Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 2013

Vol. 790 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

Labour Activation Projects

Deputy Tom Hayes

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter for discussion. The Momentum programme introduced by the Minister for Social Protection in December is an excellent initiative providing 6,500 free education and training places for jobseekers. The focus is on creating jobs and getting jobseekers back to work. There are more than 84,000 people taking part in a range of labour activation projects. The JobBridge scheme has delivered positive results, with over 50% of finishers securing paid employment.

I was delighted that a company based in my constituency secured the contract to deliver a software development programme and cloud computing training programme. Future People, based in Cashel, is an excellent example of a company that is retraining people. However, several of my constituents who are interested in the programme have contacted me raising concerns about the eligibility criteria. I appreciate that the programme is prioritising the long-term unemployed, but there are people who are determined and anxious to get involved in these schemes and get back to work who are excluded. There are young married women at home who probably have mortgages but, because they are not receiving social welfare payments, they are finding times extremely hard. They would like to retrain and get involved in the job market but cannot because of the eligibility criteria that require them to be on jobseeker's allowance. They are one example of the type of person who cannot join these programmes. There are wives and partners who have been working but are not allowed join the programme. People who ran businesses cannot join because the loose ends of their businesses may not have been tidied up. They are under extreme pressure and want to work. They are people who have worked all their lives but unfortunately, due to the recession, they cannot. We are living in extremely difficult times and these people are under huge pressure. I ask that for a short period such people be allowed to join these programmes. They are wonderful programmes and great thought went into them. I compliment the Minister and her Department on coming up with this project and on the thought that people from FÁS and the Department put into bringing it together, but I want to know whether we can do something about the eligibility criteria.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan)

I thank Deputy Tom Hayes for raising this issue. He has made many interesting points about the eligibility of self-employed persons to participate in certain schemes and I will certainly bring his views to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton. I will initially read the script provided by her Department to set the matter in context.

In the programme for Government an undertaking was given to introduce a more focused approach to how the State engages with and supports the unemployed in getting back into the workplace. Pathways to Work, the Government's policy statement on labour market activation, sets out how the Government intends to do this and is a key element of the Government's strategy to get Ireland working again. Pathways to Work has five strands: more regular and ongoing engagement with people who are unemployed, greater targeting of activation places and opportunities, incentivising the take-up of opportunities, incentivising employers to provide more jobs for people who are unemployed, and reforming institutions to deliver better services to people who are unemployed. The implementation of these five strands will ensure that people who are unemployed will be given the opportunity to acquire suitable skills and qualifications. The second strand commits to a greater targeting of activation places and opportunities. Given the limited public resources, it is essential that activation measures are targeted. The long-term unemployed in particular must be a focus for interventions. The Momentum initiative provides free education and training projects for up to 6,500 long-term unemployed people. The programmes will include on-the-job training in the form of work experience modules as well as the development of workplace skills required to obtain and retain employment. The initiative is administered by FÁS and funded by the Department of Education and Skills through the national training fund, NTF, and co-financed by the European Social Fund, ESF.

In line with the commitments made in Pathways to Work, eligibility for the Momentum initiative is targeted towards the long-term unemployed. In particular, applicants must meet the following criteria: they must been unemployed and on the live register for 12 months, 312 days, or longer; they must be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or benefit from the Department of Social Protection or have credited contributions for 12 months or longer; and they must be actively seeking work. A person who was unemployed for 12 of the previous 18 months may be considered eligible for the initiative; therefore, a person who was engaged in temporary self-employment but was otherwise on the live register for 12 months during that 18-month period may qualify. A person who was previously self-employed may apply for a means-tested jobseeker's allowance payment if he or she does not qualify for a jobseeker's benefit payment.

