Vol. 1059 No. 1
6. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he will examine opportunities to use the social enterprise model when it comes to the roll-out of additional childcare facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38971/24]
This is to ask the Minister about the possibility of examining opportunities to use the social enterprise model. This is something we had put forward in our childcare plan and which should be looked at as a way to quickly build the capacity that is badly needed in the childcare sector.
As outlined in the national social enterprise policy, Trading for Impact, social enterprises are enterprises whose objective is to achieve a social or environmental impact, rather than maximising profit for its owners or shareholders. That policy response recognises that the early learning and childcare sector includes many social enterprises. Indeed, there are more social enterprises in early learning and childcare than in any other sector.
Clearly, the social enterprise model is already a feature of the sector.
The expert group report on the sector's funding model, Partnership for the Public Good, looked at social enterprises and acknowledged the values-based model underpinning them. Encouraging such values, as well as prioritising the public good dimension of early learning and childcare, underpins the whole approach to the new funding model. I fully agree we should support and encourage such values in the sector. I am well aware that many providers are motivated by a desire to educate, support and work with children rather than by profit and that they reinvest surpluses into their businesses. There are challenges with depending on the social enterprise model, particularly given that such enterprises do not have a distinct legal form. The partnership approach developed under the new funding model, however, is designed to move in this direction and has been very successful. Core funding has supported the public good dimension of the sector by providing additional funding to support quality and sustainability in exchange for improved transparency and a commitment to the fee management system.
In addition, I have taken steps to preserve and expand the community sector, whose approach aligns with that of social enterprise. For example, under the building blocks extension scheme, capital funding will be made available to deliver thousands of additional early learning and childcare places. It will offer funding for large-scale projects to enable existing community services to build new capacity into their current premises by means of physical extension. It will also allow community services to apply to purchase or construct new premises.
I had engaged with Social Enterprise Ireland ahead of Sinn Féin's policy and it had spoken about a pilot of €20,000 that would allow it to do a feasibility study which would identify community centres and community enterprise centres across Ireland. For €20,000, it is not a lot. I think doing that job of work of identifying spaces where childcare could be incorporated would be really worthwhile because when they are in a shared space, it keeps costs down, rent is shared and electricity is shared. It makes a difference, particularly in rural communities where it has not been viable for a private provider to step in. We could look at the social enterprise model in filling those gaps that exist. You are using buildings that are there and that are underused, bringing them back into life and then providing a service in a community where that service otherwise might not exist. Spraoi agus Spórt, Carndonagh, is a really good example of this. It is an award-winning social enterprise model. If the Minister is not aware of it, I ask him to look at it in the context of childcare.
There is and, I think, will always remain a key place for the community model in the delivery of early-years services, and the social enterprise model is part of that. We have spent much of the morning discussing the issue of capacity. As to where there are shortages of capacity, I come to the following view now, at the end of four years in this role. We recognise that sometimes a private provider does not see the attractiveness of an area for a particular reason. Should we be relying on a social enterprise model, even with additional State supports, to step in, or is the best way to guarantee capacity, particularly in those areas of undersupply, for the State to step in directly? Personally, I am coming to the latter view, that we have done as much as we can with the existing model and brought a lot of improvements but it still has real challenges. That more active role for the State as the focus of the next government, whatever government it is, is probably the best way forward.
I ask the Minister to consider looking at that proposal from Social Enterprise Ireland. It is €20,000. It will do the job of work of identifying those buildings where there is existing capacity and where childcare could be brought into those buildings. In some cases they are not used at all. I think that would be a worthwhile job of work and would be a way in which we could build capacity quickly within the sector. The social enterprise model has been proven to work already. For a small amount of money, I think it would be very worthwhile to do that mapping exercise as to where we could get increased capacity quickly, having a look at that and perhaps the Minister engaging with Social Enterprise Ireland himself.
On the point Deputy Kerrane makes, in his public utterances I perceive that the Minister is very cautious about saying anything overt about the need for a public, State-funded model. We all acknowledge the incremental progress that has been made as regards the supports provided by the State. Where is the Minister's thinking, based on the Taoiseach's comments, around the idea that we align early-years and preschool provision with primary and post-primary education, whereby the State intervenes to pay staff within the system; the providers remain as they are or retain their autonomy, so to speak, but the sector is funded by the State; terms and conditions of employment are robust; there is not this constant attrition of workers within the model as it stands; and the model is formalised in a way that ensures that it becomes robust and part of the education system into the future?
