Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, has the appropriate enforcement powers to address serious non-compliance with regulations for early years services and to ensure that parents have access to information in relation to the quality of those services. The intention is not to increase enforcement action but to make it more effective and address some of the limitations of the current legislation, and as such improve overall compliance within the sector.

In addition to strengthening the powers of Tusla’s early years inspectorate, this Bill will remove the current exemption from regulation of self-employed childminders who work in the childminder’s home. The removal of this exemption will allow the Minister, following enactment, to introduce childminding-specific regulations, in line with the commitment in the National Action Plan for Childminding 2021-2028. The opening up of regulation to childminders will make possible their participation in the national childcare scheme, thus expanding access to that scheme for parents who use childminders, which is a key commitment in First 5, the whole-of-government strategy to improve the lives of babies, young children and their families.

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the policy considerations which informed the development of the Bill, before I outline its main provisions. In 2019, the then Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, announced that a review of the enforcement powers of Tusla’s early years inspectorate would be undertaken by the Department, following an "RTÉ Investigates" programme that made allegations of serious and significant breaches of regulations in early learning and care services. That review was paused during the Covid-19 pandemic. I recommenced the review in early 2021. The review included a public consultation, the report on which was published in March 2023.

The review resulted in key elements of this Bill, including the enhancement of Tusla’s enforcement tools, such as immediate closure of an unregistered early years service, temporary closure of a service where there is an immediate and grave risk to children, and putting the enforcement pathway, including immediate action notices and improvement notices, onto a legislative footing. It also includes a formal mechanism for sharing of certain information with parents relating to the quality of an early learning and childcare service and a fit for purpose person regulation to empower Tusla to assess the suitability of a person applying to be a registered provider of an early years service.

In addition, this Bill will allow for the extension of regulation to childminders. This has been a priority for me since coming into office, to ensure the safeguarding of children in childminders’ homes, to provide assurance to parents of the quality of childminding services and to allow parents who use childminders to benefit from the national childcare scheme. The Bill will provide for a transitional period of three years, during which it will be possible for a childminder to register with Tusla but with no requirement to register until the end of the transition period.

This will ensure that childminders have time to understand and prepare for new regulatory requirements. I am committed to ensuring that childminding-specific regulations, when they are introduced following enactment of this legislation, will be proportionate and appropriate to the home and family settings in which childminders work. My Department has recently concluded a public consultation on draft childminding regulations. Understandably there is anxiety among many childminders about the prospect of regulation, and I will consider the findings of the public consultation very carefully before finalising the regulations and commencing the relevant sections of the Bill.

Originally, when the general scheme was published, the measures in the Bill sat alongside wider reforms of the Child Care Act 1991. However, the decision was taken by Government to divide the legislative proposal into two Bills, with the remaining amendments relating to child welfare and protection following in a separate Bill later this session. The decision reflects the need to enact the Part VIIA amendments at the earliest opportunity to allow childminders to commence registering with Tusla from September this year.

The general scheme of the Bill was examined by the joint committee as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process in May 2023. Many of the committee’s recommendations related to the wider reform of the Child Care Act will be considered when the second amendment Bill is progressed.

This first amendment Bill addresses many of the concerns raised by the committee relating to early years services, with other recommendations addressed outside the Bill. The committee recommended that constructive consultation with early learning and school-age care providers should continue, including in the development of forthcoming regulations. This has been addressed through the public consultation that took place on the review of regulations, through the recent consultation on childminding-specific regulations and through planned future consultation on comprehensive regulations for school-age childcare.

The committee also recommended that the regulatory and administrative burden on providers should be reduced insofar as possible without compromising child safety and safeguarding. I am addressing this in a number of ways, which include amendments made in 2022 to the regulations to streamline the process of re-registration for early years services; the commitment in the First 5 Implementation Plan 2023-2025 to bring together the functions carried out by the Tusla early years inspectorate and the Department of Education inspectorate’s early years team into a single body that provides integrated care and education inspections; and plans to publish an action plan for administrative and regulatory simplification for the early learning and childcare sector in 2024, the action plan to reduce administrative burden, which will be published later this year. It is informed by an independent review and a series of regional and online consultations that have been conducted over recent weeks.

The committee’s recommendation that there should be some discretion relating to past convictions of a service provider to prevent inadvertent penalisation of certain communities is addressed through an amendment in the Bill to give Tusla discretion in determining how to respond to past convictions.

On childminding, the committee recommended that the new regulations should be proportionate and appropriate, be available as early as possible and be informed by the childminding sector. I assure the House that the approach I am taking fully reflects these recommendations.

The committee’s recommendation that providers designated as “relevant bodies” should be resourced for the role related to proposals in heads 10 and 11 of the general scheme on child welfare and protection. I no longer intend to specify early years services within these proposals.