Access to Momentum courses is strictly through referral from the Department. Case officers must determine suitability and agree the most suitable course for a person to progress on the pathway to employment. The Momentum initiative represents only a small percentage of the 450,000 State-funded places provided in 2012 in further education, higher education and training: 75,000 FÁS training places in 2012; 180,000 further education places; 162,000 full-time higher education places through universities and institutes of technology across the country; more than 40,000 training places through Skillnets, including 8,000 for the unemployed in partnership with private employers; and more than 6,000 free part-time higher education places in 2012 under Springboard, with additional places to be announced this year. Eligibility for many of these interventions is not contingent on the receipt of a social welfare payment or on signing for credit contributions. In line with the commitments in Pathways to Work, the long-term unemployed associated with the live register are a particular focus of this initiative.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I thank the Minister for the information he has provided, which is quite helpful. There are many people who, if they were retrained, could set up their own companies. They have a background in working, having been self-employed, but are going through a difficult period. If the rules could be changed a little to allow some of them from each area to join these schemes on a trial basis it would make a great impact. I thank the Minister for saying that he will talk to the Minister for Social Protection about this.

Deputy Michael Noonan

I have a note which might help the Deputy. Self-employed workers are liable for PRSI at the Class S rate of 4%. Class S contributions provide cover for long-term benefits such as the State pension, contributory pension and widow's or widower's pension. In certain cases a self-employed person who had insurable employment in the relevant year, currently 2008, and has paid sufficient class A contributions may qualify for a jobseeker's benefit payment provided all the contributions of the scheme are satisfied. A self-employed person who has paid insufficient class A contributions may instead qualify for jobseeker's allowance. This is a means-tested payment, and in assessing a person's means for the purpose of this allowance, account is taken of all income. The Minister is saying that if one examines the particulars of individual cases one may find the people concerned are entitled to all or some of a benefit or allowance and would as a consequence be eligible for some of the schemes. I understand the Deputy's general point that it is difficult for people who have been self-employed, whose companies have become insolvent and who are now unemployed to access the schemes. I will draw the Minister's attention to the points he makes and ask her to take his views into account if she is reassessing the criteria for eligibility.

Promissory Notes

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I am glad this topic was selected. Reuters Canada broke the story of the promissory note last week, followed by Reuters London and a Bloomberg interview that quoted three different sources from the meeting of the ECB last week, but this is the first time we have had an opportunity to speak about the restructuring of the promissory note and the fallout that occurred as a result of that meeting. In the past 24 hours three prominent economists have spoken on our radio and television stations, telling us it is unlikely that the Government will secure a deal on the promissory note. Although all of us in this House hope their words will be proven incorrect it seems the Minister's proposal is running into difficult waters.

It is almost a year and a half since we heard about the infamous technical paper that was to be agreed between the Government and the ECB on restructuring the promissory note. We were told to be patient, that work was ongoing with the troika, that officials were directly engaging, that the proposal was not an Irish one but had the direct involvement of the ECB. Everything seemed to be going grand. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, spoke on "The Week in Politics". I shared the studio with him that evening when he stated categorically that the promissory note would not be paid this March. After a year and a half of these so-called discussions we heard the first formal proposal was to be put by the Governor of the Central Bank to the ECB governing council. Then we learned that the proposal had either been rejected or was about to be rejected. In fairness, the governor, Professor Honohan, had the wisdom to withdraw it before it was formally rejected.

How did we - or the Government - get it so wrong? How come the mood music with the ECB governing council was wrong? How was it that this preferred option was rejected? How come we made a proposal in the first instance when we were not sure it would succeed at that meeting, given this was not something that happened only last month or last week but has been ongoing for a year and a half? Will the Minister explain to me how we misinterpreted the position of the ECB on this issue?

The Minister will be well aware that the next governing council meeting of the ECB will take place a week from tomorrow. Will the governor, Professor Honohan, have a proposal to put before the council at that meeting? Is the Minister satisfied there is an option to put before the council? He knows well my position and that of my party; it is also the position of many people who do not want to pay taxes to fill the black hole of Anglo Irish Bank. We want to see a write-down of the promissory note, not an extension of duration. Will the Minister explain, in black and white terms, what this will mean to me and my family and to next year's budget? That is how ordinary people judge this. Is it not the case that if we do not pay the promissory note next year some €1.8 billion of adjustments will not be required in order to meet the troika targets? The Minister might explain the target he would like to have, the type of deal. There has been much talk about a deal but one person's good deal could be another's bad deal. Many people will judge this by the effect it will have on the budget; others will judge it in more detail because it will be complex. Perhaps the Minister might explain what the target is in terms of the impact he would like to achieve on next year's budget.