In response to Deputy Kerrane, I am absolutely happy to look at that proposal. She might make sure it gets to me herself. I cannot commit here and now to making the payment but I will definitely look at it.
In response to Deputy Sherlock, I do not think I have been very cautious. I have set out, from my party's point of view, a view of a step towards legislating for ECCE as a legal right and delivering that through State, public provision. I think I have been clear on that. I-----
I do not want to cause a row, and I accept that the Minister sets out his party's view, but, with all due respect to him, he is here as the Minister, so what is the Minister's view? With all due respect to him, it is not a matter for me what the Minister's position is as leader of a party. I am asking the question to the Minister of the day about a publicly funded model.
I thank the Deputy for informing me of my role; I appreciate his advice.
Can the Minister not separate the two roles?
The Deputy has taken Deputy Kerrane's time now. I will reply to his question.
I thank the Minister.
I would argue that there is already strong alignment in respect of the curriculum, the aistear and síolta curriculums, which flows through the ECCE process and into junior infants and senior infants. There is already strong integration in respect of the curriculum approach. I think where we agree is on the level of State intervention, which is complete in respect of junior infants but incomplete in respect of the ECCE process. I think we will all have the opportunity to talk more about that in the weeks ahead.
8. Deputy Alan Farrell asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth for an update on his Department's efforts to further reduce the cost of childcare in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39013/24]
Timing is everything. I would like to ask a question about the Minister's vision for budget 2025 and the further investments he proposes to reduce the cost of childcare for parents up and down the country but also in addition to the question that has been legitimately asked, and that is about public childcare funding. I am delighted to hear the Labour Party reiterate its position on that. It is one the Minister has reiterated and one I have stated over many years, including as a former Chair of the committee on children.
We were able to announce a 25% increase in funding for early years in my Department yesterday, a very significant increase in funding. What that will do in 2025 I draw into three distinct areas.
As the Deputy knows, in 2024, we were able to achieve a second very significant cut in fees for parents through the national childcare scheme and, because of that, more parents are signing up to the NCS and more children are getting the benefit of that cut in fees. The primary goal in 2025 is to ensure there is funding for more children to take up the NCS. That will grow to 214,000 children using the NCS next year. When I started, 44,000 were using the NCS, so there has been massive growth over the last four years.
The second key area of investment that we set out yesterday is in core funding. There will be an increased allocation for providers in order that we can maintain the fee freeze, have more for administration and meet the much lower costs of inflation next year. We also have a separate dedicated allocation that will be paid out on foot of a new pay agreement between providers and staff that I hope will be negotiated next year. There is €15 million allocated for 2025; it will be €45 million over the full core year. That will allow for a pay increase, but the allocation will not be paid out until that pay increase is negotiated.
The final key element in terms of the uplift for next year relates to equal start, the DEIS model that I introduced last year. I think everyone really welcomed that and the additional supports for about 700 services that kicked in on 1 September.
About 32,000 children around the country are in equal start services. From next September, as well as getting lower staff ratios, we will be providing support for meals for those services. We are growing targeted supports to 32,000 children, most of them from our most disadvantaged areas.
I am delighted to see the level of funding being allocated by the Department. I commend the Minister, his officials and the Government on the level of attention paid to this crucial area. The national childcare scheme has been a game changer for hundreds of thousands of people, which is tremendous, but there are some constraints, particularly in large urban settings where childcare places are difficult to come by.
There is also the cost. I know the Minister spends much time, as I do in a neighbouring constituency, dealing with families who effectively make a second mortgage payment for their childcare needs. I commend the funding coming in to reduce that cost by over €1,000 in the calendar year, which is fantastic news, but we have to have a conversation.
Points have been made on vacant childcare facilities and those that have never been built in housing estates, including in the Minister's constituency and mine - indeed, in my own housing estate in Malahide. We also need to ensure the national childcare scheme is working as best it can to keep providers within it and grow the number of providers coming into it. That is crucial.
Living in primarily urban constituencies, the Deputy and I have to recognise capacity challenges are everywhere. Deputies Kerrane and Sherlock have highlighted them. All over the country there are capacity challenges. Part of it is that, because we have made it more affordable, more parents are taking it up with both parents going to work and they want their kids to enjoy the benefit of early learning and care. These are all positives.
