JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Thursday, 13 Oct 2005

Child Care: Presentation.

Vice-Chairman (Deputy Devins)

Apologies have been received from the Chairman, Deputy Moloney, and Senator Feeney. The minutes of the meeting of 29 September have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

We will now hear a presentation from the National Women's Council of Ireland on its report, An Accessible Childcare Model. Dr. Joanna McMinn has indicated that she must attend another meeting after this and has requested that we conclude our deliberations by 10.20 a.m. In that regard, I propose that we defer discussion on correspondence and related matters until after we hear the presentation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome Dr. Joanna McMinn, director of the National Women's Council of Ireland, Ms Claire Dunne, policy and outreach facilitator, and Ms Orla O'Connor. I ask them to commence their presentation on An Accessible Childcare Model, which was launched in September.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Dr. Joanna McMinn

Ms Orla O'Connor will give the presentation.

Ms Orla O’Connor

We welcome the opportunity to come before the committee to discuss the critical issue of child care. The NWCI, along with many NGOs involved in women's and children's rights and child care, welcomes the fact that child care has finally been given priority on the political agenda. The key issue now, or concern for us, is whether the appropriate decisions will be taken that will lead to a long-term sustainable solution for all children and their parents. What is different on this occasion is that there is a significant consensus of views on many of the issues. That is evident from our report and that of the National and Economic Social Forum, which contain many similar recommendations.

We hope that in meeting the committee today we can play our part in encouraging members to adopt a long term strategy which will lead to an effective, high quality child care infrastructure accessible to all parents and one that recognises the choices that parents want to make at different stages in their children's lives.

Unfortunately, child care is not an issue that lends itself to quick fix solutions. We are starting from a base at which we would not choose to be. Support for the care of children in Ireland has in the past been minimal and it was predominantly left up to women to either stay at home to care for the children or to juggle a career with a variety of child care arrangements. The equal opportunities childcare programme was the first real initiative to address the child care issue. What is required now, however, is a more holistic policy capable of tackling all the issues.

From a long consultation process with its members, the NWCI developed its position on child care, which is focused on recognition of care in the home, extensive leave arrangements to create a greater work-life balance and the development of a publicly funded, high quality early childhood care and education system. In 2003 we launched A Woman's Model for Social Welfare Reform which makes extensive recommendations on recognising parenting as a contingency within the social welfare system and on introducing a system of parental support payments which would allow parents to make real choices regarding care in the home and working in the paid labour force. We have been campaigning strongly on the need for these reforms and we urge the committee to consider them in the context of the budget.

In recent weeks we launched our proposals for an accessible model for child care in Ireland. Members have been circulated with copies of the report. The model comes from a children's and a women's rights perspective and is based on strong international evidence. The NWCI believes that early childhood care and education can no longer be left to the market to decide how, what and when child care is delivered. International evidence has clearly shown the benefits of early childhood care and education on children' s development and has shown that leave arrangements need to be as flexible as possible for parents. It is also clear from international evidence that countries which in the past have used tax-based solutions to support parents are now moving away from these measures because of their ineffectiveness to an approach based on providing subsidies to all child care providers.

The NWCI intends the model to increase and promote women's economic independence through a greater sharing of care responsibilities between women and men and through providing choices for women as to how and when they wish to participate in employment and education and training. That is particularly true for women dependent on low incomes.

We are clear that our model is only one part of the child care jigsaw and that there are issues related to quality standards, conditions, the position and status of workers and training that require specific attention. They are not covered by current research. I am sure that many members are already aware of this.

Several significant problems have caused the Irish child care crisis. We have a higher than average proportion of women and children living in poverty. The options for lone parents who cannot afford the full costs of child care are constrained. They often force parents, especially low-income ones, to settle for care of lower quality.

