Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 9 February 2023
64. Deputy Brian Leddin asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the number of childcare services that have signed a core funding contract to date; the number of services that have entered a core funding agreement that have ceased operations since the scheme began in September 2022; the number of those that cited financial sustainability issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6034/23]
View answer70. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the latest level of take-up of the core funding model for childcare for childcare providers; if any need to adapt the existing suite of supports has been identified for providers that have sought additional transitional support; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6098/23]
View answerI congratulate the Minister on the great strides that have been made in the childcare area, particularly with the new registered employment agreement, REA, and the support, but pressure points are emerging. I am keen to see a review of some of those pressure points to determine whether we can incorporate them into the next steps the Minister is planning.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 64 and 70 together.
Affordable, accessible, high-quality and sustainable early learning and childcare, ELC, is a key priority for the Government. I have taken numerous actions to support the sustainability of all services, including the introduction of supply-side funding through core funding, as well as the continued increase in investment in the sector, with expenditure to exceed €1 billion by 2023. Core funding, with a budget of €259 million in its first year, significantly increases income for the overwhelming majority of services and provides greater funding stability to the sector. I am delighted that 4,196 services currently have an active core funding contract, representing 94% of the sector. Applications for the scheme remain open.
The latest available information shows closures of eight services that have activated a core funding contract since the scheme began on 15 September. Three of these services self-reported their reason for closure as financial. Additional data from Tusla on ELC closures and new service registrations in 2022 showed that the number of net closures was lower in 2022 than in previous years. In 2022, 141 ELC closures were notified to Tusla, with 83 new service registrations, or 58 net closures. This compares with 76 net closures in 2021, 106 in 2020 and 103 in 2019. There is considerable diversity among the reasons given for closure by providers. While some services have closed for financial reasons such as reduced demand, many have closed for other reasons such as the retirement of the owner and manager. I have been unequivocal in saying I do not want any services to be faced with financial sustainability issues and I am fully committed to working with all services to support them in delivering early learning and childcare for the public good.
While core funding has significantly increased income for the overwhelming majority of services, a number of measures have been put in place to ensure all services are sufficiently supported in the transition to this new funding model. A funding guarantee has issued to services that may see a small reduction in income due to changes to the funding approach from last year. That affects 60 services that have had their core funding topped up to match last year's higher capitation and programme support payment. Additionally, I have initiated an independent financial review of sessional services to provide greater insight and evidence that may underpin development to core funding in year 2. This independent review will involve an in-depth examination of participants' financial circumstances through the provision of detailed information on income and expenditure and an analysis of the impact of the early learning and childcare funding streams. Expressions of interest are live to seek participation in the services.
In budget 2023, I secured an overall increase in the allocation for year 2 of core funding to €287 million.
I congratulate the Minister on the progress he is making but some anomalies emerged from a consultation I conducted in my constituency relating to the sector. I will outline them in a staccato manner but he might respond to each of them. They relate to: the extension of the access and inclusion model, AIM, beyond the early childhood care and education, ECCE, area, to which it is currently confined; the confusion of the huge number of inspectorates that call at the doors of childcare providers; and the anomalies in some of the staffing ratios whereby ratios much lower than those in childhood education are demanded in some parts, even for after-school service and care. Where stands the Minister's proposal to introduce a childcare development authority that would see this sector as one we have to drive on a long-term, sustainable basis with mixed providers?
Work on the advancement of the concept of a childcare agency is ongoing in my Department. As the Deputy will be aware, there was a Government decision in 2021 to proceed on that and consider the impact on various other settings in the sector. That is a big change and we are undertaking the groundwork with the various existing parts of the sector. A unit in my Department is focused on that project.
I would very much like to broaden out AIM past the two years of ECCE. AIM has been a very good programme. Obviously, there would be a financial impact, and I will look for the Deputy's support in ensuring we can achieve it. That, and the new strand of supporting the disadvantaged within early years, are two key matters I would like to advance in next year's Estimates.
As for staffing ratios, it is appropriate for babies and young children that there are high levels of staffing ratios. For the ECCE programme, it is 1:11. I do not think they are excessive in light of the young age of many of the charges.
I appreciate that the Minister is under time pressure but it seems strange that some of the ratios are very low. Even for after-school care, which does not involve infants, the ratios are very low, at 12:1, which seems quite stringent compared with ratios in our schools. The issue of multiple inspections is a source of irritation. There are the HSE, Pobal, the Department of Education and Tusla. There are a range of inspectors, which puts pressure on what are sometimes very small operations.
I take the point about the level of inspection to which this sector is subject. Given we are dealing with our most vulnerable and youngest citizens, it is appropriate our standards are high and inspected. Nevertheless, it is an issue I hear about in my constituency from childcare providers. In the context of the work we are doing to look at the overall architecture of the sector and the idea of a childcare agency, there is the opportunity to consider issues such as the multiplicity of inspection points rather than the standards themselves and to see whether any condensing can be done that would maintain standards but also remove some of the burden from childcare providers.