Deputy Michael Noonan

As the Deputy is aware, the Government has been working extremely hard to secure a deal on the Irish bank debt with our European partners. Detailed work will continue in order to maximise the benefit of any deal to the Irish taxpayer. Negotiations are continuing and I advise the Deputy that conclusions on their outcome are premature at this point. I have stated previously that I am working to try to achieve a solution before the next scheduled instalment on the promissory note in March. It would be very difficult for Ireland to make a payment on the promissory notes and so we continue to work on a deal with our European partners to resolve this issue.

The focus of the on-going detailed discussions has progressed to consideration of all options in regard to the promissory notes, such as the source of funding, the duration of the notes, the interest rate applicable etc., as well as potential avenues for the wider bank debt deal and the impact of these options on the IBRC. This work is one of the Government's key priorities and will remain a key focus during the EU Presidency.

As previously advised to the House, the terms sought by the Government are those which will achieve the best possible outcome for the Irish taxpayer. It is not possible to give guidance on the timing or potential outcome of the discussions as to do so could impede our ability to achieve the best possible results but every effort is being made to expedite the ongoing process. I am satisfied that every available and appropriate opportunity to advance Ireland's position with our European partners in regard to legacy bank debt is being availed of and that every effort to maintain the issue of the Irish bank debt at the top of the European agenda is being made. I remain confident that an agreement can be reached.

The numerous references made in Europe to Ireland's special status in regard to discussions on these matters gives comfort, and the Irish Presidency will build on this. The recent comments of the European Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, following his meeting with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, about his support for a positive outcome in our negotiations is to be welcomed. I have always stated that our problems are part of a wider European dilemma and any solution to address the Irish situation must be as part of an overall eurozone and global solution. The shift in European policy in terms of breaking the vicious circle between the banks and the sovereign is to be welcomed and represents a major step forward.

I am glad to say we meet with strong appreciation of our situation and are able to have very constructive dialogue on our approach to this question. While these negotiations are ongoing we will consider all viable solutions which will achieve an improvement in the position of the Irish State with respect to the promissory notes.

As the Governor of the Central Bank stated recently to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, there has been a very intensive process of discussion and negotiation on this matter, which is one of the main thrusts of the Government's policy in Europe. It is not easy to find a generally acceptable solution and an initiative of this type must take into account both the statutory position and the wider policy stance of the ECB. We have been working carefully to build understanding and confidence around a set of proposed transactions designed to deliver for Ireland, and that work is ongoing.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

The Minister did not enlighten us at all because he gave no additional information. I appreciate he will not give us the detail and intricacies of discussions at ECB governing council meetings but can he tell the Parliament whether a proposal, agreed by him, was put forward by Governor Honohan, and if so whether it met with resistance? Is the preferred option off the table and are we looking at Plan B? Is the Government looking at a rehash or a different type of option to present to the next governing council of the European Central Bank? Is the Minister satisfied that an option will be prepared in time to be presented to the next board meeting? I understand there will only be four others before the date in question.

How come, after a year and a half of direct discussions with the ECB, it all went so wrong, with the mood music being completely misinterpreted? What does the Minister believe will be the impact on the budget next year? Will we see €1 billion worth of savings next year? Does the Minister agree with the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte? We might take any of those questions about the payment not being made in March. The Minister said it was difficult but I see a Minister for Finance who is standing, willing and able, to pump €3.1 billion of our taxpayers' money into Anglo Irish Bank if he does not achieve the outcome he has set himself with the ECB. That is the wrong stance, as I have stated from day one. Ireland should take a much tougher stance and declare the country is broke. We should look at all the statistics. I referred today to the 100,000 people who have contacted the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the one in four in mortgage distress, the 15% who are unemployed, the 85,000 or 87,000 who emigrate every year. To pick any one of those figures would give a rationale for the Minister for Finance to stand up and state that not only would it be uncomfortable for this State to pay the promissory note but it is not in a position to make a payment on 31 March 2013.