Most EU countries now provide free, universal access to early childhood care and education services for children aged from three and six. In Ireland, there is no such provision. Child care costs here are over 20% of average earnings. The majority of EU countries provide subsidies to assist parents in meeting child care costs. One can see from our report that there is a range of subsidies but in Denmark parents pay only 33% of costs. In Ireland, women who decide to care for their children at home have no access to State pensions or maternity benefits. Their care work is not credited in our social insurance system.

What are the costs of that lack of subsidy? We know from the OECD's 2004 review that child care costs in Ireland are unsustainable. We also know that Ireland has a particularly high reduction in women in the labour force, particularly after the birth of the second child. Child care costs are having an impact on poverty among women and children directly connected to the fact that women, particularly lone parents, cannot move out of poverty owing to the lack of child care facilities available. High child care costs also have negative effects on equality among children, since very often those from the most vulnerable households, who have been proven to benefit from early intervention, are excluded.

It is now time for Ireland to put children's development and education at the heart of society by creating a sustainable, equitable and affordable child care infrastructure. Our proposed subsidised model of child care starts with care provision for children aged up to 12. We propose paid maternity leave that would increase to 26 weeks, five days' paternity leave — we see that as a start, since there is currently none — and 26 weeks' paid parental leave. That gives parents the choice of caring for their children at home for the first year of a child's life. It has been proven by a great deal of research that such provision is vitally important to a child's development.

We also propose that there be a full-time, means-tested parental allowance payment for the parents of children under the age of five, with a part-time payment too. There should be credits for people caring for children under the age of 12. We also want the introduction of paid parental leave for the current provision of 14 weeks per child under the age of five, along with a parallel part-time leave structure. We are combining the recommendations of our social welfare reform and child care models.

The proposed model of child care provides for a ten year implementation plan since we know that it cannot be done immediately. The model is based on mixed delivery of provision utilising the existing diverse services. We also propose that the subsidy be paid directly to the provider, based on services being approved and meeting the required quality standards. The parents would be entitled to select approved child care services of their choice, subject to an income test. Once the parent has selected a service the agreed subsidy will be paid directly to the provider and the parent will pay the remainder of the fee. That is how it works in many other European countries.

Regarding that subsidised model, there would be universal early childhood care and education for three and four year olds. That is similar to the recommendations of the National Economic and Social Forum. There would be extended care, by which we mean care outside school, including after the school day has finished and during holidays. We are also talking about subsidised, full-day care for one and two year olds and extended care for five to 14 year olds.

There are several benefits to this model. First, it will support the development of a regulated, quality, accessible child care sector. It will ensure that all families, particularly low-income ones, can access quality, affordable child care facilities. It will facilitate parents, especially women, to move in and out of work at different stages of their lives. It will also facilitate choice regarding where children are cared for. Critically, it will recognise parenting in the social welfare system as a key contingency. It will support the equality of women by removing many barriers to employment, education and training and participation in public life.

Vice-Chairman

That was a very comprehensive presentation. Perhaps Senator Henry might begin.

Senator Henry

I thank Ms O'Connor for that excellent presentation. She did not mention any subsidy for care of a child within the home. In the French system, an employer can buy vouchers that can be used to pay for child care in the home or elder care; I believe that they even cover piano lessons. They are tax-free, and the person who gets them pays a different rate of tax. Has the National Women's Council considered that as a route that we should examine?

Vice-Chairman

Before the witnesses answer, perhaps we should bank some questions.

Senator Browne

All these tax breaks for child care might have an inflationary effect, with people ending up paying almost the same for child care if costs rise. The challenge for us is to eliminate those costs, perhaps through the abolition of rates on child care places, which would reduce costs for providers.

A more radical step would be for the State to pay the salaries of those involved in child care. That might sound a little unusual, but I am sure that when Donogh O'Malley suggested it years ago for second level, people raised their eyebrows too. We do it for primary, secondary and third level so why should we not consider doing it for crèches and pre-school environments? We should certainly examine it for three and four year olds. On that point, does the National Women's Council have any figures for the number of under-fours in the country? Am I right in thinking that there are approximately 250,000?