I have set out the steps we will be taking this year and next, particularly in relation to capital funding. Hopefully, that will allow some of those vacant units to be taken up. That would be really important. It is massively frustrating to see those units vacant when they are built; sometimes there are just foundations there. The Department is doing important work with the Department of housing to look at the regulations and, particularly, enforcement. About 18 months ago, I met planners from about 15 local authorities - the main urban ones, including Fingal - to ask what are the challenges with the current regulations and how we make them better.
The Minister's colleague in Dublin West, Senator Currie, has brought this up and brought it to the Minister's attention before. I am delighted to hear the Minister has been so proactive as to get together with local authorities across the State. It is crucial.
On the publicly funded model of early years education, I wonder whether the capital scheme would involve the Department constructing such facilities on contract and then leasing them to providers, thereby reducing the cost base for providers and ensuring costs are not so high initially for parents. Is that a consideration in the future model we would all like to work on with the Minister in the coming months and years?
We all realise there are many good things in the budget for parents. There is the reduction in fees through the national childcare scheme and other benefits for new parents, but my biggest issue concerns places for children. We in Carlow have children trying to get into a crèche or childcare facility and they are waiting over a year. While I welcome the funding and how hard the Minister has worked, children getting places is the biggest issue I face and it affects families and parents.
An example was given to me a few months ago and I spoke to the Minister about it. The Carlow core funding threshold band is €189.13. If you live in Dún Laoghaire, your core funding is €316.82. At the end of the day - Carlow, Dublin, Kilkenny, Waterford, wherever - there need to be changes within the core funding system. Everybody operating a crèche pays ESB, staff and other outgoings.
I see there is a new allocation of SNAs to schools in the budget. That is welcome but much of the childcare sector will go there. The biggest issue is they are finding recruitment really hard in the sector. We need to pay the proper wages.
The Deputy is right that we need to pay proper wages and that is why I announced that allocation yesterday for pay. That will only flow to providers if there is an agreement to increase pay. We need to go further; I do not think that is the end of the pay discussion by any means.
Deputy Murnane O'Connor's point on the need for a place is similar to what Deputy Farrell spoke about and what we have spent most of the morning talking about. Next year, there is €25 million for capital funding. That can be drawn down by private providers or community providers.
A question that will ultimately be for the next government is where capital is available. Is it available for the community sector or private sector? If we decide to take an approach involving direct public provision, is that where the capital goes? Nothing is unlimited. That will be a strategic decision the next government takes. In my non-ministerial role, it is something I am considering at the moment; I am sure other parties are discussing it as well.
9. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth his plans to increase funding for family resource centres; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39082/24]
Does the Minister agree with me that family resource centres provide an important set of services in areas and communities that need those services? What are his plans to further increase funding to family resource centres across the country as a result of the budget yesterday, in particular?
I am a strong supporter of the work of family resource centres. In recent weeks, I have visited the centre in my own community in Mountview, as well as centres in Waterford, Kilkenny, Limerick and Clare, and have seen the amazing work they do.
I am pleased to say that in the budget announced yesterday I secured an additional €800,000 for the family resource centre programme. That will allow five new family resource centres to be opened around the country next year. That allocation is in addition to the funding equalisation programme I operated in April; through that I raised the core funding for all family resource centres to €160,000. Some were below €100,000 but all family resource centres now get, at minimum, €160,000. Their desire is for a minimum of €240,000 and I want to work to that but I explained to the sector at the time I was undertaking a step-by-step process. I want to grow the network and ensure the existing network is sustainable. We took a good step towards sustainability in April. We worked on that in the Department outside of the budget and we brought that forward.
We saw a pay award in October of last year under the WRC for section 39 and 56 organisations, of which family resource centres are part. There is a pay negotiation ongoing involving those same organisations. If there is agreement on that, staff in family resource centres will benefit.
It is a dual role. We want to grow the number of family resource centres around the country and increase the sustainability of all of them. Through the budget yesterday and the funding equalisation announcement earlier in the year, I have taken a substantial step towards achieving both.
I recognise the Minister's commitment but, as he said himself, the family resource centres were looking for €8 million nationally, or €240,000 each, in core funding. Certainly, any help is a help. Will the Minister outline the process involved in deciding where the new family resource centres will be situated? Who will make that decision? Do communities apply in some shape or form? In Youghal, County Cork, in my constituency, they have been crying out for one for an awful long time.
The Deputy has flagged the needs of Youghal with me on a number of occasions. Our Department, working with Tusla, will set out an application process based on metrics. It will look at the need in a particular area, the demographics that are served and detailed CSO-type information.
