James Geoghegan (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)

The access and inclusion model, AIM, has proven to be a successful model of supporting children of every need to be present in a mainstream setting, which is its primary aim. How it works is straightforward. Where either a parent or somebody working in a preschool setting has identified a child with a need, and following consultation with that parent, an application can be made to the Department to increase the ratio of staff that might exist in that preschool setting so that there is an appropriate ratio of staff to ensure that child, with whatever need he or she has, can be supported in that setting. In addition to that, the Department of education has established early intervention classes. Clearly, there are not enough of those early intervention classes but they do exist. They are intended for children who are supported by AIM in the setting of a mainstream school where that is not an appropriate setting for the child. It is clear we need more of those preschool settings as well.

The challenge that was brought to my attention earlier this week by a mother who called me is the age of eligibility for the AIM programme in a mainstream setting. This mother has a young son who has a medical need. The medical practitioners are encouraging her to go back to work and maintaining that the child, with appropriate supports, could function and flourish in a preschool setting. However, the child is below two years and 11 months, which is the age of eligibility for the AIM programme. She is left with very few options. Either she can discuss with her medical practitioners whether her child meets the criteria for the incapacitated child tax credit, which is a significant burden and a difficult form for parents to seek their practitioner to sign for them. Perhaps either through that tax credit, which could support additional care in the home, or alternatively, if that family were in a position to do so, they could hire somebody in the home to provide that support. However, if they did either of those things, they would not get the benefit of the national childcare scheme or the ECCE scheme, so the cost is extremely burdensome.

As matters stand, although the Minister of State might put me right, the mother of this child is left with zero choices because the preschool setting cannot accept him, having told the mother that he cannot be accepted, while the preschool setting does not get any support from the State in terms of additional AIM supports because the child is below the age of eligibility. It seems problematic and discriminatory that the parent of a child with an additional need, simply because he is below the age of eligibility, cannot secure him a place in a mainstream preschool setting. I can perhaps understand why, for bureaucratic reasons, the AIM programme was set up to match the ECCE scheme but from a discriminatory or equality standpoint, it is difficult for me to understand how the State has set up a system whereby a mother or a father would be left in a situation where their child, just because of that need, has no supports to be in any kind of setting to be cared for.

See this speech in context