The ECB must understand that. We do not need the type of pussyfooting that has been taking place between the Government and the ECB. Has the technical paper been completed? Does that paper actually exist? I have asked many questions and I would appreciate it if the Minister could reply to at least one or two of them.

Deputy Michael Noonan

The Deputy asked at least a dozen questions. The underlying position is that Sinn Féin's political strategy is to build a political movement based on the hope that the Government will fail, that the economy will decline into a worse state than it was in when we inherited it and that the people will suddenly turn to Sinn Féin to rescue them from their misery. All of the questions posed by those in Sinn Féin are geared towards positioning themselves so that any deal, good, bad or indifferent - I am of the view that we will obtain a good deal - can be rejected by them. Sinn Féin's alternative position is default. I have informed the Deputy on several occasions that the Government will not default. If he wants to know why that is the case, then he should consider what happened in Argentina just last week and what has previously occurred since it defaulted on two occasions. If he does so, he will discover why default is not an option. While it may be Sinn Féin policy, we will not default.

We are negotiating a deal and there is no reluctance to discuss that deal in the House. Just two weeks ago I dealt with a series of questions on this matter in the House, one of which was tabled by the Deputy. In reply to a question from Deputy Sean Fleming, who was substituting for Deputy Michael McGrath, I stated that I believed a deal was likely. I have never varied my position by saying that the end date is 31 March. I have never given any date but that one. We will have a deal before this year's payment on the promissory note is due. We are negotiating against the date to which I refer. I am of the view that a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at. If that does not prove to be the case, the Deputy can come into the Chamber and take a couple of shots at me. The negotiations are ongoing. The normal course of negotiations is that the easy issues are dealt with early on and the difficult matters are agreed at the end. We have been systematically obtaining agreement on issues and we will continue to do so until a complete deal is arrived at.

The Deputy spoke about eminent economists making predictions. I do not believe such economists have any particular inside knowledge of what is happening. It is a matter of opinion. Many eminent economists have been offering their opinions for the past two years and most of them have been wrong in their predictions. When I refer to eminent economists, I am not referring to those who commented this week or last week. It must be noted that many individual economic predictions made since the Government came to office have been wrong. We hope we can obtain a deal and we will continue to negotiate. We would love if we had the support of all parties in the House in respect of what we are doing, which is in the national interest. However, we know we do not have the support of the Deputy's party.

Local Government Reform

Deputy Michael McNamara

As the Minister, Deputy Hogan, will be aware, in October 2012 his Department published the final report of the local government-local development alignment steering group. The conclusions contained in that report have far-reaching implications for the future of local development across the State. Clare Local Development Company currently employs 182 people on a wide range of programmes and schemes, including the Leader programme, the local community development programme, local training initiatives, a rural social scheme, a community employment scheme, the Tús scheme and a rural recreation project. In the coming months some 100 people will be employed on the Tús scheme. This is one of the highest levels of employment on the scheme across all local authority areas.

The main recommendation made by the alignment steering group relates to the establishment of a socioeconomic committee in each local authority area. In Clare and all other counties, these committees would effectively replace the local development companies. I can appreciate that the socioeconomic committees are being set up to address a perceived democratic deficit in the decision-making process and to give democratic legitimacy to the decisions that are made and to the dispersal of what are very large pots of money. The creation of new quangos will not automatically achieve this aim. It is not at all clear from the recommendations of the steering group who will be responsible for appointing the members of the socioeconomic committees. Neither is it stated whether the membership of the committees will entirely consist of local representatives. If it is solely the latter who will be involved, then difficulties will arise as a result of the fact that at least 51% of the membership of a body which administers Leader funding must come from social groups rather than local government. If the percentage is less than 50%, who will appoint the non-elected representatives?