From my constituency and other areas, I know the significant benefits family resource centres can bring to a particular area and the additional support they bring to children and families in terms of early years and therapy services. Last year, we funded the roll-out of a therapist lead in eight pilot sites all over the country and this is delivering real benefits. This is another form of additional support we would like to roll out further. There will be an application process that will be very much metrics-based and I have no doubt that organisations around the country will come together and make applications on behalf of their community.
How soon will this application be available so communities will be able to apply? Who will be entitled to make an application? Where will it come from? Will it be local authorities or local community groups? Who will be qualified to apply for inclusion in the new programme to expand the network?
If a family resource centre is in trouble financially during the year and has to cut back on services, is there a mechanism whereby it can get extra funding from the Department or Tusla to keep going? Is there any mechanism to draw down emergency funding or is this something the Minister would consider?
On the latter point, what I always say is that if a family resource centre is in difficulty, the staff should talk to their local Tusla point of contact. Tusla sees the family resource centres as very much the front line of its public engagement and we want to support them. There is no specific hardship fund but Tusla will usually work to find a solution for family resource centre, if necessary.
I will urge my Department to work with Tusla to make provision for the application process as quickly as possible. We have not had a new round of family resource centres since 2018 so I was really pleased to announce that yesterday and to push that forward. We will make information about how an application can be evidenced and who can bring forward that information as quickly as possible and I will make sure the Deputy is informed once we have that information.
10. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if, rather than moving the Ukrainian families from a location (details supplied), he will engage with the owners who would like to continue to accommodate these families and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39174/24]
I contacted the Minister some time ago about this case. On 7 October, 29 residents, including ten children, six family groups and two additional married couples, all of whom are Ukrainians fleeing the war and are living in a former commercial building in the Blackrock-Stillorgan area, will have to leave. They have been there since Christmas 2022. The children are at school, many, if not most, of the adults are working and they are integrated into the community. The community wants them to stay and the person who owns the property wants them to stay, yet it seems the Department is insisting they leave. Can we not do something about this? It makes no sense to evict these people when they are integrated into the community.
I thank the Deputy for his engagement with me on this issue. Other Deputies and Ministers in the constituency have been on to me as well. My Department made a decision to end its contract for accommodation of Ukrainians in this particular property in accordance with contractual terms. My officials have been in direct contact with this provider and have advised that the provider is free to continue providing accommodation to the Ukrainians living there on a private basis if it wishes to do so. The Ukrainians living there can avail of existing State supports such as rent supplement to do that.
Usually when Ukrainians leave State-provided accommodation, their entitlement to State-provided accommodation ends. In this situation, looking to facilitate the families in question, we have said that we will allow them to try to make those private arrangements with the provider. If that does not work out, they have an entitlement to come back into the State system and we will look to provide them with accommodation elsewhere.
We are trying to do our best to be fair. We have obligations in ensuring the contracts we have signed are fully set down. There was a concern about the contract here and it is on that basis that the Department is ending the contract but we are also looking to facilitate the Ukrainians living in this location, which is why we have put in place the particular measures I set out.
There is a deadline looming and what we are doing about it is not clear to the community people supporting the residents and the residents because it is next Monday. It is very instructive to look at who these residents are in terms of the employment in which they are engaged. One is a pharmacist assistant, one is a lab worker in UCD, one is a construction worker, one is a carpenter, one is a carer for elderly people, one is a school caretaker and cleaner, one is a kitchen porter, one is a cashier and shop assistant, one is a cleaner with a contract cleaning company, one is a kitchen worker, one is a truck driver, another is a shop assistant and one is a florist. These are people who are working, helping our communities and filling gaps where there are desperate shortages of workers. Their children are in school, they play for local sports clubs and they do not know what is happening next week. The owner of the property does not understand it. The place has fire certification. They are not taking from the private rental market because it is a former commercial building so it will not be used for anything else to help people with the housing crisis. They need help to stay where they want to stay, the community wants them to stay and the owner of the property wants them to stay and where they are contributing to the local community. Can the Minister give them some certainty that they will not have to get out next week?
I advise each of those families to contact the Ukrainian unit in my Department and indicate that they wish to stay in this location and will look to have a private arrangement with the provider and we will note that. Nobody will be forcibly moved if that is the approach they wish to take. If they wish to take up the offer of alternative accommodation with my Department, they can still do that as well. We will note specifically that if the private arrangement falls through for any reason, they will be able to rejoin the State-provided accommodation system so it is a good compromise.