A friend has two children, one of whom has started school this year. He attends school for half the day but then goes back to play-school for the remainder. However, she has to pay the full cost of the crèche for the child so as not to lose her place. I appreciate that the case is very awkward. The owners of the crèche would argue that they need the full amount since a place is being kept open for that child. However, there is surely some way around it for those who have children attending school for half the day who must then return in the afternoon. I find it rather unfair and the costs are massive.

Tax breaks and subsidies have been mentioned. If the State can eliminate the cost in some way, can that be passed on to the parents directly? Otherwise, all one is doing is creating layers of bureaucracy. Ultimately, one might not pass on the full benefit to the parents.

Deputy McManus

I welcome the delegation's visit, which is very timely, since child care is a major political issue. It is important that everything be done to best effect, particularly for the children. However, it is obviously not just about them; it is about the economy, which will not thrive unless this issue is addressed. There is therefore a pressing need for major improvements.

It is interesting that the National Women's Council has concentrated its proposals on subsidising the provider. Senator Browne also referred to this. How does one ensure that costs do not simply rise? That is important, since most people would feel that it is better for the subsidy to come to the parents. That view is instinctive on the part of those with young children. The idea of recognising parenting in the social welfare system is crucial. Whatever else it does, the committee should write to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to seek that this be done.

What contribution does the NWCI expect employers to make? We are talking about a massive bill and everybody understands that there is no cheap way of providing good quality child care. However, employers, IBEC in particular, tend to feel they have no responsibility. They take the benefits of women working but they do not respond in any proactive way. What provision should employers have to make in terms of contributing towards this cost?

On a related point, I have learned that reporting of child abuse cases appears to have stopped since 2001. Regular information and data as to the number of child abuse cases was previously given to the authorities but it is no longer available. This may be because computer systems are not working but, whatever the reason, the matter is extremely serious and needs to be pursued with the Minister for Health and Children. Any comment on that from the NWCI would be useful.

Ms Claire Dunne

With regard to the question on women in the home, the NWCI completed the research on a women's model for social welfare reform. Three areas need to be reformed with regard to recognising parenting within the social welfare system.

First, credits should be given to parents who stay at home to care for a child under the age of 12. The homemakers scheme comprises disregards related to time spent in the home caring for a child under 12 or an incapacitated adult. We hope that these disregards will be turned into credits and that not only will they be recognised for pensions but also for receiving maternity benefit and parental benefit. That is how this area could and should be covered.

The second area concerns paid parental leave benefit. We propose that the current provision for 14 weeks parental leave would be paid for a child under five.

Third, we propose that a parental allowance would be paid at the same rate as unemployment assistance on a full-time basis until the child is five and on a part-time basis thereafter, in order that parents could combine part-time parenting with part-time employment or, if they were on an unemployment assistance scheme, with part-time unemployment assistance. Parents would be moved out of parenting and this would be linked to returning to work.

Ms O’Connor

The NWCI believes that providing choice involves extensive leave arrangements. We want to begin by dealing with the one year period, as well as dealing with the issues outlined by Ms Dunne. We propose that there should be choice for that one year and that this choice should be supported. In addition, the 14 week period should also be paid. If a parent is caring in the home, she would build up credits and would then be entitled to maternity benefit or parental leave benefit. In that event, we would return to the committee in three or four years to say it is time to consider a period of longer than one year, which is standard in other countries, where leave arrangements extend to two or three years. This is how we foresee that choice being guaranteed.

Senator Browne and Deputy McManus asked how the inflation of costs, which has been one of the issues in regard to tax relief, would be stopped. Such inflation has happened in other countries, which is one of the reasons they have moved away from such reliefs. Some of the countries focused on in our report capped fees by reviewing them annually and setting a rate. For example, if the fee is €200 and the subsidy is 50%, which we recommend, then €100 is provided to the provider. However, the fee is set and publicly advertised in the same way that we might advertise the minimum wage rate, and all parents are aware of this. In some countries, a provider might decide to have some subsidised places and some totally private places — it is not left to the market to decide. However, this is not the case in other countries and this is a decision we need to make.