People are concerned that local development, as it currently exists, will be emasculated and brought under the control of county managers. While that might be advisable and even beneficial in certain areas, it certainly would not be beneficial in every instance. What is proposed will certainly serve to emasculate local government. I look forward to the Minister's views on this matter.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Last week the 50 integrated local development companies held a briefing for Deputies, an exercise which proved very valuable. I was briefed on Wednesday by Mr. Willie Hamilton, chairman, and Ms Marian Vickers, CEO, of the Northside Partnership - of which I was a director for many years - and Ms Jeanne Deegan, CEO, and Ms Pauline McNamee of the Fingal Leader Partnership. It is fair to say that at the briefing in question there was a palpable fear that the entire ethos of local government which has been built up across the country in the past 25 years may well be swept away by the Minister's proposal to transfer core funding away from the local development companies to the new socioeconomic committees.

As the Minister is aware, the Northside Partnership was one of the first 12 partnership companies in the country. It has a remarkable track record of developing innovative programmes such as the Challenger programme in the area of education. The latter has had a profound impact on north-side communities by assisting young people in remaining in education at second level and in proceeding to third level. The Northside Partnership also pioneered the mediation system that is used to engage with unemployed people and encourage them to enter training and return to work. It has achieved astonishing success in this regard.

The Fingal Leader Partnership, which is led by Ms Deegan and Ms McNamee, also has a remarkable track record. The most recent survey shows that in 2011 it supported 630 people in getting into employment and 255 into positions on labour market programmes. In addition, it gave self-employment support to 299 people, assisted 144 people in becoming self-employed and supported 182 people in moving into further education and training.

We have a track record in this regard. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Terence Flanagan, will recall my using the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," at a public meeting on Monday evening last. That adage really applies in this instance. I have been involved in local development all my life and I campaigned on behalf of Leader and in support of allowing partnership organisations to build on what they were already doing in local parishes and communities.

It would be a pity if this were now to be lost in a morass of bureaucratic dead-hand development. This is the challenge for the Minister because this has happened in the past in local government. I urge him to listen to the local government development network and ensure that direct funding continues.

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan)

I thank Deputies McNamara and Broughan for raising this matter as it gives me an opportunity to deal with some of their concerns. I know the Deputies have read the documentation about the alignment of local government and community and this should have allayed some of their fears.

Putting People First: An Action Programme for Effective Local Government sets out a range of reforms that will place local government at the heart of local economic, social and community development. The programme includes proposals for enhancing alignment between local government and local and community development programmes and functions. Greater alignment is primarily about developing a partnership approach between the local government sector and the local development sector in the area of local and community development programming in order to bring about more effective delivery of these services to our communities and citizens.

I established an alignment steering group to study this area. The group's report outlined a number of recommendations for bringing a more coherent approach to local service provision with a more central role for local government in planning, decision-making and oversight of local development programmes. The Deputies will know from some of the problems which have arisen around the country such as Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta and Mayo North East Leader programme that there is a strong requirement for greater oversight, in view of the fact that irregularities have been discovered in these companies. The steering group acknowledged the key strengths of the local development sector, including the local knowledge and expertise in local service planning and delivery developed by the sector.

It also recognised that there are certain limitations to the current local development model. For example, there can be a considerable administrative burden. Some companies spend 15% of the total funding on administration and others spend 30%. There is a potential for duplication and overlap because of the complexity of the local development landscape; the many different funding and reporting arrangements; the demands and hidden costs associated with the requirement on various stakeholders to participate in multiple boards and structures at local level.

Local development companies will be key players in the new structures. They will be a key partner on the socioeconomic committees. They will also continue to implement the programmes on the ground using the bottom-up approach. None of us should expect autonomy. Our citizens want to know where their hard-earned money goes and they want a say in how it is spent.

The alignment process presents us with an opportunity to provide more meaningful impacts for our communities, especially when resources are scarce and likely to be more scarce, particularly in the rural development programme. I am confident that both sectors can work in partnership - in a way that builds trust and respect between them - to deliver efficient, sustainable, joined-up and easy to access services for our communities.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I thank the Minister for his reply. He mentioned a number of local development companies which are in trouble. It is important to point out that County Clare was not among them as it is one of the more successful ones. However, I appreciate that there are companies throughout Ireland and we have to legislate for the entire State and not just one county.