That sounds positive and I will relay back what the Minister is saying but why bring problems upon or put extra pressure on himself or discommode these people and the local community when it is not necessary? Hopefully, that solution will work. I know that in terms of contacting the Department of Social Protection about rent supplement, that has not been fully processed. Perhaps the Minister could do something about that. I am not sure what the compliance issues were. The owner of the property said that it was more than willing to engage and neither the owner or I is really sure what the compliance issues were because it has fire certification. There are unanswered questions. I take the positives from what the Minister said and will tell the residents to contact the unit referred to by the Minister. Can I take it from this that there is no looming deadline on 7 October and if we can work something out, they will be able to stay where they are?
We are not looking to impose a looming deadline if these families are looking to make a private arrangement in this location. I hope I have addressed this location but we can step back. We contracted a significant volume of accommodation around the country to meet the emergency needs of Ukrainians. Approximately 67,000 Ukrainians lived in State-owned accommodation at one stage. This has decreased very significantly. We are going to have to consolidate that range of accommodation where there are contractual issues but we are also going to have to consolidate it in terms of scale because we have empty beds and I do not think anybody would agree that the State should be paying for empty beds. That consolidation will require moves and some of them will be hard. This is something I will have to recognise in terms of the €2 billion put aside for refugee accommodation next year. This is absolutely right but I do not think anyone here will agree that we would should pay for empty beds in hotels or anything like that, nor should we withhold beds from the tourism sector. I am trying to get the balance right between-----
This is not for tourism.
Absolutely. I am trying to get the balance right between the lived experience referred to by the Deputy-----
Time is up. Other Members are present to take their questions.
11. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the status of the State-owned reception and integration centres due to accommodate up to 13,000 international protection applicants; when the centres will be operational, the steps he is taking to ensure that all persons seeking international protection have their basic needs met and are offered accommodation on arrival and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39110/24]
My question is very specific. I am asking for an update on the status of the State-owned reception and integration centres due to accommodate people coming to our country. I ask this question a quarter of a century after direct provision was introduced as a temporary measure. A quarter of a century later, we have had a White Paper and the Day report but we still have no State-owned reception centres. Could the Minister give me an update?
Over the past six months, my Department has been focused on progressing the new accommodation strategy I announced in March 2024 with the prioritisation of particular elements of its multistrand approach.
Extensive engagement has taken place to identify and negotiate the use of State-owned sites, initially for emergency and tented accommodation and then for longer term solutions.
To date, five sites have been licensed with the Department, including Crooksling, River Lodge in Wicklow, Heatherside, Thornton Hall and Lissywoolen in Athlone. Tented accommodation has been stood up on the Crooksling and River lodge site. Thornton Hall will see the same in the coming weeks and Athlone subsequently. We have also gotten the use of former Ukrainian accommodation in Ballyogan, south Dublin.
The delivery of prefabricated and modular units on State land has been prioritised by my Department as a vehicle that can quickly deliver accommodation to national standards. The first project under this programme is the delivery of 40 modular units to replace tents on the site of Columb Barracks in Mullingar. It is currently envisaged that the potential handover of this site will begin in mid-October and will be completed by December. Building on this work, a procurement process to form a framework for the delivery of modular prefabricated units on State land has been launched. We have also set out an expression of interest for people who want to sell the State large sites that can also be used for the accommodation of international protection applicants.
It is a question of meeting an emergency response through tented accommodation on State-owned lands and following that up with a conversion of tented accommodation to prefabricated units, as a much more sustainable solution. We will also use additional capital funding my Department has received from the Department of public expenditure under the review of the NDP to purchase sites that have been offered on the private market. There are larger institutional buildings that can be refurbished and used for international protection accommodation as well.
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I realise and openly acknowledge that the Minister inherited this issue. However, we have known for a very long time that direct provision does not work. It isolates people, creates a stigma and is inhuman. The High Court recently ruled in August of this year that the State had utterly failed in its duty to provide for basic needs, including accommodation for international protection applicants and so on. There is any number of reports and judgements telling us that this system is just wrong.
I welcome the progress but could the Minister put the figures into context for me? What are the numbers in direct provision as we speak? How many are in the system that have not gotten their full status and have nowhere to go? How many are children? When will the reception centres be rolled out? Is there a point in time, given that we have had the White Paper, the Day paper, the McMahon report and so on? I do not need to go into the history. I welcome what he is telling me but could the Minister put this progress into context?