The joint committee also recommended that the access and inclusion model, AIM, programme should be expanded to support children with disabilities in early learning and care services. I was very happy to announce two weeks ago that from this September AIM will support children beyond time spent in the ECCE programme. A child who gets AIM for the three hours of ECCE can get that AIM support for the full day and it will also be offered outside the 38 weeks of the ECCE term. Those are two important and very welcome steps of progress.

I will turn to the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 defines the Child Care Act 1991 as the principal Act.

Sections 2 and 3 move the definition of personal data to ensure that the definition applies also to Part VIIA of the principal Act.

Section 4 amends section 58A to define new terms introduced in this Bill, including a definition of a “childminding service” and also amends the definition of “early years service” to include a childminding service.

Section 5 amends section 58B to empower the Minister to make regulations to ensure that registered providers of early years services, persons in charge of services and persons involved in management, are “fit and proper” persons to carry out those functions. This section also provides that the Minister may make regulations requiring early years services to share information on certain enforcement actions with parents and to share personal data of parents with the Child and Family Agency where necessary and proportionate.

Section 6 makes technical amendments to section 58C.

Section 7 amends section 58D to require the agency to correct the register where it finds an error and to take into consideration enforcement action taken against a registered provider, or a relevant person, when making decisions on registration. This section also provides the agency with discretion in registration decisions, including in considering past convictions of an early years service provider.

Section 8 inserts a new section 58DA that requires the agency to publish information on enforcement actions against early years services where to do so is in children’s interests.

Section 9 amends section 58F to provide for appeals against a “temporary prohibition order”, which is a new enforcement power introduced by this Bill.

Section 10 amends section 58J by the insertion of new subsections relating to the validity of a warrant and the inspection of documents and records by Tusla’s early years inspectorate. The measures include allowing for more than one entry to a premises over a 28-day period under a warrant, and for extension of a warrant in certain circumstances. The new provisions also specify Tusla’s powers to examine, copy and remove relevant documents and records.

Sections 11 and 12 put on to a legislative footing certain steps in the enforcement pathway that are currently administrative steps: “improvement notices”, where an authorised person requires a provider to address an issue of significant concern that, if it persists, is likely to pose a risk of harm to a child, and “immediate action notices” where an authorised person requires a provider to address an issue that poses an immediate risk of harm to a child. In both cases, if the provider does not comply with the notice, sections 11 and 12 provide for Tusla to apply to the District Court for an order to comply with the notice, either an “improvement order” or an “immediate action order”.

Section 13 inserts a new section 58JC to enable an authorised person who is of the opinion that there is an immediate and grave risk to the health, safety or welfare of children attending a service, to issue a “temporary prohibition order” preventing the service from operating for a specified period up to six weeks, extendable to 12 weeks if the matter has not been remedied. Given the significance of the measure, section 13(2) provides that the authorised officer must consult with the CEO, or a designated person, of the Child and Family Agency before issuing a temporary prohibition order, and must inform the board of the agency.

Section 14 inserts a new section 58JD that enables the agency to apply to the District Court for a “closure order” against a service in certain situations: first, where a temporary prohibition order was in place and a service is carried on in contravention of the order; second, where the matters specified in the temporary prohibition order are not remedied before the expiration of that order; and, third, where the agency has reason to believe that a person is providing a prescribed early years service where they are not registered to do so.

In the case of an unregistered service, the section provides that the application for a closure order can be made on an ex partebasis, and if that is the case the agency is required to notify the person without delay if the order is made.

Section 15 inserts a new section 58JE that allows a registered provider or relevant person to appeal to the Circuit Court the decision of a District Court to grant a closure order, within seven days of the granting of the closure order. The section also stipulates that the bringing of an appeal against the closure order does not have the effect of suspending the operation of the closure order.

Section 16 amends section 58K to extend the actions for which a person is guilty of an offence, to include failure to comply with an improvement order, an immediate action order, a temporary prohibition order or a closure order. A person who impedes or obstructs an authorised person during the course of an inspection under section 58J was already guilty of an office, and this section also ensures that this provision extends to all the agency’s powers of inspection.

Section 17 amends section 58L of the principal Act by enabling persons who care for relatives other than their own children to register with Tusla if they provide an early years service, including a childminding service. It will remain the case, however, that a person who only cares for relatives is not required to register with Tusla.

Section 18 inserts a new section 58M that provides for transitional arrangements that will apply to childminders over a three-year period following the repeals set out in section 22, which will bring into the scope of regulation all childminders who care for non-relatives in the childminders' homes. The amendment allows for the exemptions repealed by section 22 to continue to apply to any person to whom they applied prior to their repeal. This transitional arrangement will also apply to any person who commences as a childminder during the transitional period once he or she meets the previous conditions of the exemption. This section allows for those persons covered by the transitional arrangement to apply for registration during the transitional period. The section also makes provision for a childminding service that was registered immediately prior to the commencement of section 22 to be deemed registered as a childminding service following that commencement.