The comment on the education system was useful because we need to consider child care as a right, in the same way that we consider primary education an unquestioned right for which subsidies are provided directly through capitation grants, unlike subsidies for child care. There are different ways of preventing costs being inflated. However, if we go down the route of providing a support directly for parents, it will be practically impossible to do this.

Deputy F. O’Malley

What countries cap fees?

Ms O’Connor

One of the examples in the report is Denmark. Another is the model being considered in Britain in the borough of greater London. When we launched the report, the director of Childcare attended and spoke of how this model is beginning in London.

Deputy F. O’Malley

Is it working in London at present?

Ms O’Connor

It is working in the greater London borough, which covers all of the local councils. The model comes under the programme of the Mayor of London, Mr. Ken Livingstone.

Senator Henry

I must not have made myself totally clear. Did the NWCI consider the French system, in which domestic vouchers can be bought and used to pay for child minders in the home? There has been a total concentration on minding children outside the home, whereas there does not seem to be any provision for allowing parents to bring a child minder into the home.

Ms O’Connor

Child minders are included within this proposal and within the subsidised model. Ireland is starting from such a diverse base that the subsidies will have to be provided for child minders who meet quality standards, which is the issue.

Senator Henry

I am talking about child minders coming into a home.

Ms O’Connor

I understand. For example, the subsidy would be provided for the child minder provided that the minder has been trained or has met quality standards. Child minders are definitely part of the model. Ireland is currently considering that the majority of child care would be provided by child minders.

Senator Henry

However, that is frequently when a child is put into another house near the home.

Ms O’Connor

It can be in one's own home or the child minder's home. It is a mixture of both in Ireland.

Senator Henry

That is fine.

Deputy Gormley

Some people have suggested deregulating child care. For example, if one was minding fewer than five children, it would be the same as having a friend minding them and would not be subject to the same regulation as a proper child care unit. Will the delegation comment on this?

I am not sure if the delegation watched the "Prime Time" programme earlier in the week which presented two very different perspectives. The stay-at-home mother perspective was that there is now a rush into the market and that individualisation was the first step towards this. How does the NWCI view individualisation? The delegation referred to parental allowance. The idea that arose in the television programme was that of increasing child benefit. Will the delegation comment on this?

Deputy Connolly

I thank the NWCI for its enlightening presentation. I agree with it that the child care issue has been given political priority. Anybody who has observed affairs in recent general elections or by-elections realises that the issue of child care is top of the agenda. Those who ignore this do so at their peril.

It is disturbing that every report in this area suggests that women and children are in a vulnerable position with regard to poverty leagues, and it is suggested that one child in seven in this country lives in poverty. Poverty affects women and children in particular and education and care are the way forward in this regard.

I have concerns about rejecting a tax-based solution. The ideal situation would be to have State-sponsored crèches available in all locations. However, the reality is that the backbone of the child care system, particularly in rural areas, is the assistance provided by neighbours, grandparents or other local carers. Of most benefit to parents in this situation would be some form of tax relief on their earnings to offset child care costs.

This is why I am concerned about moving entirely away from a tax-based solution. In many rural areas, in particular, crèches and other child care facilities will not be provided in the short term and it is unacceptable that people should be told they must ten years before any assistance is available. We must ensure a system is in place to assist parents who wish to avail of crèche facilities as well as those who want their children to be cared for by a grandparent or neighbour. Some type of tax break is required and we must be careful about being overly restrictive in terms of the qualifications and training required by child minders. The service provided by informal carers is the backbone of the child care system as it currently exists.

I have no doubt most parents would love an entitlement to 26 weeks' paid maternity leave, five days of paid paternity leave and 26 weeks' paid parental leave. As Deputy McManus inquired, has the delegation broached this subject with IBEC? There will be difficulties for private employers, particularly small businesses, in a situation, for example, where an employee who has expertise in a particular area or system takes parental leave for six months. These are valid concerns. The public service can cater for such arrangements but the private sector may not be so well equipped.