On the other hand, the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors have shown that local development programmes run by local authorities in other member states have performed poorly. The Irish model of local development companies has been favoured by the European Commission. With that in mind I am very glad to hear that the Minister proposes to give the local development companies an important role in implementation and on the boards of the new committees which will be established. There is a fear that these will have just a token representation of perhaps one member on the board. What is needed is a greater range of information on the proposed role of the board and, more important, who will comprise that board. The question is whether it will effectively be in the power of the county managers. The entire thrust of Putting People First is to give powers back to elected representatives and to restore the county manager to a chief executive position rather than being effectively the power behind the throne which is the case very much at the moment with the power of elected representatives very much emasculated. I thank the Minister for the clarifications he has provided.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The Minister referred to a number of companies where irregularities have been discovered. I represent companies and I served with one company in particular for many years. That company had an outstanding pioneering role in local development. The Northside Partnership came from the community. Local development organisations before the Northside Partnership in the 1980s paved the way for the programmes carried on by the Northside Partnership. They are the really successful companies. There is a real fear of the effect of the dead hand of local bureaucracy. In that era I remember some excellent local authority officials but also some officials who acted as a road block to any kind of innovative development and social entrepreneurial development. Social entrepreneurship is a key aspect.

Contracts for funding of the rural Leader social inclusion programme are due to expire at the end of this year. There has been no word about the renewal of contracts and how funding may be handled. I ask the Minister for his views. Does the Minister envisage that all the staff of these companies will be transferred to the local authority to be directly managed by the county manager? As my colleague, Deputy McNamara stated, there is a fear that this spark of initiative in all the really good companies could be extinguished by the Minister's hand.

Deputy Phil Hogan

We can always rely on Deputy Broughan for the easy way out.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I take the hard way; the Minister takes the easy way.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I have no intention of transferring a total of 1,968 staff to local authorities. I have no intention of doing that. I do not think the taxpayer has any intention of doing it either.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I am glad to hear it.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The document on local government which I published some time ago will position local government with the overall responsibility - not the dead hand as referred to by Deputy Broughan. Perhaps he had a bad experience with local authorities. The powers we envisage giving local authorities and the level of accountability we expect of them means we will not see any dead hand flourishing in the local government structure of the future. I want to see the same happening on the community side. Local authorities will have a central role in the oversight and planning of local and community development programming. We will have a democratic input for the first time on decisions on how money is expended in our community. The alignment steering group recommended clearly that the bottom-up approach should be embedded as an integral part of this planning and decision-making. I support that view.

I met the Irish Local Development Network in recent days to discuss the issues in advance of its lobbying session with Oireachtas Members. We agreed eight out of nine items on the agenda so we have made a lot of progress even at that meeting. We have agreed to meet again at the end of February. Unnecessary fears or misunderstanding may be about which are sometimes motivated by others. I want to assure the Deputies that I will be taking a proactive approach to ensure we have a good partnership between local government and the community.

Our approach has the support of the European Commission, contrary to what the Deputy may have been told. The Irish model of a community-led approach is unique. We are the only country in the European Union to have this approach so it is bound to be unique. The European Court of Auditors did not single us out for any special mention, contrary to what Deputy McNamara may have been told. Ours is the only model of the private company approach. Other European countries have a structure in place which is a partnership between local government and the community.

I inform Deputy Broughan that we do not know what money we will have in the next round because the European budget has not been agreed yet. It is hoped this will be disclosed in the next few weeks. We will know then what will be the level of funding. All the indications are that it will be lower. I assure Deputy Broughan that any moneys for this new structure will be ring-fenced for community-led development, whether in rural or urban areas. The community-led approach is alive and well. It will continue to be alive and well but there will be a democratic input into any new programmes from 2014 to 2020.

