Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1999

Vol. 158 No. 4

National Child Care Strategy: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Miss M. Wallace)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of child care in the Seanad today. Last week's report from the expert working group has encouraged further the importance of debating the issue of child care in this country.

Compared to other EU countries the provision of child care services in Ireland is limited. The report of the expert working group on child care, which sets out proposals for a national child care strategy in respect of child care services to parents which necessarily involves third parties, was launched on 3 February 1999 by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue. This comprehensive report is the result of 18 months deliberation by the members of the group established by the Government under a commitment in Partnership 2000 in July 1997.

The expert working group believes "the lack of provision of quality child care has reached crisis level. Many services have long waiting lists and parents have difficulty accessing information on what is available". The interaction of the increase in the number of women with children choosing to combine work and family life with the decrease in the availability of child care places has caused this crisis. The crisis is further exacerbated in that with the improvements in the quality of child care, the price of child care is increasing. As a result, many women who would like to combine work and family life cannot afford to work. Only those in the higher income groups can afford to do so.

The members of the expert working group were charged with the challenging task of devising a national child care framework for the development of such facilities in Ireland and the terms of reference were directed by the Partnership 2000 agreement. As stated by the Partnership 2000 agreement, "child care is clearly an important issue in promoting equality for women and especially in promoting equal opportunities in employment".

However the child care debate is not only about equal opportunities in the workplace, but also about equality of access to affordable quality child care by parents who choose to avail of such services, whether they are working inside or outside the home, and about the needs of urban disadvantaged and rural communities. It is also about the nature of the child care sector and the pay, conditions and qualifications of child care workers. It is about the need to develop a national child care strategy which adopts a child centred approach to ensure our children have access to quality services.

The expert working group comprised representatives of the relevant Departments, statutory bodies, non-governmental organisations, child care providers, parents and individuals who had expertise and interest in the area of child care. My Department chaired the group of over 75 members which, although large in size, provided the collective experience and expertise necessary to devise a cohesive national strategy.

The members approached the task in true partnership spirit. They agreed a practical working process which enabled them to focus on the issue at stake. These included financial and employment implications, registration, training and employment of child care workers, resourcing and sustaining child care in both urban disadvantaged and rural areas, equality of access and participation, the needs and rights of children, early childhood education and regulations and standards.

As the report points out, the group had to address a diverse range of issues including the needs of children, the problem of diminishing child care supply, affordability of child care, regulation of standards, the numbers of child minders in the informal economy and, in particular, the problems faced by urban disadvantaged and rural areas.

The expert working group was faced with terms of reference which were wide ranging and multi-faceted. The terms of reference were not directed at parents who choose to care for their own children. The term "child care" for the purpose of the expert working group referred to services provided to parents for the care of their children and included a range of full day care and sessional services. The focus was on access to such services by children aged 0 to 12. It is important to note the members of the expert working group acknowledged the role of parents who choose to care for their own children. However, it considered this was a separate policy objective requiring a different policy solution.

According to employment statistics, the majority of new jobs created by the Celtic tiger economy are taken up by women. The study on the economics of child care in Ireland conducted by Goodbody Economic Consultants on behalf of the expert working group, provides interesting statistics, analyses and predictions for future trends in women's participation in the labour market, and hence increased demand for child care places. However this coincides with a diminishing supply of child care places as child care workers and child minders choose to work in the alternative employment available in the current thriving economic climate. Added to this is the increasing cost of providing child care services that meet the minimum standards directed by the Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations, 1996.

It is estimated there are 30,000 child minders providing child care services in Ireland. A large proportion of them are operating in the informal economy. They are providing a valuable service but by operating in the informal economy they lose out on the status and benefits associated with employment in the formal economy.

Employers are concerned about the skills and labour shortages they are experiencing due to the lack of accessible and affordable child care for employees. They do not want to lose highly skilled and trained workers. Likewise, many employees are faced with the challenges of combining work and family life.

In addition to the problem of the shortage of child care places is the issue of affordability for parents. Quality child care costs money. For families in disadvantaged communities, the absence of affordable child care prevents parents from accessing employment, training and education opportunities. Child care has an important role in combating social exclusion, particularly within families experiencing poverty and disadvantage.

Since 1994, my Department has provided funding for the development of child care facilities in disadvantaged areas to facilitate mothers, in particular, to access employment, education and training. In 1998, we introduced the equal opportunities child care programme which provides nationwide funding under initiatives aimed at improving the quality and availability of child care in Ireland from an equal opportunities perspective with an emphasis on areas experiencing disadvantage. The total budget for the programme for 1998 and 1999 is approximately £6 million, which includes funding from the EU.

