We are awaiting the party spokespersons.
Childcare Support Bill 2017: From the Seanad
One of them is present.
A quorum should be called.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
As we have a quorum we may now deal with the Seanad amendments. Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 1: In page 6, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“ “personal public service number” has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2005;”.
Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are technical drafting amendments. Under the affordable childcare scheme, personal public service, PPS numbers will be provided as part of applications for financial support. PPS numbers are referred to in sections 7 and 9 of the Bill. However, section 7 includes a specific reference to the definition of a PPS number in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, while section 9 does not. The amendments address this minor inconsistency and ensure there is a single, clear definition of a PPS number which applies throughout the Bill.
Seanad amendment No. 1 inserts a definition into section 1, which sets out the interpretation of terms used throughout the Bill. This definition ties the term "personal public service number" to its use in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005. Seanad amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential on Seanad amendment No. 1 and delete definitions of "personal public service number" that appear in section 7 of the Bill.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 2:
Section 7: In page 9, lines 31 and 32, to delete “within the meaning of section 262 of the Act of 2005”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 3:
Section 7: In page 9, lines 36 and 37, to delete “within the meaning of section 262 of the Act of 2005”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 4:
Section 9: In page 11, line 2, after “partner” to insert “and in relation to whom the applicant or his or her partner is a parent”.
Seanad amendments Nos. 4 and 5 clarify which children are taken into account when determining the multiple child deduction that will apply to an applicant's assessable income. The multiple child deduction is a deduction from income that I intend to provide for families that have more than one child under the age of 15. It is intended to reflect a cumulative impact of childcare costs on families as it is total childcare costs, the combined cost in respect of all their children, that matter to parents when they are making decisions as to whether they can participate in the labour market. More broadly, the deduction is intended to reflect the relationship between larger family size and economic vulnerability.
Section 13(5) sets out the matters which the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs must take into account when making regulations on the methodology for calculating the level of subsidy under the scheme. These matters include the number of children in the family. In other words, this section gives the Minister the power to apply a multiple child deduction to a family's income for the purpose of the scheme's income assessment.
Section 9(3) of the Bill ensures that the scheme administrator is provided with all necessary information on other children in the family in order to allow for the application of this multiple child deduction. In providing for the multiple child deduction, then, it is essential that the Bill is absolutely clear as to which children may count towards it. The two Seanad amendments proposed today intend to clarify that the relevant children are those who first are children in relation to whom either the applicant or the applicant's partner is a parent or acts in a parental role; and second, are children who reside with the applicant or the applicant's partner. The first condition requiring a parental relationship ensures that a child cannot count towards the multiple child deduction if the child happens to live in the same house as the applicant but the applicant or his or her partner does not care for the child. The second condition requiring that they reside together ensures that a child cannot count towards the multiple child deduction if the applicant is a parent of the child but the applicant does not have regular care of the child.
Seanad amendment No. 4 amends section 9(3) to clarify that information, that is, the name, PPS number and date of birth, should be provided in the application form only for children in relation to whom the applicant or the applicant's partner is a parent. Seanad amendment No. 5 amends section 13(5) to clarify that when making regulations on the multiple child deduction, only children who reside with the applicant or the applicant's partner and in relation to whom the applicant or the applicant's partner is a parent should be counted.
This is all very nice when it is couched in language such as the Minister has just spoken. There is great room for anomalies, opacity, disengagement and avoidance. The Minister mentioned several times that an administrator may decide under section 13 of the Bill. As a parent of a large family, who has gone past childcare thankfully at this stage, and from the experience I have dealing with other schemes and as a chairperson of a community crèche, a naíonra, this is very unwieldy. It is not going to bring any clarity to the matter of trying to decide if a child is counted if he does not live with the parent or if the parent who is claiming does not give support to the child. Who is going to be the arbiter? The Minister mentioned the administrator of the scheme. Who is going to bring the clarity that is needed? Could this end up in legal challenges? We already have many cases of child custody and child issues that are dealt with in the Family Court. None of us interferes or wants to interfere or to be involved or to go there. The Minister is saying that in section 13(5) of the Bill, the level of subsidy depends on a certain number of children and on who is claiming and who is supporting that child. I think it is quite confusing. Who is going to be the final arbiter? If it ends up that these issues lead to further tensions and trauma, unfortunately maybe, it is the child we want to support and the children might end up the losers in the long term. I have issues about that.
These Seanad amendments are intended to and do correct anomalies. They will provide significant support to owners and managers of crèches, especially community crèches, because they are intended to ensure that childcare is affordable for larger families. Finally, Pobal is the scheme administrator.
I know Pobal is the overall administrator. That is fine. It is like the grant applications at present. Naíonra Chaisleáin Nua and many others were unsuccessful in their grant applications and ended up phoning or contacting their elected representatives. Pobal is fine but it is not on the ground. Pobal is not managing the day-to-day running of the crèches and does not have to make those hard decisions at the coal face. It is fine to talk about Pobal but in respect of the manager who may be working and a childminder in the scheme who might not be fortunate enough to be big enough to be a manager, who is dealing with the parents? If a person is dealing with two parents who might not be in agreement, the person will be waiting a while before they get somebody in Pobal to come in and adjudicate on that sensitive and delicate issue. It is grand on paper but there are physical mechanics, the working out of it, the human story behind it and difficulties. The primary objective of the childcare provider and the staff is to give proper, nurturing, safe and loving care to the children in their care but there are disputes and issues and there might be other implications relating to taxation and other benefits parents may be claiming. A wider issue can come into play and lead to very bitter disputes. It is fine to talk about Pobal but who are the line managers in Pobal who will be at hand or available to come and assist in arbitrating? We must remember that all of these community childcare facilities are run by voluntary boards. If the manager has an issue like that and it has to come down on one side or the other, the board is ultimately responsible and it is a voluntary board. I found in the past that Pobal is fine from nine to five but it is not there for board meetings late in the evening or for volunteers who cannot meet during the day. The machinations and mechanics of working through the system are not as simple as they appear in the Bill or the amendments.
These amendments aim to ensure that childcare is more affordable, particularly for parents with larger families. I believe the Deputy indicated that this is something in his own history. That is a good thing in terms of the amendments. Second, I answered the Deputy's question in terms of Pobal because he asked about the scheme administrator, which is helpful in terms of the scheme's administration. At the same time, there is and will be an appeals process in which appeals officers will be required to make an assessment that is independent of the scheme administrator so I expect that this answers the Deputy's queries.
How stands amendment No. 4?
Can I get clarification?
The Minister has clarified it. I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that we are dealing with an application for financial support, section 9(d). I do not have to explain it as the Minister has explained it.
Seanad amendment put.
Deputies
Vótáil.
Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?
Deputies Michael Collins, Danny Healy-Rae and Mattie McGrath rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the Seanad amendment is agreed to. In accordance with Standing Order 72, the names of the Deputies who claimed a division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until 11.45 a.m. on Thursday, 21 June 2018.