Kathleen Funchion backs amendment on childminder regulation

Deputy Funcion, can I extend warmest congratulations to her on her election to the European Parliament. It will be sorry to lose you from this House, where you have contributed really significantly over the years. Thank you very much. I will miss your presence. Thanks very much, Ciancarrar, I really appreciate that. And I will actually, it is fantastic and great to have the opportunity, but I will have to say I will miss particularly working alongside my colleagues in the Children's Committee and yourself, Minister, even though we have not always agreed, I think we have always worked really constructively. So, just in relation to this bill, I want to just come in to support the amendment by Deputy Sherlock, and I agree, I have to say I have always used childminders, and I think I have probably spoken about that. My youngest child is actually 13 today, so I am getting out of that part of my life as such, but childminders are so vital, and there are so many roles and jobs where, you know, they are not 9 to 5, so you really are depending on, childminders, I think this is great to see in terms of parental choice, and in terms of really good, well-qualified childminders as well, you know, that they will have the opportunity to get into the scheme, but there is concerns, and I would just support that amendment, because I agree, you know, and we have had this discussion in the past, it is a very different sector, and it is a different type of service that is being offered, and while we obviously, child protection, and that has been too much in our news recently as well, for all the wrong reasons, it is important to have really good, strong child protection, but I suppose it is striking the right balance, because it is a very different environment, it is a very kind of personal space, somebody's home, and so I just wanted to support the amendment, and just, I suppose, as I wasn't here for the second stage last week, but just to say, and I hope it will be the case, that there will be ongoing consultation with that sector, in actual meetings, I know sometimes consultation documents get sent out, and people can fill them in, but I think there is nothing like sitting down face to face with a group, or a sector, or a stakeholder group, that represents that sector, to hear the concerns, because with anything that is new, there could be potential teething problems, and that would be the best place to iron all of that out, but I do want to support that amendment, and hopefully you might actually accept that amendment, Minister, or as Deputy Sherlock has said, that you might look at that sector, or look at that section of it. Thanks, Ken Corlin, thanks to the deputies for their contribution, and look, Deputy Sherlock, I am not able to accept this particular amendment, but I hope, in what I am about to say now, I will explain why, because I think the impact of what you are proposing here, and perhaps where you have located the amendment, is maybe wider than you mean, but perhaps I can also provide some of those words of comfort as well. So, as we recall from last week, the purpose of this bill is twofold. One is to ensure Tusla's early years inspectorate has appropriate enforcement powers, across all childcare settings, not just child minders, and then the second element is to remove the exemption from regulation for Part 7A relating to child minders, and the proposed amendment that we are talking about here covers all childcare settings, and the intersection deals with putting Tusla's enforcement pathway into a legislative footing, it aims to deal with some of the existing limitations of the regulatory and enforcement powers that the early years inspectorate has right now. And I think at second stage there was broad support for strengthening the early years inspectorate's power, particularly in those very rare, but sometimes really, really serious cases, where we need to be able to empower the early years inspectorate to act more quickly. So, just in terms of the deputy's amendment, I suppose, first of all, the reference to risk of harm in the amendment I'm bringing forward is preceded by a reference to significant concern, and it is the persistent nature of the risk, and it can't be read in isolation. So, these elements must be present before there's an issuing of an improvement notice. So, it's not just a risk, but a risk of significant concern. And, specifically, an improvement notice can only be given where there's an issue of significant concern that is of such nature that if it persists, it will, or is likely to, pose a risk of harm to a child attending the service. An issue that is not of significant concern, which is not likely to persist, could not give rise to an improvement notice. So, that's in terms of the standard that we're setting. Secondly, the level of risk in a private home, in our view, is not an appropriate standard for assessing risk for very different contexts. So, while it might be relevant when assessing the level of risk in a childminder's home, it's not relevant when assessing risk or ways of reducing risk in a large creche or after-school service. And, again, this section of the bill relates to all early-year services, and following the amendments to the definitions in Term 2 of the section, that's going to include preschool services, school-age services, and childminders. So, I think Deputy Sherlock was probably looking to make that