Section 19 amends Schedule 1 of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 by the substitution of “early years services” for “pre-school services” to ensure that, for the purposes of Garda vetting, the definition of “relevant work or activities” encompasses childminding services and school-aged childcare services also, not just preschool services.

Section 20 amends Schedule 2 of the Children First Act 2015 by the substitution of “an early years service” for “a pre-school service” to ensure that, for the purpose of child protection reporting, mandated persons include not just persons working in preschool services, but also childminders and persons working in school-aged childcare services.

Section 21 amends the Childcare Support Act 2018. It amends the definition of “childcare service” to refer to the amended definition of “early years service” in this Bill to ensure that childminders are able to take part in the national childcare scheme. This section also amends Schedule 2, entitled "Agreements with Certain Statutory Bodies", by the addition of the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science as a statutory body that can enter into agreements under section 14 of the 2018 Act for the provision of supports for vulnerable children.

Section 22 repeals sections 58L(b) and (c) of the Principal Act, thus bringing childminders who work in their own homes into the scope of regulation, subject to the transitional arrangements in section 18, once this legislation is commenced.

Section 23 is a standard provision that provides for the Short Title and collective citation and allows for the commencement of different provisions of the Bill at different times.

The purpose of this reform is twofold. The first purpose is to address some of the limitations of the existing regulatory and enforcement powers of Tusla’s early years inspectorate. I am confident that these proposals will help to protect children and strengthen quality assurance in the early learning and childcare sector and improve overall compliance with regulations without increasing the regulatory burden on services. The second purpose is to provide for the regulation and registration of childminders who work in their own homes through a phased approach in line with the national action plan for childminding. I am committed to delivering childminding-specific regulations that are both appropriate and proportionate, safeguarding children and providing assurances of the quality of childminding services while acknowledging the unique circumstances of a childminder working in his or her own family home.

I wish to take this opportunity to commend the excellent work done every day by childminders and by those working in early learning and care services and school-aged childcare services right across the country. While many provisions in the Bill focus on enforcement actions where poor practice is found, we all know the very high quality of most such services and their great importance in giving young children a good start in life and in enabling parents to work. I thank all of those working in the sector and all the stakeholders who have contributed to the development of this Bill. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to outline its provisions and I look forward to hearing Deputies’ views on its contents.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputies Cronin, Conway-Walsh and Mitchell, who are sharing time, are next.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to speak on this Stage. Reform is much-needed in the sector and is welcome, but what is proposed in the Bill is not at all adequate. It lacks the necessary and broad consultation with our childminders, who are a fundamental and critical cohort. Our childminders have virtually been ignored in this process despite having a wealth of experience and wisdom on the issue of childcare. In addition, the Bill lacks understanding and practical recognition of the criticality of this cohort, estimated at 53,000. It lacks the requisite consideration to make the necessary Tusla response quick, agile and timely enough.

Crucially, the Bill does nothing to ensure that the parents using the 53,000 childminders can avail of the national childcare scheme. What this Bill should be about is financially helping as many parents as possible who have been put to the pin of their collar to make ends meet when their monthly outgoings include skyrocketing mortgages, rents, groceries, fuel, insurance and the childcare mortgage. Sinn Féin stands fully with childminders and with all parents who use them and who want to avail of the national childcare scheme, as should be their right. We want to make it happen for as many parents as possible and to honour their choice of childcare arrangement, so any support we give the Bill comes with major caveats and we will table amendments on Committee Stage. As ever with this Government, the need to be seen to be doing something overcame its duty to do something that was carefully consulted on with all the key players and where the needs of children and the desires of their parents and childminders were carefully considered.

That the Government’s focus has tended to be more on care in childcare centres is not surprising. It is in keeping with the centre-right ambition to commodify, monetise and “profitise” care in the first and, indeed, last years of life and to uproot children and the elderly from their home environments. Many parents prefer centres for their childcare. The quality of care is high and can suit their needs, and we are all for that, but we are also for choice. In practice, many prefer their children to be cared for in an at-home environment, be it the children’s homes or those of their minders.

It must be recognised that childcare and childminding are two very different offerings and experiences. In childminding, the child gets to know the minder’s home as the child’s home for the hours he or she is there. It can be a stimulating and supportive environment for a child and highly educational in that importance sense. It can also be a supportive environment for parents because there are buckets of good advice when asked for and, above all, such arrangements are generally flexible, as there are no late fees for pickups and no parents on the Luas, DART or, as in my constituency, the 115 bus to Kilcock petrified at the thought of losing their childcare places because the mode of transport they are using is late again through no fault of their own.

Draft regulations for childminders were open for public consultation early this year as part of the National Action Plan for Childminding 2021-2028. Consultations closed in early May and the findings are yet to be published. Despite the fact that we have an estimated 53,000 childminders, many of whom are solid gold for parents and children, fewer than 100 are registered. This means that only the parents using those 100 childminders can avail of government subsidies through the national childcare scheme. The parents using the other 52,900 are locked out of the scheme. That is bonkers and Sinn Féin wants to change it.