The programme operates through three inter-dependent funding initiatives. These include the capital infrastructure initiative, which provides funding to community projects in disadvantaged areas to establish or up-grade facilities; the community support initiative, which is aimed at 25 community child care projects throughout the country, with a focus on equal opportunities and the disadvantaged. Each of these projects is receiving funding over two years to meet the expenditure required for two full-time senior child care posts. Third, there is the employer demonstration initiative which is led by IBEC. This encourages businesses to provide child care facilities for their employees. We are also developing a database on child care services with the help of EU funding. This will assist the co-ordination and planning of child care facilities. The database will provide a much needed source of information for parents seeking child care provisions in the future.

It is important to note that child care is not just availed of by working parents. It is estimated that at least 16 per cent of services are availed of by families with a parent working in the home, that is, in the form of pre-school and play group services. The changing make-up of families and society and decrease of socialisation opportunities have increased demand for this type of service. Quality child care benefits all children and can, as the export working group report highlights, improve opportunities in later life for children from disadvantaged areas in particular.

There are particular difficulties in rural areas for accessing child care services due to isolation and transport problems. Children have a right to equal access to child care services. Our children will make up the society of the future, so investment in quality child care now will be rewarded in the long-term. The expert working group on child care has recommended a seven year integrated child care strategy which provides for access to child care services for all families regardless of their socio-economic status. The integrated package of supports proposed is set out in a total of 27 recommendations targeted at issues including quality and standard of services, the supply and demand side of child care and the co-ordination of services.

On the supply side, the working group has recommended supports in the form of capital grants, relief for providers, tax allowances for child minders, grants for the employment of new child care workers, funding for local level measures in relation to the development of after-school initiatives and child care networks and improvement of local authority planning guidelines.

On the demand side, the group has recommended supports in the form of child care subsidies for low income families accessing education and training, increased income limits for the family income supplement payment where parents incur child care expenses, increased income ceiling for the one-parent family payment where parents incur child care expenses, personal tax relief for child care expenses and removal of treatment of child care as benefit-in-kind. The group also recommends the establishment of local planning and national co-ordination mechanisms to deliver child care policies and the development of registration systems for both facilities and child care personnel.

Some costing figures are available for the proposals in the report of the expert working group on child care. For example, it is estimated that if tax relief was provided in relation to receipted child care expenditure for children aged naught to 12 of taxpaying parents, the cost would be approximately £30 million per annum. This is based on services availed of in the formal economy and on the estimated qualification for the relief which was calculated by referring to the trend in the use of child care services referred to in the ESRI survey on child care arrangements 1997, while taking into account the number of children of taxpaying parents under 12 years of age on 6 April this year. However, as the report indicates, if all child care was in the formal economy, the cost of tax relief would be in the region of £66 million per annum. The expert working group also costed the child benefit payment as a possible support option. The report indicates that to make a meaningful contribution to parents' weekly child care costs would require at least an additional £20 per week, per child in child benefit. If this was applied to all children aged naught to 12 years currently in receipt of child benefit, the annual cost to the Exchequer is estimated to be in the region of £728 million.

The study on the economics of child care was conducted by Goodbody Economic Consultants on behalf of the expert working group on child care. It provides estimated costings for some of the other proposals. However, many of the proposals have not yet been specifically costed. In this year's budget the Government announced the introduction of capital allowances for expenditure on child care facilities and that free or subsidised child care facilities provided by employers would no longer be subject to treatment as benefit-in-kind for tax purposes in the hands of employees.

It is clear that child care is a complex issue and does not lend itself to quick and easy solutions. Two other important reports were published recently which contain proposals to address child care. These are the report of the Commission on the Family and the report of the Forum for Early Childhood Education. All three reports provide a wealth of information and research findings. They each contain different proposals on various aspects of child care and address different issues. For example, in contrast to the report of the expert working group on child care, the focus of the child care recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Family and the report of the Forum for Early Childhood Education is on the naught to six year olds only.

The costs in the various reports need to be treated with caution because all the recommendations have not been costed. Those which have been costed have been based on certain assumptions and on different age groups, and the data on which they are based may not be up to date given the rapid changes in the labour market. The Government has decided to establish an interdepartmental committee, comprising representatives of the relevant Government Departments. This committee will be chaired by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and will be required to evaluate, cost and prioritise the child care proposals in all three reports, together with the relevant proposals in An Action Programme for the Millennium, and to make recommendations to the Government within six months.

A substantial amount of work must be done on costings by that committee, as the most up-to-date data possible will be required and the interaction of various recommendations on one another will have to be assessed. For example, if some allowance were given to women in the home for child care, would the demand for child care outside the home be less than otherwise envisaged? Conversely, if improved child care were made available outside the home, would more mothers go out to work? Costings in respect of the various options within recommendations will have to be produced. For example, we will need to cost measures whether they are targeted at children under 12 years of age or limited to children under five years, or, alternatively, if there is a phasing arrangement. Accurate costing, which will enable recommendations to be evaluated on a like-for-like costing basis, are needed.