There is one other piece of context worth noting and that is the war in Ukraine. Since February 2022, in addition to the work we had been doing to deal with the needs of international protection applicants, my Department has had to deal with the needs of up to 100,000 Ukrainians and a very significant increase in the number of international applications. This is just for context which I know the Deputy will understand.
At present, there are 32,000 people in the international protection system, of which I believe 5,300 have status. We have had real success in supporting people with status to move out of international protection accommodation in recent years. Approximately 700 people made that move in 2022 and a total of 2,100 made the move in 2023. To date, more than 4,000 people with status have moved out of the system this year. We have done this through targeted supports, such as working with the Peter McVerry Trust and other housing NGOs to make sure people with status and the same right to housing supports as you and I, are able to avail of them and are able to move and live independently within the community.
Can the Minister provide context on what State-owned facilities we will have, when we will have them and what are the numbers we are talking about? Unfortunately, the Minister referred to the Peter McVerry Trust, which leaves serious questions to be answered and there are ongoing investigations into it. We are also at this stage now because the successive Governments has failed to deal with the problem. I recognise the influx of people from Ukraine and the strain that has put on the Department but what has happened is the narrative has changed. To put it simply, the narrative became some people coming into the country were good and others were not so good. We continue to have a horrible, discriminatory policy.
This was captured again by the Taoiseach's comments that the impact of people leaving direct provision and asylum seekers are creating problems for homelessness. This is absolutely misleading, disingenuous and wrong. There were four reasons given and that was fourth. The three other reasons were notices to quit, family separations and other problems. Direct provision was the least impactful. For the Taoiseach of the country to perpetuate that narrative is unacceptable. I hope the Minister will disassociate himself from that and will go back to give me specifics in his final minute. When will direct provision be ended and provided for in non-profit State accommodation?
I will let Deputy O'Rourke in with a quick supplementary question. The Minister might take both questions together.
Regarding Thornton Hall, the Minister stated the timeline was a number of weeks. Is it still mid-October? I am conscious that the end of June and the end of September were initial dates that have passed. I am concerned the updates we are getting from the Department are not detailed, whether that is in terms of the transport plan, social protection, health, well-being, noise assessments or wastewater treatment. What is the current state of play and is the target still the middle of this month? Is it still in the region of forty people and what is the long term plan? It is not sustainable or suitable to have eight-man tents there for an extended period. What is the Department looking at with regard to a transition period to put this on a more stable footing for everyone involved?
To respond to Deputy Connolly, the process is to provide a core of 13,000 State-owned beds between now and the end of 2028. That is what is set out in the comprehensive accommodation policy and that will be done through building on State land and purchasing sites. That will bring us to that capacity.
I have set out the work we are doing on State land. Part of that State land is the Thornton Hall site. The timeline for the first 40 tents to be on site is mid October. Deadlines have been delayed but the Deputy will know well the range of challenges from a small group, who are not local and I think we share that view, but who have done significant damage through intimidation on this particular site. It will initially be tented accommodation but will move to the prefabricated units I referred to in reply to Deputy Connolly's question. We hope to have approximately 400 international protection applicants on site by year end. I recognise there is a public transport issue and that is something we are working on to provide a clear answer.
12. Deputy Steven Matthews asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the number of childcare services that have signed a core funding contract for the coming programme year; the number of partner services that have withdrawn in each programme year to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38547/24]
I am taking this question on behalf of Deputy Steven Matthews.
Under this Government we have seen significant funding put into childcare, particularly through the core funding model. What is the number of childcare services that have signed a core funding contract for the coming programme year, the number of partner services that have withdrawn in each programme year to date, and could the Minister make a statement on the matter?
The introduction of core funding in 2022 brought a significant increase in investment for the sector. A sum of €259 million in funding was paid directly into services in year one of the scheme, of which €210.8 million was entirely new funding. This funding, which increased by 11% to €287 million in year two, increased again by 15% in year three to €331 million.
In the first programme year, a total of 11 services withdrew from the scheme but remained open. In the second programme year, a total of 16 services withdrew from the scheme and remained open. For this current programme year, which commenced on 2 September, five services had withdrawn from the scheme as of 1 October.
Currently, 90% of services have signed up to year three of core funding. The application rate for year three of core funding is similar to the application rate for the same period in 2023, with services continuing to sign up. While it is my ambition to have as high a take-up as possible to core funding, a small proportion of early learning and childcare services - approximately 5% - chose not to join core funding in years one and two of the scheme, of which 98% were for profit services.