Parents of young children are exhausted and broke. They need a hand, not a shove. From Sinn Féin’s perspective, this change requires the Government to accept that childminding is different from other forms of childcare. With their vast depth and breadth of care and caring, we cannot understand why childminders have not been listened to properly in this process. Their input, and the Government listening to that, is critical if regulation is to work. We believe strongly that families need a childminding sector that is supported as an integral part of the wider childcare sector and that this service must be maintained and developed into the future.

As presented, there is no incentive in the Bill for childminders to sign up to the draft regulations. If the Minister is serious about parents’ choice and developing the mix of childcare available and covered by the NCS, he needs to change tack quickly and listen.

However, our difficulties with the Bill are about more than a failure to listen or to include the 52,900 childminders. We also have serious practical and operational concerns about, for example, Tusla’s capacity to register significant numbers of childminders and to then manage that caseload on an ongoing basis. It seems that the Minister is setting this up to fail. How is Tusla going to manage that caseload? For some aspects, it takes three months for regulation to be completed.

There is every likelihood that this timeframe will increase and create a significant backlash, leaving children, parents and their minders in the lurch. In addition, there is an issue of fees and transparency. A yearly fee from the childminder will be required to cover the cost of inspections but what this exact figure will be has not yet been disclosed. For obvious reasons, this has childminders worried. They fear they could be caught for significant administrative fees over which they have no control. Equally, concerns have been raised regarding the sharing of personal information online and in public forums. Privacy matters. We call on the Minister to ensure that he heeds this consent and takes it seriously.

The length of time required to notify an age profile change has been set at 60 days. This is not comparable with the unique nature of childminding, which gives families invaluable and cherished flexibility. We have to wonder whether this is more about accommodating Tusla staff and less about looking after the minders, the children and the parents.

We have serious concerns about some of the terminology contained in the Bill. Childminders are asked to change their title to “provider” and the description of their homes to “premises”, demands that have no material value and depersonalise the unique offering of a home-based childminder and all the comfort this implies and offers. Equally, the Bill stresses “training” and “interview” but as concepts only, with no indication of what either will demand or involve. Who will do it? Who will pay for it? Who will examine it? What criteria will be used? How will they be set and by what and whose standards? It seems someone said that “training” and “interview” would look good here, so that was put in - honestly, it does. On top of that, there are further provisions that attempt to constrain the unique offering of childminders.

Far from constraining them, we should be consulting with them, heeding them and using their vast experience to inform Government policy. The essence of the childminder-parent relationship is all about personal safety, trust, flexibility, respect, kindness and common sense. Let us face it. In handing our children over to a childminder, we give them the most precious things we have in our lives. We are far more concerned about their character and their kindness than we are about regulations, bureaucracy, regulations on day trips, signing in and signing out, nutritional requirements and complaints procedures. That works fine and is very necessary for a childcare centre but it would seem a bit of a pantomime for a childminder to be engaged in. Childminders and parents will rightly dismiss it as the bureaucratic nonsense that it is. The Minister should listen to actual experts here, the childminders themselves, engage with them, talk to them and listen to them. The provisions of the Bill feel removed, remote and cold, the polar opposite of the warmth inherent in the childminding experience. This Bill can and must do better.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the hard and valuable work the 53,000 childminders across the country do. They fulfil a great role. As a parent, I have experience of this. Not everybody can afford long maternity leave. My two children went to a wonderful childminder, Sheila Wilson. They were part of her family and she provided not just a service but had them as part of her family. I know the difference she made in their formative years growing up and that has continued on through their lives. I acknowledge the wonderful work that childminders do and the fact we could not do without them.

I have a number of concerns about the Bill. I heard what the Minister said about the consultations and he said he is listening and wants to get this right. I will take it at face value that he does, so I want to feed in some observations. The first that I want to feed in is a communication I received from somebody who is a registered childminder. She states:

I have been working as a childminder for the past 21yrs in this country, I offer a wrap around service whereby the parents drop their children off in the morning & I do all the preschool & National school drop offs & pick ups.

That is the flexibility that is required for childminders. She continues:

I currently offer the NCS for parents as well. I run a very busy service & rarely have spaces, the children I mind usually come as babies & stay until they go to secondary school, they are family after all that time. There is no full day care service in my town so childcare is very limited.

We need to be congisant of that when we look at the numbers registered, the numbers who are likely to register and the timeframe they need to register within. She continues:

I have engaged with my local County Childcare Committee in discussions about the new regulations proposed for later this year. I have things I'd like to say about them: As a current TUSLA registered childminder that has been inspected on numerous occasions I feel that it should be possible for me to seamlessly transfer to the new system, without the need for home visits, further training etc.

