Mary Moran (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House and commend her for her ongoing work in this area. There is a large body of international research. I do not wish to rehash what everyone has said because we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. We all recognise the importance of investing in early childhood care and education and that this makes economic sense in the long run. Child poverty is a growing concern, with the rate currently standing at 19.7%. We know that growing up in such an environment has a long-lasting effect on children and the effects often persist from one generation to the next.

Early care and education can help to reduce child poverty. It will have a beneficial effect on the child's development, allowing them to engage as fully as possible in the education system and to reach their potential so they can enter the workforce and secure a rewarding and well-paid job. Where child care is affordable and accessible, it enables parents to access employment, education and training which will improve the situation of both parents and children.

The recent publication of the Mangan report has given us reasons to focus on some relevant points regarding child poverty. Ireland is the only OECD country with an above average child-cash benefit transfer but an average child poverty rate. On the other hand, Denmark, Iceland, France and Spain spend twice as much on their services, including early care and education, as on income supports. Their child poverty rates are between one third and two thirds of the OECD average. In monetary terms, we appear to be spending much money on our children but are not getting the outcomes we should.

Child care in Ireland remains a significant cost for families. Among OECD countries, we are second only to Switzerland for child care costs. A recent survey by Barnardos, the National Women's Council of Ireland, OPEN and Start Strong showed that these costs are having a serious effect on household budgets and on the ability of parents to take up employment. The provision of the free preschool year for all children has been a great development with 60,000 children availing of the scheme. The Minister is working towards the provision of a second free preschool year for all children, which I welcome. The recently published statistics on child poverty and child care costs emphasise the need for this second year.

My first experience with early intervention was with my 15 year old son when he was three years of age. At the time we were not aware that he had an intellectual disability. We were told then we needed to attend an early intervention parenting course. I reluctantly dragged my husband with me where for eight weeks we were told about OWL, observing, watching and listening to our child. At the time I noticed that all the children on this programme had intellectual disabilities. When I asked my husband did he think our son had one, he said not at all. We thought every parent was brought along to these sessions.

Eventually, when our son was diagnosed and required early intervention for speech therapy, I believed he was going to have a great life ahead. However, when he reached four years of age, we had to take him for a private psychological assessment because the waiting lists were long. We were also told to enrol him at a different service provider for his education because of his abilities. I received a telephone call at work to tell me he did not qualify for any more early intervention because he was attending that service. The problem was the service provider did not have the therapy programmes we needed. For the next 13 years, he did not receive speech or physiotherapy services. Some are lucky that they can afford to pay for private services. I see parents spending every cent of their children's allowance and other care grants to provide private physiotherapy for their children.

On the recommendation of a psychological report last year, we changed our son's school. Once again, he was eligible for various interventions. I thought this was brilliant and that we would get the services we should have got when he was three. Within a month he was assessed for physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Unfortunately, he has spent the last several months in a wheelchair which could have been avoided if he had access to these services at three years of age. As well as this, when he was assessed, we were informed there was a year and a half long waiting list for the services. By then, he will be 17 and over age for child services so he will have to access adult services. Again, he will slip through the net. On top of all this, both therapists, who are excellent, went off on maternity leave at the same time and were not replaced for the whole year. Why is someone denied physiotherapy or speech therapy because the therapist is out on maternity leave? I understand priority cases were dealt with but to every mother her child is a priority. The services should be in place for everyone.

Early intervention sounds wonderful. Through my personal example, I hope I have shown how when it comes down to the nitty-gritty many people can fall through the net. There is much to be done in the area of disability and I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Minister to discuss it further.