In view of the 15% increase in core funding in year three and the associated supports, including the increase in the flat rate allocation for sessional services to €5,000, an increase in the minimum core funding allocation to €14,000 and the introduction of the fee increase assessment process, I am confident that participation rates will continue to remain on par with previous years.
In the budget announced yesterday, I was able to set out the core funding allocation for year four and that will be €390 million. A proportion of that will be allocated for a pay agreement that we hope to see made between the unions and providers in 2025. The State will step up to support that with direct investment to help providers to meet the pay needs of their staff.
I thank the Minister. That movement towards fair pay for the work being performed in these childcare settings is really important. We know one of the real issues is the retention of staff and a lot of that relates to pay grades and people moving on to some place where they can essentially afford their mortgage or whatever it is in their next stage.
Where do the gaps still persist? The core funding model has been successful and 90% of services have opted into it. Is there an analysis of the characteristics of those who chose to stay outside it? For example, does it reach the very small, rural childcare provider? Is that one of the issues that needs to address? Does it reach the larger services? Will the Minister outline the gaps in provision that persist and where the model needs to be tweaked to reach those services?
The core funding model has been tweaked quite significantly between years one and three. In year one, funding was allocated according to the number of hours and the number of children that a service had but we recognised after year one that smaller services were disadvantaged by that. In year two, we brought in two changes. We brought in a minimum floor of core funding below which no service would go, including even very small services. We also brought in a sessional-only rate for services that do ECCE only so they would get an additional payment. In year three, we significantly increased these so the floor rate is €14,000 and no service gets less than that under core funding. The minimum payment for sessional services is now €5,000. The big change in year three of the model was the application for a fee increase. Prior to that we had frozen everyone's fees at 2021 levels but recognising some services last raised their fees a number of years earlier, we wanted to make the opportunity for them to apply to raise their fees.
I thank the Minister for his recent visit to the Waterford Childcare Centre, which is a really outstanding example in my constituency of that kind of community-owned and operated childcare model. There have been indications from the Minister and from other senior figures within the Government that we should look towards public provision as well. That begs the next question of how we see those pieces of the jigsaw come together where we will get community childcare facilities, for-profit facilities, which will remain part of the picture, and how public provision of childcare provision begins to stitch into that. Are we moving more in that direction? What we have done under the core funding model is a significant step in terms of the State being involved seriously in the provision of childcare for the first time. Where do we go from here? What is the roadmap? Where do we see public provision fit in as part of this overall jigsaw?
I really enjoyed my trip to the Waterford Childcare Centre and the beautiful poster I received from the children and staff there with the handprints on it has pride of place in my office.
We will have the opportunity in the general election to really tease out issue of the degree of State involvement in the provision of childcare because I recognise parental choice is really important here. Some parents, other than the two years ECCE scheme, do not want or have any further need of early learning and care. Other parents need a lot more. How that is provided, whether it is through a fantastic private provider, a fantastic community provider or potentially a fantastic State provider, should be a choice we give to parents. What concerns me right now is that there are parts of the country where parents do not have a choice because the capacity is not there. The private and the community providers are not able to provide that and that is where the State needs to step up now in the direct delivery of childcare. It will not be replacing community or private providers; it will be alongside them, supplementing them and ensuring every child has the opportunity to enjoy high quality and affordable early learning and care.
13. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he will examine the anomaly that exists within parent's leave and benefit for one-parent families; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38973/24]
I want to ask the Minister about the anomaly that exists in the nine-week payment for parent's leave and benefit for one-parent families and the fact that if someone has a baby and is part of a two-parent family there will be two nine-weeks of paid parent's leave whereas if it is a one-parent family there be just nine weeks. That is an anomaly that should be corrected.
I thank the Deputy. There have been significant developments in the entitlements to family leaves and working family payments in recent years. The Government committed in the programme for Government to supporting parents, including by extending paid leave for parents to allow them to spend more time with their baby during the first year.
Under the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019, working parents are entitled to nine weeks of paid parent's leave for each relevant parent, to be taken in the first two years after the birth or adoptive placement of a child, as required by the work-life balance directive. It was two weeks per parent per child when I became Minister, and it is now nine weeks.
It is important to note that the entitlement under the 2019 Act is for each parent in his or her own right so it is not allocated per family. The Act was drafted to take account of the broad complexion of family life, including one-parent families, and allows for an entitlement for the spouse, civil partner or cohabitant of the parent. Parents do not have to cohabit to be eligible for the entitlement. However, the leave is not transferable to ensure that fathers as well as mothers are supported in their caring roles and to support women's equal labour market participation. That principle of non-transferability that was built into the work-life balance directive is required because of the importance of ensuring that the provision of family leave does not serve to disadvantage mothers participating in the workforce.