distinction between childminders and all services. But, just as my amendment is structured, and as his amendment to that is fitting into it, what he's proposing will reduce the standard for all childcare services. And, I don't think we should be using that standard, particularly of the average risk in a house when we're dealing with large, early-year services. So, for those reasons, I'm not in the position to accept that amendment. At the second stage debate, we talked about the bill and the changes that the bill is bringing forward. And, we talked about the regulations. And, the regulations are obviously linked, but they are a separate document. They've been subject to quite a lengthy consultation process. I said very clearly at second stage last week that there will be changes to the regulation, that it's not a pro forma consultation, that there will be changes. So, last week, after our second stage bill, my officials met with Child Minding Ireland. They went through each of the regulations in detail. From what I've heard, it was a good meeting. We said we'd be flagging some changes on some of them. We were able to give clarity to Child Minding Ireland and others, and maybe clear up some misconceptions. Yesterday, I met Child Minding Ireland myself. We did the same thing. We went through all the various regulations. And, again, that was a good meeting. And, we were able to give clarifications there. We are looking to do some further engagement, maybe a direct focus group with Child Minders picked by Child Minding Ireland, and maybe actually do some site visits as well, and literally go to Child Minders and say, here's the rules, how is it going to work around the house? So, on the department's side, we absolutely want to support the continuation of Child Minders. Child Minders are an extremely important part of the wider offering of childcare services within our country. I'm very clear that they are distinct to centre-based services for various reasons, from the flexibility, from the lower ratio, from, you know, often in the rural area being the only option for many parents. And, we want to promote them in the sector. I was talking to Dr. Bill Maxwell, who is in the Scottish Child Minding regulatory space, and we were talking about the experience there. Child Minding has been regulated in Scotland for many years. Recently, they've started to see an exodus of Child Minders from Scotland, not linked to the, because I asked that question, is that linked to the introduction of regulation? He said, no, the regulation, they've been regulated for a long time. He pointed to the fact that in Scotland, the state has put a lot of money into centre-based childcare, but it hasn't been able to put it into Child Minding. We're doing the same here. We're making childcare, centre-based childcare, a lot more affordable for parents. The changes we're making here is designed to do the same, to allow Child Minders to be able to avail of the NCS as well. Because I do think, I think it is important, that those parents should be able to benefit from the affordability measures as well. There is a lot of fear out there. I think the impact of these regulations has been misconstrued and exaggerated in many circumstances, and that's why we're doing this very intensive engagement with Child Minding Ireland. And I recognise Child Minding Ireland, it's a great organisation. It doesn't, it can't speak for every childminder, but we are doing our best to engage and provide clear information, both in terms of clarification, where there's misinformation, but we'll also be making changes as well, to enable us to maintain the flexibility, maintain the difference between Child Minding and centre-based childcare, and do what I think all deputies who contributed at second stage, have agreed to do. Now, most of the output of that will be seen in the regulations. It won't be seen in changes to this particular bill. I know Deputy Fitzmaurice has raised a particular issue in terms of the number of children that a childminder can look at. We did discuss that yesterday. We have a little bit more work to do in terms of that, so I'm not going to have an answer for you on that point today, Deputy, but I've committed to continue to engage with you on that point. So, look, I hope Deputy Sherlock that has in some way addressed some of the issues that you flagged there. And, last again, Gourley, if you will, just indulge me for one minute, moment more at the Joint Aracus Committee yesterday, I paid tribute to the Chairperson, Deputy Function, so I'm delighted to be able to do it in person today, and just thank her for her work as Cahirluc. What I said yesterday was your focus has always been on the policy outcomes. You have never let party politics get in the way of delivering good legislative processes, good reports from that committee. I think it's widely regarded across the committee. Your leadership has been extremely fair. It's been extremely open. I know certainly some of the PLS processes you did were challenging. You did amazing work in terms of facilitating survivors and former residents of Mother and Baby Homes to be able to give their input, particularly into the bill dealing with Toome. And, look, I just say it would be a great loss to this House, but I've no doubt you will continue your really cooperative and hard work in the European Parliament and will be a great representative for Ireland's South. Thank you. Bless you. I'm a member. Thank you.