and secondary schools are rates-exempt. If we are serious about providing a high-quality pre-school system that every child can attend at a reasonable cost, we must ask why rates are imposed on such facilities when primary and secondary schools do not pay them. The rates vary; in the constituency of Dublin South, depending on whether one's preschool is located within the South Dublin County Council area or the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council area, one will pay a different amount. This is in fact a tax on the provision of child care.

While the Government is providing financial assistance, it is making it uneconomical, particularly in parts of Dublin, for child care providers to opt in to this public system. Thus, we may end up with some providers only providing preschool care and education in an entirely private capacity at a higher cost in particular locations. Of course I need to be concerned about the situation in Dublin South. However, as the Fine Gael Party spokesperson on children, I believe the scheme must have the flexibility to recognise regional variations, the variation between town and country, and the types of facilities provided. It also needs to take account of the cost of maintaining the important standards that have now been imposed to ensure we have a system of which we can be proud.

I appreciate the Government has finally come forward belatedly with this scheme but I have some concerns about it. Within its context, the scheme allows, where there is provision for the three hours, five days a week, for some additional charges to be made for additional services during extra hours or exceptional teaching and facilities in areas that would not normally be covered by pre-school. This is a matter of concern. In Dublin South, for instance, if there is a pre-school that opts into the scheme and there are parents who can only afford the three hours at this rate, but the pre-school is open for four hours and there are other parents who can afford the extra hour, there will be segregation between children. Children from poorer families will leave earlier than those children whose parents can afford the extra time. It may well be that this creates a real differentiation in the minds of children between them and others.

There is a minimum enrolment provision of eight children for the scheme in any pre-school. While the Minister of State has agreed to look at the issue and the draft guidelines to allow for some flexibility in some cases, the criteria for exceptions appear to be very restrictive and the provider is only allowed to avail of them "subject to complying with all other contractual arrangements". The difficulty is that we do not know what the other contractual arrangements are. I presume in the context of the information pack the Minister of State will send out that they will become apparent.

This debate has been important and I congratulate Deputy Olwyn Enright on tabling the motion. It will stimulate the Minister of State's meetings with organisations tomorrow to tease out some of the glitches with the scheme.

I do not want to be mealy-mouthed about the scheme, I want to be clear. I welcome in principle the fact that the Government has recognised that we have an obligation to provide a universal pre-school education system. I am concerned, however, about the costings. I am also concerned that if the numbers the Minister of State believes will use the scheme are realised, we will not have sufficient facilities to provide the pre-school education people are now being promised. That is another issue the Minister of State must clarify.

I have been following the debate in this House and I notice frequently in debates here that the Green Party is more prominent by its absence than its presence, although Deputy White contributed tonight. This is an important issue for children and Deputy Enright, the Minister of State and I are members of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, which deals with children's rights and the possibility of a constitutional amendment to protect children. That committee has published two interim reports, one on the use of soft information to ensure children are properly protected against sexual predators being given jobs where they are working with or close to children and a statutory vetting process to provide protection for children and another that addressed the issue of statutory rape. I find it remarkable that some members of the Green Party seem to be more interested in light bulbs and green shoots of the plant variety than in children. It is extraordinary - I am not sure the extent to which other members of the committee have noticed this - that the one Green Party member of the committee, Deputy Gogarty, simply does not attend meetings or participate in discussions and did not make any contribution to the publication of the report on soft information or the report dealing with statutory rape.

It is extraordinary that the Green Party has no interest in children's rights and the protection of children. This committee has serious work to do in the next six months and if Deputy Gogarty has no interest in attending, it is time he was removed from the committee and replaced by a Member of this House who has the interest and commitment to contribute to the work of the committee and to ensure we bring forward a constitutional provision that will truly ensure we protect children and their rights in future.

See this speech in context