The Government is also very aware of the additional challenges faced by one-parent families and their greater risk of poverty. To the extent that the matter falls within my Department, I have always committed to working with colleagues to support one-parent families through the development of enhanced, targeted supports. For example, the national childcare scheme includes an income-related subsidy, alongside the universal subsidy, which aims to make childcare more affordable for low-income families, including lone-parent families. An independent review of NCS in 2021 indicated that single parents received greatest benefit from the scheme as they received the highest subsidies.
I welcome that parent's leave has increased from two to nine weeks and it is a great support for parents, particularly when maternity leave is only 26 weeks and paternity leave at the moment is only two weeks. Despite all of that, regarding the one-parent family, if a baby is born into a one-parent family and the other parent is deceased, for example, there will be nine additional weeks; but for a baby born into a two-parent family there will be 18 weeks. That is not fair and we should have equality on this. It would be for a very small number of babies but regardless of the parent-family make-up, whether one- or two-parent, the entitlement for the baby should be the same. At this point, one-parent families are losing out on nine weeks. The partner may have passed away. It is important to have the equal entitlement whether it is a one- or two-parent family. I know this came from Europe, more or less, but could it be looked at?
This type of leave has always been seen as leave pertaining to the parent rather than to the child, as the Deputy described it. That is not to say additional types of leave could not be introduced looking specifically at the needs of one-parent families. This leave is designed to recognise a situation where there is a one-parent family as the result of maybe a relationship breakdown, and it is to ensure the parent who is not cohabiting or maybe does not have custody of the child is still entitled to use leave to be able to build a relationship with the child. That is important. Where the parent with custody has a new partner, that partner may also avail of this leave. It is flexible in those ways in trying to maintain existing parental relationships and allow for new ones. I take the Deputy's point that in a situation where a parent is deceased, that is a smaller category.
Perhaps that might be something the Minister may examine because it would be a very small number of parents. With regard to parent's leave and benefit, the child should get the same level of time with their parent, whether it is one parent or two. That is an anomaly that would be worth looking at.
It would be a small number of people but it is important.
It would probably be addressed through something bespoke for that group of parents rather than through a change to parent's leave. The process for parent's leave is a good one and works well. I would like to see it grow. As we know, the rate of parent's leave has grown by €15. I hope to see the take-up increase in the years to come. I believe that one of the reasons take-up is low, particularly among dads, is that the rate is seen as too low. The €15 increase is quite significant. It would probably be best to look at a bespoke solution for those one-parent families.
Is deireadh le ceisteanna chun an Aire Leanaí, Comhionannais, Míchumais, Lánpháirtíochta agus Óige é sin. We will now proceed to take Leaders' Questions under Standing Order 36.
On a point of order, are we getting any input into the Order of Business this week? I ask for time to be urgently set aside for Deputy McDonald to make a statement on the issue of child abuse committed by a member of Sinn Féin-----
This is ridiculous.
-----and the furnishing of character references for that person by members of Deputy McDonald's team.
This is not a point of order.
It is crucial that these questions are answered in a timely fashion.
The Order of Business for this week was arranged last week. The Deputy's point is not in order at this stage.
Can I ask that, when the Order of Business for next week is being discussed, we-----
The Deputy can discuss anything he likes when the Order of Business is being discussed.
This is something the party opposite regularly brings to the attention of Government. It is time-sensitive and important-----
This is not a point of order.
It is not a point of order.
If we want to bring in character references-----
-----and it should be addressed this week. Deputy McDonald has a track record of ignoring this House and not making statements when they are required. She has done it before. She should take the opportunity to make a statement on this because it affects the behaviour of her party.
This is not a point of order. The Deputy should not be allowed to continue.
Are backbenchers the leaders?
They have been elected, the same as us.
You want to silence them.
Deputy Brophy's point is not relevant at this stage. The business for the week is scheduled.
He might get promoted to Minister of State again now. This is outrageous.
As I said, we will move to questions under Standing Order 36.
Could Deputy McDonald answer? She has the right to make a statement. She could do so.
The election is on.
Leaders' Questions are not a matter to be answered by the Leader of the Opposition.
Hear, hear.
They may be after the next election though.
I would not laugh about this topic.
Members should be careful what they wish for.
I would not think the Deputy would find it funny. It is not a funny issue.