Currently I am able to mind 2 children under the age of 15mths, this works well for me & I see no need for that to change. If it was reduced to 2 under 2yrs this will negatively impact my service. For example, this past year I had 2 [children] under 15mths & a further 2 under 2yrs. With the ECCE scheme covering 2yrs it's not very often that I would have children start over the age of 2yrs.

We can see that again in terms of other childcare provision, which is after two years. She continues:

It most likely will make my childminding business unviable.

I signed up to Core Funding in 2022 & like everyone else who signed up had to freeze my fees. The last time I increased my fees was 2012 & I'm sure that you will agree costs have significantly increased since then. I currently charge €35 a day with all meals included.

I saw for myself what she had included in the meals. The Minister talked earlier about nutrition. Her home was conducive to children having an environment to meet all of their needs. She continues:

If my numbers were to drop, my income will drop & I'll most likely have to cease childminding.

That is in a town where there is no other service. She continues:

I run my service from my home, therefore I run it as a home. There are times when people will visit & of course the children are in my supervision at all times. I don't want this to change so long as the children are in my supervision I see no issue with this at all. I currently have a visitors book & I would continue to operate this.

In the regulations it states that a childminder works alone, I would like on occasion to employ someone to do a few hours with me during busy times. I think so long as the person employed is qualified & has Garda clearance that this should be acceptable. It would only be to the benefit of the children & the childminder.

Would be so handy if I had appointments or if I was sick to have someone who could step in & take over. I feel so much pressure any time I've to close for an appointment, I'm very aware I'm making it hard for up to 6 families to find alternative care for the day/s.

It can be a very lonely job at times & this would make it more enjoyable. This person may also double up as our emergency person.

I want the Minister to take the comments of that registered childminder into account to ensure she is viable going forward. She continues:

I have received Core funding over the past 2 years. At present I have no idea if I will receive it again this year. It has been suggested that they are going to rethink childminders payments. Probably a lesser amount.

She says it would be good if that can be corrected. She continues:

Its June & I have no idea what I will I have come September. If my CF is reduced I will probably leave it & increase my fees.

It would be good if that is all taken into consideration.

The level of consultation with the sector has to improve. These are the people who have the answers to how this can work for everybody. It needs to be inclusive and it needs to be cognisant of the unique nature of the service childminders offer. We have a lot of work to do and we will work with the Minister to do it.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the publication of the Bill by the Minister. I hope it will finally put some shape on the consequences for providers who do not meet certain standards. It seems the Minister has found a formula that will give Tusla the powers it needs.

Childcare providers, while subject to basic standards in child protection and business law, have existed in a bit of a grey space when it comes to regulatory oversight and enforcement. I hope this Bill sets the standard in stone and we see compliance across the sector. It gives Tusla access to the enforcement tools that have been lacking for some time. The lack of enforcement has been highlighted in this House on many occasions, generally on the back of a national scandal. The new enforcement tools will allow Tusla to issue improvement orders, immediate action orders, temporary closures and closure orders. It will create a transparent system that is straightforward and easily understood by those to whom it applies. It will allow for formal information-sharing for parents, which I hope will allow parents to better understand the services into which they are placing their children. I note, however, that some concerns have been raised in this regard when it comes to childminders because the lines between personal and business information can be blurred.

Another focus of this Bill is the introduction of fit and proper person regulations, which will allow Tusla to assess how suitable a person is when that person is applying to be registered as an early learning and childcare provider. I do not think I have missed it; it seems that the legislation lacks any sort of review as to how these new enforcement powers will operate. The Minister might consider that on Committee Stage. We have had improvements in the quality and oversight of early learning and childcare providers through different amendment Bills to the Act of 1991, but it seems to be a very bit part approach - overreactive instead of proactive. Previous Acts have missed some key areas, leading to problems with enforcement persisting in the sector. From the perspective of a parent, and from a child protection point of view, it is important that this Bill plugs the gaps that exist.

The second aspect of the Bill is the intention to bring all paid, non-relative childminders into line with regulations in the coming years. I welcome the inclusion of a transition period, as provided for in section 18. While it is a legislative change, it is also an attempt to change the culture in a huge sector. I think we all agree that it will take time for this to find its feet. It is estimated that there are 50,000 childminders throughout the State, but fewer than 100 of those are registered with the State.

There has been very little consultation with those childminders who are impacted by this Bill. That is a missed opportunity, and the Minister needs to bring the sector with him if we want to see these changes succeed. He should engage with the groups concerned before bringing this to Committee Stage.

There are also outstanding questions about Tusla's ability to maintain this register. The last thing I think any of us want is for backlogs to arise when this is created.