Deputy O’Connor

I welcome the delegation. I am sure the delegates share my groundhog day sensation following their attendance at yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform to discuss the same issue. I subsequently attended a Community Platform meeting at which Ms O'Connor was also present. That meeting was specifically concerned with poverty issues but I made the point at yesterday's committee meeting that there are many aspects to the debate about child care.

It is good that it is on the political agenda and, as I said to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe yesterday, an all-party approach is positive. RTE's "Prime Time" is sometimes criticised in the Dáil but the recent episode on child care was interesting and served to underline the challenges facing the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. There is major expectation in regard to how this matter will be dealt with in the budget. I hope the Minister will consider all the issues and come forward with useful proposals. This is an issue that affects all communities, as Deputy Connolly observed.

My constituency is largely urban, Tallaght being the third largest population centre in the country. The launch of a report on child welfare in west Tallaght on Monday points to the challenges facing parents and families. There is no doubt there are different views on the issue of child care. There are different priorities for stay-at-home parents, working parents and parents in disadvantaged communities who face particular challenges in this regard. I have always maintained that these committee meetings are important and useful because they afford the opportunity to hear all the different views on a subject. The National Women's Council of Ireland presents a strong case in regard to the issue of child care.

I listened carefully to the presentation at yesterday's committee meeting and the delegates' responses to members' question. However, I ask them to outline their position on the merits and challenges of stay-at-home parenting versus other forms of child care.

Reference was made to the recent by-elections, a point made yesterday by Deputy Catherine Murphy. If there was little awareness of child care as a political issue before those elections, that changed after public representatives had the experience of knocking on doors in Kildare and Meath. I met a constituent — a mother of two young children, the youngest only six weeks old — early this morning in her home. As a working parent, she is struggling with child care and is obliged to have her mother over early in the morning to look after the baby while she gets ready for work. This underlined for me the complexity of the situation.

I also repeat a question I put to the delegates yesterday. If our positions were swapped, although it would be difficult for me to take the delegates' position because I am a man——

Deputy Neville

Child care is an issue for men also.

Deputy O’Connor

Of course it is a men's issue. I merely observed that I could not be in the delegates' place because I am a man.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Deputy O'Connor should stop digging.

Deputy O’Connor

In our position, is there one change in particular the delegates would make? I wish them well in their work. It was interesting to encounter them so often this week and to learn about the positive work they do.

Vice-Chairman

I am delighted Deputy O'Connor is out early and knocking on doors.

Deputy O’Connor

I am out and about first thing in the morning.

Ms O’Connor

Deputy Gormley raised the issue of changing the legislation in order that a child minder could look after a maximum of five children rather than three. As a member of the Irish Child Care Policy Network, we do not support such a policy, which was also put to us yesterday by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. The current regulations allow a person to care for three children as well as any children related to the carer. In reality, therefore, child minders often look after more than three children. Raising the number to five is inimical to our policy of trying to move child care in the direction where child minders are qualified and trained, adequately paid and have a recognised status.

In regard to individualisation, the council is clear in its position. When individualisation of the tax system was introduced by the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, we did not support the budgetary provisions. It is important to emphasise, however, that the council supports individualisation of taxation and social welfare. We were clear with the Minister at the time that it was inappropriate to introduce those budgetary measures at a time when there were no child care supports in place for parents either inside or outside the home. That was our objection. When a proper child care infrastructure is in place, the tax and social welfare systems must both be individualised. The latter is critical because there is more discrimination against women in that system.

The National Women's Council of Ireland, along with many organisations who work against poverty, has called for child benefit to be increased significantly. The Combat Poverty Agency has made the case well in setting out what is required in terms of the costs of rearing a child. These costs are separate from child care costs. Child benefit must be increased significantly but it is a separate matter from child care.