Child Care Services Provision

Deputy Ciara Conway

I thank the Minister for her attendance. The two key themes in childminding are the recognition of the service provided by the childminder and the regulation required. It is estimated that 50,000 young children in Ireland are cared for every day by childminders.

However, only 1% of paid childminders are currently subjected to inspection. This is a quite stark figure.

Childminding is the number-one choice of parents who wish to return to education, training or work. As the Minister will know, children's services data are often scarce. Unfortunately, they are scarce in respect of this issue. Approximately 19,000 paid non-relative childminders care for young children every day. In the past ten years, the role of the childminder advisory officers who have been employed by various child care committees at both city and county levels throughout the country has been about trying to regulate and engage with the 19,000 paid non-relative childminders. They have been helping them to implement the national childminding guidelines set by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Officers have been providing childminders - who are predominantly women and who have been providing an excellent and flexible service of the kind required - with access to supports and training in regard to health and safety, child protection, fire safety, diet, healthy living and even escape plans, all of which give assurance to parents when they drop their children to a childminder's home.

In the past, childminding constituted a large proportion of what was called the informal economy. After the recommendations of the expert group were implemented in 2000, a tax exemption was put in place for childminders who earn less than €15,000 per year. Bearing in mind the removal of the role in question from the city and county child care committees, childminders are concerned over who will take on the administrative role and oversee the system to allow childminders to continue to provide a vital service for young children. I refer in particular to a constituency such as mine, Waterford, where there is not a proliferation of purpose-built child care facilities. Childminders offer the assurance that parents want. It is beneficial for very young children, some as young as six months, to be cared for as part of a one-on-one arrangement in a home. Often sibling groups are part of the equation. This is reassuring to the parents who are going to work, education or training and good for the development of the child.

There is considerable concern. I had a public meeting with a number of childminders on Monday in Dungarvan, County Waterford. I noted in particular the passion and commitment to service of the group, whose members were all women but for one. They felt they had been on a journey in recent years in terms of professionalising themselves and improving their standards and the kind of care they provide to children. They now feel the rug has been pulled from under them.

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter for debate. I am aware of her interest in it and share her views. I, too, believe childminders have an important role to play in the continuum of child care provision. I have always believed this. Childminding is certainly the form of care of choice among parents, particularly for very young children.

It is fair to pay tribute to childminders throughout the country. Under the Child Care (Pre-School Services) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, childminders taking care of more than three pre-school children from different families in the childminder's home are required to notify their service to the pre-school inspectorate of the HSE, and they are subject to inspection and report by the inspectorate on a regular basis. This regime does not apply where there are fewer than three children. Some believe it should apply and the Deputy hinted at this.

Measures have been put in place to support childminders who are exempt from the regulation to notify voluntarily. This has not been taken up to a large degree, despite the presence of some specialist help for those in the childminding sector. I want to examine this further to determine the reason and what can be done to encourage more childminders to notify the HSE voluntarily so they will receive the kinds of supports availed of by those in the group the Deputy met some nights ago. The majority of childminders have not notified the relevant authorities.

The measures include the introduction of a system for voluntary notification of childminders, and the introduction of a child care services relief that allows a voluntarily notified childminder to mind up to three children without paying tax on the earnings, and to make a PRSI contribution. These measures are formally recognised in national guidelines for childminders published in 2007.

In 2002, the Health Service Executive agreed to fund a number of posts for childminding advisory officers who, in many cases, but not all, work with city and county child care committees. We are lucky to have so many city and county child care committees. Over the past decade in particular, they have done considerable work in supporting the child care sector. My Department is bringing the committees together such that we now have a national approach and perspective. We receive the benefit of the committees' experience and learn precisely what is happening in the sector. We learn policy lessons and inform decision-making on the basis of their experiences.

Despite the advisory and additional supports, including training, a small capital grant scheme and the introduction of a tax relief for childminding in 2006, the increase in the number of voluntarily notified childminders since 2004, from 500 to 1,250, has been relatively small.