The Minister needs to go back and carry out proper consultation with childminders. I do not think the big stick-and-carrot approach will work; I think it is doomed to failure. It is important that we have everybody's voice heard in this and that everybody's interest is listened to.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am reading with interest the Minister's words before the House this afternoon. His speech states:

The second purpose is to provide for the regulation and registration of childminders who work in ... [the childminder's home] through a phased approach in line with the national action plan for childminding. I am committed to delivering childminding-specific regulations that are both appropriate and proportionate, safeguarding children and providing assurances of the quality of childminding services while acknowledging the unique circumstances of a childminder working in ... [the] family home.

If I take the Minister at his word on that, I am hopeful there will not be overreach by the State into the very special relationship that exists between a childminder and the children whom she - "she" for the most part - minds. It is a relationship that holds a very special place in Irish society. I think we all, as parliamentarians, know who the childminders in our own communities are and know the countless numbers of children they have minded. I am fearful that if the Minister's regulations, which he proposes to introduce arising from this legislation, are too strident, that will have the effect of forcing childminders of long standing out of the profession. I am fearful that if the Minister introduces an inspectorate or a regime that goes into people's homes and forces them to make significant changes to their homes, as regards signage, where furniture is placed, seating arrangements, toileting - all those things that are part of an inspection regime in a formal setting - that will be a bridge too far. I take the Minister in good faith; I do not think that is the intention of this regulation. However, insofar as I am able to do so from this vantage point, I caution the Minister and his officials - I express my gratitude to his officials for their engagement with me earlier on this - not to create something that will force people out of the sector because the regulation will be too burdensome and the people minding children will perceive that they are under the cosh as regards a change in the very dynamic of the relationship they have with the children they mind such that they are then forced to make changes to their own homes, which are private property, so as to fulfil the regulatory regime the Minister proposes to introduce.

We received correspondence from Childminding Ireland. Quite a number of testimonials were sent to Childminding Ireland in respect of people's perceptions as to what this new regime will look like. The document is interesting. I will quote from the testimonies of childminders at random. One such testimony states:

I fear registering with Tusla would become very expensive. Add on the additional and ongoing training and modifications to our homes. Then the childminder's net income will be diminished. When you reflect on the long hours currently worked and then consider the amount of paperwork required, childminders' income will be greatly reduced in value.

Another states:

In my opinion, Tusla are not the right body to govern childminders. Their NCS is anything but efficient, and childminders will be left without their wages, if my own experience in the public sector is to go by. Tusla keep changing the parameters for NCS and core funding, and I don't think that childminders would be able to cope with all the red tape.

Another one states:

I work as a childminder, believing it is my profession, and I'm proud of what I have had the opportunity to do. It has always been my intention to register on Tusla. However, it is not correct for the Government to regularise or change the childminding regulations simply to plug a hole caused by Government failings, ineptitude and inefficiency. The problem won't be solved making things difficult when the proper Government do not have appropriate public policy to attend to the demands of early education. I aim to continue this work for many years but I do not wish to be a scapegoat when the Government itself does not take care of this demand properly. I'd prefer to fight for the recognition of childminders as an essential profession in Ireland, as opposed to being a stopgap where we are only valued when there are no places available in a creche. I believe it is important to say that I am against regulation of childminders, but the actual proposal of childminding regulations aren't going to fix the problem and make it harder for childminders like myself.

It is the person's own syntax but we totally understand the sentiment being expressed and we should respect it. I hope the Minister, in response to this debate, will speak to the concerns of long-standing childminders who are, as I said, an essential component of Irish society. That relationship between the childminder and the child, and between the parent and the childminder, is a very special one. We should not do anything to upset that dynamic by foisting a regulatory regime upon childminders such that it will force them out of the sector. If that happens in numbers in a sector in which there is already massive pressure and demand for places, it will only exacerbate the problem.

The Minister is using the language of appropriateness and proportionality, which, at its core, concerns the issue of safeguarding. While that is laudable, I ask that the right tone and balance be struck so that we do not force people out of the sector.

As for the transitional period of three years, will the Minister explain the rationale behind the three-year period? There is no requirement to register until the end of the transitional period. This will ensure childminders have time to understand and prepare for new regulatory requirements. When does the Minister propose the regulatory requirements will be in place? As has been outlined by Deputy Mitchell, whose view on this I share, is there not scope for further collaboration with childminders, through their representative organisation, to tease out what the regulatory regime should look like? Assuming we take for granted that the passing of this legislation is inevitable, this would leave a space before regulations are made to ensure a regime will exist that does not force people out and that is based on pragmatism and an understanding of the nature of the relationship between the childminder and the child. I keep talking about that relationship because it is vital in every community. There is a special place for it in every community. We must not create a regime that forces people out. Childminders should be brought in to tease this out further so that an understanding is reached that is to everyone's satisfaction.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Cathal Crowe is supposed to be our next speaker, ach níl sé anseo. Deputy Martin Kenny will be our next speaker.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From discussions I have had recently with childminders who mind children and provide a service in their own homes, while they accept the need for change and have no difficulty with it, there is a certain scepticism and difficulty with this Bill. They fear being overburdened with regulation. One person I spoke to asked whether visitors coming to their home would have to be vetted. Those types of issues are alien to many of us who grew up in an environment where people lived in each other's pockets in local communities and often stayed with and were looked after by neighbours. That sort of thing happened on an ad hoc basis in my communities, but it was to the betterment of those communities. We do not want a situation in which people feel they are constrained in any way if they offer a service to look after children in their local community. While the Bill opens up the possibility that people will have the option of getting some compensation and an element of recognition, if it is going to drive more people out of the business, it will fail. That needs to be recognised.