In the context of the forthcoming budget, we will strongly suggest to the Minister that while we understand how he might decide to go down the child benefit route, as it might keep everyone happy, we disagree with it. That approach has been tried before, when the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was negotiated, and it did not work. Hence, we will emphasise that point to the Minister again. It will not work as a solution for child care.

As for Deputy Connolly's comments on tax, there are several different reasons the National Women's Council of Ireland has not opted to go down a tax route. We primarily believe it to be deeply inequitable, particularly in respect of women. This is because it would only support people who are in the tax system in some way or who pay enough tax to benefit from a tax relief. The majority of people on the minimum wage are women who would not benefit to the same extent as higher earners if tax relief was given to them. From the research carried out on behalf of the NWCI, it is clear that countries with high quality child care systems have opted for a subsidised route rather than a tax route. Some countries have even moved away from tax relief. We included two case studies in our report, namely, the United Kingdom and the Canadian province of Quebec. Both models have shifted away from tax relief simply because they found them to be ineffective and insufficiently targeted. This is why we advocate the subsidised route.

Deputy Connolly

This would be applicable in situations where one has no alternative. However, many people work through informal systems. In terms of tax relief being inequitable, what statistics does the NWCI have regarding the number of women who are outside the tax bracket and who pay for child care?

Ms O’Connor

While I do not have figures to hand, we can supply them to members if they wish. We have done that work before. However, in terms of the situation outlined by the Deputy, within our model, child minders would receive subsidies. Hence, within rural areas, and the Deputy is correct——

Deputy Connolly

What about informal arrangements?

Ms O’Connor

No. Child minders would be obliged to meet certain quality standards such as those under development within the Department of Education and Science at present. They would be obliged to do so because it is extremely important for people to be paid properly and to be in a position where they earn a good income and where they have the appropriate training, qualifications, etc. This is critical for the individuals concerned.

Deputy Connolly

Many people look after one child on a family basis and if such people must formalise the arrangements, it is likely to chase them out of the system.

Dr. McMinn

May I respond to the question Deputy Connolly raised about IBEC? It is important to point out that IBEC is part of the NESF and supported that body's child care report, which contains similar recommendations to ours. However, on the question of IBEC's concerns about women as employees, the evidence shows that women tend to drop out after having two children because child care costs are so high. The committee has heard about the difficulties and expenses involved. Hence, we argue that women employed by small businesses should have better parental leave because this has been shown to attract women back into the labour market. In a sense, IBEC should encourage its members to take a longer term view in order that they retain those employees who have learned about the company and have gained skills. Otherwise, women drop out and companies must re-employ and retrain people continually. Our recommendation is that such companies should take a longer term view. While there may be short-term pain, there will be long-term gain.

Ms O’Connor

I wish to respond to Deputy O'Connor's question as to what we would do immediately. Although we produced a ten-year plan, some things must be done in order to make a start. The extension of maternity benefit to 26 weeks must be prioritised. We must introduce paternity leave and recognise the role of fathers in this regard. We must also initiate universal early education for three and four year olds, which is in line with the NESF's proposals. Care work must be recognised within the social insurance system. At the outset, these are the key issues and by addressing them, we will begin to meet the requirements generated by the different choices parents want to make.

Deputy O’Connor

May I ask a brief supplementary question?

Vice-Chairman

We are under time constraints and other members wish to contribute.

Deputy O’Connor

I will be brief. I made a remark about Groundhog Day because this issue was discussed at a meeting yesterday of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Should this matter be the responsibility of a single Department? At present, we deal with the Departments of Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others. This is important. Can Ms O'Connor comment briefly?

Ms O’Connor

Absolutely. It is one of our recommendations. It is crazy that so many different Departments are involved while no one has overall responsibility apart from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform——

Deputy F. O’Malley

The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has special responsibility for children.

Ms O’Connor

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility through the equal opportunities childcare programme. Obviously that is very positive but different responsibilities lie in different Departments.

Deputy Neville

The former Deputy, Austin Currie, had such responsibility when he served as Minister of State in three Departments.