In recent years, HSE funding for the childminding advisory officer posts has gradually decreased and is no longer in place in some areas. While any reduction in funding or posts is regrettable, it is important to note that supports for the childminding sector continue to form an integral part of the work of city and county child care committees. I want to and will ensure this continues to be the case. The committees are now well-established and effective bodies at local level.

In 2012, my Department provided €11.3 million in annual funding to city and county child care committees to enable them to carry out their functions. In addition in 2012, my Department provided €220,000 to the committees for childminding development grants. This shows that despite the change in arrangements pertaining to those dealing with childminding in the child care committees, development remains an integral part of the work the committees do. I intend that this continue.

Childminders will continue to have access to support, training and advice at a local level. The support forms a mainstreamed element of the work of the committees. This work includes notifying childminders of training opportunities, providing important networking opportunities and supporting the voluntary notification system. However, noting the Deputy's point that the loss of a CMAO post may lead to local uncertainty among childminders, I have asked my Department to engage with all city and county child care committees to ensure these supports are communicated, known and easily available to local childminders. In addition, the HSE has advised it will continue to provide support to city and county child care committees with respect to support for childminders. Tomorrow, I am to meet all local HSE managers, with whom I will take up this point.

We are working on the first-ever national early-years strategy. I have asked the expert group chaired by Dr. Eilis Hennessy to examine the role of the childminder. I want this strategy to be a dynamic, integrated and innovative blueprint for the future of the early-years childminding sector. Decisions on how best to support and regulate the sector will be addressed in the strategy.

Deputy Ciara Conway

I thank the Minister for her response. I acknowledge her commitment to the area of childminding and child care. We are at a very interesting stage in regard to the early-years sector. The Minister is correct that childminding must be valued and regarded as an integral part of the strategy as we proceed. In the past, people have dismissed childminding out of hand as baby-sitting, but it is a lot more than that. It requires due recognition and regulation, which childminders are seeking.

Scotland has a registration system, not a notification system, for all early years services, including childminders. In Australia it is called home-based day care. It is about language also and the way we regulate that. No childminder in Scotland is exempt. Anybody who looks after one or more children under 16 for reward must register if they do so for more than two hours a day on six or more days of the year. People are required to do that because that is another loophole in that a person must voluntarily notify if they are looking after preschool children but if they are providing after-school care there is no onus on them to register or be Garda vetted. As we move forward on the protection of children that is something that must be examined. In terms of after-school policy, childminders are perfectly set to help us in looking for the places we so badly need. They are flexible and they have the transport often required to bring children to and from school, and they can facilitate looking after sibling groups.

The registration requirements in Scotland include personal references, police checks on the potential childminder and every other adult in the home, inspection of the home to ensure it is safe and suitable, and public liability insurance. There are a number of other initiatives that have worked very well in Scotland for a number of years.

Above all what we want to ensure for children, particularly young children in this critical stage of their development, is they are cared for in an appropriately supportive environment where they will be able to reach their milestones but also where the childminder feels they have the security and safety in terms of Garda vetting and access to the support and training they so badly want and in which they have eagerly engaged in recent years.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

If the group the Deputy met would like to make a submission to me I can ensure their views are submitted to the Early Years Strategy Group also. That would be worthwhile.

Traditionally the State has taken the view that if parents make a private decision to have another person look after their child it should be exempt from over-regulation as long as only three children are being looked after by that person. As the Deputy pointed out, other countries have not taken that approach and it may be that attitudes here are changing given safety concerns and questions the Deputy rightly raises about proper standards and ensuring that children are in a setting where their development is being supported in the best possible way. That is the reason it would be interesting to get the experience from other countries, which the Early Years Strategy Group will do, examine the position here and make some decisions about the best way to support the sector. Registration rather than a heavy inspection regime may be the way forward because it is clear that voluntary registration has not appealed to the vast majority of childminders. As the Deputy is aware, it has been a very informal sector and in terms of moving it on to a more formal sector, we will have to examine how best to do that and its impact. That will form part of the early years strategy because it is what many parents choose and therefore it is where many young children are cared for and it behoves us to examine this issue and make the very best decisions with regard to it.