I acknowledge the Bill is at an early stage and has a distance to travel. I hope the Minister and Department will be open to amendments which deal with these issues. The biggest issue I have come across, which other contributors have mentioned, is the need for adequate consultation with people involved in providing the service and to ensure that consultation is open-ended and seeks to assist people in moving into the correct space. Many people fear over-regulation when this authority comes into play. We have all dealt with Tusla at various times. While it does a wonderful job and is often the first line of defence when it comes to protecting children, children's rights and so forth, people sometimes fear the way it can deal with things and how strict and black and white it can see things. That needs to be recognised in this context.

I hope the Minister recognises that the legislation as presented is far from the finished product. We need to understand that. Whether they are proposed by the Opposition or, when we see the outcome of the consultation, the Minister, we hope the Minister will be open to changes to ensure people can find a way to embrace this legislation and find more people who prefer to look after children in the home setting. So far, all the difficulties we have had in our childcare process have been in the corporate sector, not the childminding sector. Unfortunately, this legislation would throw a blanket over both. That must be acknowledged. There have to be changes to the legislation as presented. I hope that will happen through the process as we move forward.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must adjourn this debate at 4.31 p.m., in case Deputy Shortall is still speaking at that stage.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will probably be done by then.

I welcome this debate on the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2024, which I am taking in the place of my colleague, Deputy Jennifer Whitmore. I am disappointed the Bill has been drastically pared back, so much so that only seven of the children's committee’s 96 pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations are now relevant to the legislation before us. Extensive provisions on child welfare and protection have been put on ice. That is regrettable. We are told another Bill will be published later this session. The importance of honouring that commitment cannot be overstated, as I am sure the Minister accepts.

It is one year since the pre-legislative scrutiny report was published and more than six years since the review of the Child Care Act 1991. We should be further along the process at this stage. At the very least, I hope this time has been used to strengthen the outstanding Bill to take account of the recommendations of the children’s committee’s and the Ombudsman for Children.

Among the many observations made by the Ombudsman for Children was the draft Bill’s weakness in respect of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, which is an increasingly pressing issue. This followed a 2020 report by the Ombudsman for Children which found that more than 120 unaccompanied children were housed in hostels with no care staff after 5 p.m. The likelihood is, of course, that this number will have increased significantly since then. An investigation by Noteworthy, which was published in December 2023, found that 62 asylum-seeking children had disappeared from State care since 2017. That is an absolutely shocking figure. It represents a complete abdication of responsibility to those children and is an indictment of the Government. While I accept there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving in Ireland, a country running a surplus of €8 billion should be able to meet that demand. We have not just a legal but a moral obligation to protect these very vulnerable children.

It is also worth noting that it is nearly one year since researchers in UCD published their shocking and disturbing report into the sexual exploitation of young girls in State care.

The report found that girls as young as 12 were being horrifically abused and deliberately targeted by predators. However, that was not the first time the Government had been alerted to the sexual abuse of children in State care. The Government has been on notice of this abhorrent abuse since at least 2020 when Tusla was notified of concerns about a sexual exploitation ring targeting girls in State care. In view of these shocking State failures in the care of vulnerable children, there can be no excuse for the Government’s delay in advancing the child protection provisions.

Returning to the Bill, clearly a stronger early years and childcare regulatory framework is needed to protect children. This was brought into sharp focus by a 2019 RTÉ "Prime Time Investigates" programme which revealed serious breaches of the existing regulations in three early years services. While I appreciate the concerns expressed by some representative groups, legislative change is undoubtedly required. A do-nothing approach would not be sustainable, nor in the best interests of children. The additional enforcement powers provided for in this Bill were recommended by the regulatory impact assessment and supported during public consultation. Around 60% of participants in that consultation agreed that the regulator’s powers should be strengthened. This Bill also acts on a commitment made in the national action plan for childminding, to remove the legal exemption for childminders from registration. This, in turn, allows for the opening of State subsidies to parents availing of childminders. This, it should be noted, is a significant cohort of parents. A 2023 ESRI report on extending the national childcare scheme found that childminders are the second most widely used form of paid childcare in Ireland. The research found that if all current non-relative childminders registered with Tusla, and all eligible parents claimed State subsidies, this reform would benefit 80,000 children by an average of around €100 a month. That is very significant. However, it should also be noted that a recent survey carried out by Childminding Ireland found that almost 31% of childminders and nannies surveyed did not intend to register with Tusla, while almost 19% did not know whether they would do so. This is quite a worrying aspect of the consultation and points to the need for greater engagement and consultation with the sector.