Deputy F. O’Malley

Deputy Brian Lenihan is the Minister of State with responsibility for children. He is the individual around whom actions can be co-ordinated. I do not accept Ms O'Connor's point.

Ms O’Connor

However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell——

Vice-Chairman

We should not waste our time by having a row about this issue.

Deputy O’Connor

I knew I had asked a good question.

Ms O’Connor

We agree with the Deputy's comment.

Vice-Chairman

I take Deputy O'Connor's point. As we are under time constraints, I ask Deputies Fiona O'Malley and Twomey to ask their questions.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I have two brief questions. Can the witnesses explain their understanding of the purpose of child benefit? What is their attitude to informal child care arrangements?

Deputy Twomey

At present, the debate on child care is focused on stay-at-home and working mothers. The latter can be broken down into two types, namely, those who have poverty issues and have difficulty paying for child care and those who can afford child care but who find it to be an enormous burden. This issue exploded on to the political scene because of how it affects mothers who commute long distances. They drop children off at crèches or schools between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and do not return until late in the evening to collect them again. The children spend such an enormous amount of time away from their parents that I have concerns for the future of many of them. From speaking to child psychiatrists and psychologists, I understand that many of these children already face difficulties because their parental bonding is not as strong as it was for our generation. While much of this argument is focused on money and the cost of child care, we should broaden it to focus on the phenomenon of such mothers commuting for long parts of the day and the massive impact this will have on their children.

Has the NWCI conducted any research on this issue? I am sure this problem has surfaced in other countries. Has there been any research carried out in countries where working mothers commute long distances for long periods of the day? What is the situation in such countries, as far as mothers and children are concerned, when children are separated from their parents for anything up to 12 hours per day? What are the outcomes and what has been done about that problem? I wish to broaden the scope of what has been discussed so far in this meeting.

Ms O’Connor

With regard to Deputy Fiona O'Malley first question on the purpose of child benefit, we agree with the manner in which the Combat Poverty Agency has laid out the needs which are met by child benefit. These include basic diet, clothes for children, schooling costs and something of a recreational budget. That is really all that is covered by child benefit, particularly if one considers its current level. Hence, we do not consider the cost of child care to be covered by child benefit.

Dr. McMinn

As far as informal arrangements are concerned, it is important to note that our child care report does not simply discuss child-minding for the benefit of parents. It focuses on early childhood education and care. It is concerned with the quality of care received by children and relates to the question of the psychological needs of children. All the evidence demonstrates that good quality early childhood care and education develops children cognitively, intellectually, socially and so on. Children do much better. There are examples of this drawn from longitudinal studies in our report. We certainly share the concerns raised about some of the pressures on parents and children.

The Perry pre-school project in the US involved the examination of 23 children who were considered to be at high risk. The results revealed a 71% success rate in employment for the children who had experienced pre-school care compared to a success rate of 59% for the children in the control group who had not experienced pre-school care. The numbers of children who had experienced pre-school care who ended up on social welfare were lower than those in the control group. The study revealed that savings of 80% were achieved in respect of crime, savings of 4% were achieved in terms of education and savings of 1% were achieved in the context of social welfare. There was also a 7% increase in taxes from higher earnings. An investment of $15,000 was made in respect of each child and the return on this was $258,000 per participant. Providing quality early childhood care and education leads to undoubted social and psychological benefits for children and parents.

Deputy Twomey

Is Dr. McMinn aware of any other models connected with long commuting times?

Ms O’Connor

We did not examine long commuting times in our report, apart from in terms of how to make child care as flexible as possible. The flexibility of child care and its accessibility to parents are key issues. It is about combining leave arrangements with child care.

Vice-Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I thank Dr. McMinn, Ms O'Connor and Ms Dunne for attending today's meeting and for their detailed presentation. The presentation is most timely and will add considerably to the debate.

The joint committee went into private session at 10.25 a.m. and adjourned at 10.40 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 October 2005.