Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. In the absence of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, it is appropriate that the Minister of State with responsibility for children is here. Much of his speech dealt with child care. It is very opportune that we are debating the report on early childhood education at this stage. The report is welcome and is very balanced and I congratulate the Chairman and members of the committee who produced it.

However, there is an element of frustration in the report as it identifies clearly the fact that we have had report after report over the years, along with committee reviews and analyses. In 1998, the National Forum for Early Childhood Education delivered a report, as did the Commission on the Family, which was created by the then Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, while there was also a report by the Partnership 2000 expert group on child care. All of those reports highlighted proposals and recommendations in child care, but we have had no action whatever.

In 1994-95, the early start programme was initiated. In 1996, over 1,600 places were created and there has been no expansion since outside the obviously disadvantaged sections of society in Waterford, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Dundalk and a few other places. The Minister of State stated in his speech that the Department of Education and Science is strongly committed to the development of early childhood education. That rings hollow in the minds of so many people because the reality is very different. If there was a commitment, why has there been no commitment to expansion, albeit in targeted regions to those who need it? Those who benefit from the €4 million to €5 million contribution welcome it very much.

Throughout the report, there is a criticism that at a time of plenty in this country, the Government has done nothing. It has frozen action on this aspect of early childhood education and care. Other countries are economically worse off than Ireland, yet they still have far greater commitments to providing child care. Our contribution represents 0.2% of our GDP, whereas most other European countries commit an average of 5% of GDP to child care, while Denmark and France contribute 8% and 7% of GDP. In these countries, 90% of the young population have access to and participate in early preschool education and care.

Why do we have such a poor response? There has been no commitment by successive Ministers of Education and Science in the past two Governments to accelerate a programme from which many young people could benefit. It is often highlighted in the report that people in disadvantaged areas have been targeted, such as members of the Traveller community and people with special needs. This is welcome, but we want a universal scheme where every child between the ages of two and five will have access to and participate in early childhood education and care. That is the difference.

This report is nothing more than a clear indication of Government inactivity. I fear that we have a parallel to that which occurred before the summer recess, when we debated the Bill on special needs and the role played by the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children. One of the strong recommendations of this report is that a single Department takes responsibility for early education and child care. There is no indication in the speech given by the Minister of State that such a change will come about. The Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Health and Children, as well as the Department of Education and Science are all trying to contribute to policy making. There is no co-ordination and no focus on the reality of what is happening on the ground. As there is so much duplication, funds have been wasted which could be used far more appropriately in the delivery of services.

The Minister of State claimed that commitment was not the issue. I differ strongly with him as I believe it is the issue. If a commitment existed, there would be a delivery of a far greater service than that which currently exists. The service is the same today as it was in 1994-95 when the early start programme was initiated and when €4 million to €5 million was spent in 1996. In the US, the UK and northern Europe, a number of cost benefit analyses indicate clearly that the cost of €1 would have a return benefit of €7. If that is the case, I do not know how any Government or Minister can dilly dally any longer. In the heat of the upcoming election, the Minister for Finance recently said in Cavan that early childhood education and care is the important issue to which the Government must respond. However, he said that he would not introduce it in a universal way but in an incremental way, in a period of five to ten years. Nothing has happened in the last ten years so what can we expect in the next ten? The exception is that in this instance we have a report in which a very important cross-section of society has clearly identified what is essential for us to respond to. Many people have the idea that the debate in the current climate is taking place in response to the fact that so many parents, especially women, are at work. While that is a factor, I hope the debate is broadened to a discussion of a response which takes account of the tremendous returns from any input which is made at this early stage. Research has shown that young people aged between two and five years experience the most accelerated period of development of their lifetimes. If we allow those formative years to pass, we will pay the price later as evidenced in societies internationally as well as here where we have experienced a share of crime, drugs, poor health and anti-social behaviour problems which we could well do without. While we must appreciate fully that parents are the primary educators and, as such, have responsibilities, we must acknowledge that many parents are forced into circumstances in which they must go out to work to make ends meet. In the absence of continuing parental education in the home, we must ensure that services provided are of the highest quality and that everyone involved is provided with the appropriate training and facilities.

There is a clear indication that children who transfer to primary school having had access to some element of pre-school education have an advantage over those who do not do so. We were told by the current Minister that one of her priorities in office would be the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio. Action in this area would have meant a significant advantage for children under nine years of age at primary level, but nothing has happened. While we have been told that 600 additional jobs have been created, they have had no impact on the overall reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio. If we lack commitment to the services which already exist, how can we expect additional funding to be provided? While it might be listed — and the Minister of State has quantified the additional funds which will be put in place — Deputy Cowen's remarks make it very doubtful that any increments will be other than very small.

In response to the report, I ask the Minister of State, through Deputy Hanafin, to request at Cabinet that a single Department and Minister take responsibility for the diffuse area of child care and early childhood education. This action is necessary to provide focus and to ensure appropriate levels of funding are provided. I hope the Department of Education and Science will indicate that any new national school will encompass facilities on a single campus to ensure the provision of early childhood education is part of the primary system. While I do not know which Minister the Government would decide should take overall responsibility in the area, what is most important is for the Government to establish the scheme on a universal basis at a time when the funds to do so are available. While the targets for disadvantaged areas and others were welcome, access must be universal for all children.

We must pay tribute to the more than 50 groups which made submissions on the report with a view to improving and enhancing services in this area. We have a growing population and workforce and are told we need more workers. Given the extent of the return indicated in the cost-benefit analysis outlined in the report, I cannot understand why we are delaying implementation any longer.