The children’s committee specifically recommended that the regulations for childminders should be proportionate, appropriate and specific to the setting and that the sector should continue to be involved in their development. The national action plan for childminding also emphasised the importance of consultation. However, Childminding Ireland has expressed serious concerns regarding the current draft regulations and the level of consultation carried out. It is calling for the Minister to engage in a real and meaningful process of engagement. Ultimately, the Minister’s guiding policy principle when implementing reforms should be supporting and respecting choice. That is why this regulation, which is welcome, must be proportionate.

It is important to bear in mind, notwithstanding the progress that has been made in group settings, that very often the assumption is that a group setting is a first choice for parents. It is not. I will talk about this in relation to parents' choices in a moment. Generally, the first choice of parents is that one or other of them is in a position, and supported, to care for their child during the first year of life. That is recognised in the programme for Government but we still have some way to go on it. It is also a very conscious and valid choice in many cases that somebody will choose a childminder to mind a child in their own home. As I say, this is a conscious choice and many parents want to have a setting that is close to a family home setting. That is why we should avoid any attempt to just transpose the regulations that apply to group settings to the childminder's home setting because they are quite different. Many parents want a more homely feel. I am not suggesting regulating this is an easy thing to do. A very delicate balance needs to be struck to maintain the real positives of a childminder's home setting and not overregulate it, while at the same time ensuring safety. I am not saying for a moment that this is an easy balance to strike but it is an important one to aim towards.

We do not want the State to be inadvertently limiting the choices of parents. Enabling choice is not just about supporting the formal childcare options; the State must also do much more on paid leave entitlements. I acknowledge that parents' leave and parents' benefit will be extended by two weeks in August, and that is a very welcome development, but that is the bare minimum required under the EU work-life balance directive. We in the Social Democrats believe that much more radical reforms are required. We know that the first 12 months of a child’s life are hugely important. That is recognised in the programme for Government. It is important that there is delivery on this recognition and commitment. We know that many parents would like the choice to care for their children in their own home but that is not an option for a great many people. In many cases, it has become an option only for those who are in very well paid jobs or are very well off, where one parent can afford to take time out from the workforce. When so many couples rely on two incomes to pay the mortgage, rent, energy bills and all of the additional costs associated with having a child, they cannot absorb the inevitable fall in household income, which parental care in the home entails, to a very large extent. Therefore, the State has to step in.

Ahead of budget 2024, the Social Democrats proposed increasing paid parents' leave to 13 weeks per parent and increasing benefit payments to the level that was recognised during the Covid period, that is, €350 per week for maternity, paternity, adoptive and parents’ benefit. This would have provided for the full first year of a child’s life, through paid parents’ leave and maternity leave. In the longer term, the State should increase the overall amount of paid and unpaid leave for parents to the European average which is currently 100 weeks per child. We have some distance to go to reach the European average. All of the evidence shows that there are significant benefits in doing so and that is why the Social Democrats have consistently called for a significant extension of paid leave.

I hope there will be further progress made in this important area in the upcoming budget later this year. After all, we know that parents should be able to do more than just survive on a week-to-week basis. The State can and should support parents, in all forms of families, by allowing them more time with their children during the critical first year of the child's life and more help should be available with the costs that all families experience while raising a family. That is the position we need to be in in order to recognise the costs involved, encourage people to have children and ensure that the cost of providing for children and spending good quality and quantity time with them is not prohibitive. That is why we need to move to the European average in terms of providing those key supports during the first couple of years of a child's life.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With one minute remaining, Deputy McGuinness is next but I will have to ask him to propose the adjournment at 4.31 p.m.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will start by welcoming the Bill, I suppose.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. It is up to yourself.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Should I propose the adjournment now?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is not 4.31 p.m. now but I will tell you when it is.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill. I have a few concerns to express, particularly about the childcare sector, both the private and community care, and the interaction with Tusla. I acknowledge there is a need for regulation and a need to continue to supervise how children are being looked after, to ensure they are getting the proper care and attention and that a response mechanism is in place to address any issues that might arise. My experience with Tusla regarding a complaint I made recently was that the phone was not answered. I am still waiting for a call back from Tusla to register a serious complaint and its staff have not called me back. That does not say much for them. On the other hand, I have seen a case where a lady lost her home. She was a foster parent and ran into difficulty. Actually, she did not run into difficulty. Tusla got involved and it refused to engage. She fought in the interests of the child she was looking after and in the course of that fight, she lost her home. Deputy Troy was in touch with the Minister regarding this particular case and nothing has happened. The family is broken and the child is still there. I ask that in the course of the next part of this debate, I will be able to bring the details of that case to the House.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will be returning to that important matter in due course.