The interdepartmental committee has a very substantial and necessary task to do, and the setting up of this committee so quickly after the finalisation of the report of the expert working group on child care, with a specific period of six months to carry out its task, is an indication of the importance the Government attaches to child care issues. I understand the committee will hold its first meeting on Monday, 15 February. I wish it well.

I am grateful for the time, effort, energy and commitment given by members of the expert working group on child care. They have given us an in-depth and comprehensive report which provides a very good base on which to build a national child care strategy. We have been fortunate to be able to avail of the expertise and knowledge of the experts and practitioners and, indeed, the parents who came to the table with their own views and beliefs but were able to accept the views of others. The result of their work is a consensus report which is a remarkable achievement for such a large group of individuals. I look forward to hearing the views of Members of the Seanad.

Mrs. Jackman

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, to the House. However, I question the fact that the report was launched by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue. I acknowledge the interest of Senator John Cregan, who is the only male among us. As the debate proceeds is it possible that there will be the officials, the Minister of State, ourselves and only one male Senator in attendance?

I would have liked the Minister of State to have launched the document. I presume she could not do so as it was under the aegis of the Minister. I served with her on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights from 1989 to 1992 which discussed this issue and fought hard for child care. We stated then that the Oireachtas was not giving a good example as there was no crèche or family room and no balance between work and the care of children. That is still the case.

In addition, the Oireachtas continues to sit ridiculous hours whereby mothers who are Members of either House have to stay away from their children two or three nights a week. We have also done very little for the women and men who work in both Houses. I hope the fact that there is only one male Senator, Senator Cregan, in the House is not indicative that the battle for the implementation of the report will, once again, have to be driven by women. Children have two parents, male and female, and male Senators should be in the House for this discussion. I am disappointed there is not more input from male Members of the Oireachtas.

The Minister of State said that the committee will meet on 15 February. However, in her press release, Noreen Byrne, a member of the committee which produced the report, stated that she was outraged that the Government has not responded to the recommendations and that the organisations involved in drafting the report feel excluded from moving the child care issue forward. Ms Byrne stated that the Minister has played pass the parcel with child care.

I applaud the working group on its comprehensive report. It sat for 18 months and worked extremely hard. There were eight chairpersons of the eight policy sub-groups. Dr. Katherine Zappone was the representative of the National Women's Council of Ireland. It is a pity the groups have no role in bringing forward the report as this would provide for consistency between the report and the findings of the committee.

I presume the committee will go back to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue. This committee will include membership from many Departments and will make recommendations to Government. At that stage will the expert working group ask the Minister to go through that channel again? This is not clear.

I welcome this report and pay tribute to the hard work done and to the chairpersons of the eight sub-groups. The foreword to the report states: "The working process of the Expert Working Group was guided by the ‘spirit' of the Partnership 2000 agreement."

One of the principles states: "All Social Partners accept that the benefits of economic growth be shared by all citizens in a manner that reflects this country's commitment to social solidarity and a better quality of life for all our people."

Over the years different Oireachtas committees, such as those on women's rights and health and children, have pushed for a realistic child care policy. We were aware that Ireland was the Cinderella of Europe on this issue. Between 1989 and 1992 there was evidence that Greece was behind on this issue but the Greek Government decided to be proactive and prioritise this issue and it implemented a powerful child care policy.

The introduction to the executive summary of the report states that the strategy came about because of a virtual crisis in child care supply. There was also reference to the female labour force and participation in the workforce. This was the issue which drove the report. However, it is only one aspect of quality child care. As a working mother, I had the benefit of quality child care provided by my cousin who was a nurse and who was ahead of her time in Limerick. This was not long after the marriage bar was lifted and as women teachers we felt we had to work as the right to do so would be taken from us if we did not take up the challenge of the times. My personal experiences are of access to quality child care but I have always had misgivings and a guilt complex about the fact that there was not a 14 weeks statutory maternity leave provision. My daughter was placed in a crèche at the tender age of three weeks.

We were critical of what was happening in the Soviet Union at that time, yet they had eight weeks maternity leave and child care facilities in the workplace. Our arrangements were draconian and I still experience guilt. If I had the chance again I would not work for the first three or four years of my child's life as she is an only child. I do not want women to have the tremendous pressure of being lured into the workplace because jobs exist and also suffering guilt. Men never seem to suffer guilt, as is evident today because they are not in the House.

In one of the Dublin local authorities where there is a crèche the men objected strenuously to the noise of the children outside their offices and questioned whether the provision of the facility was a good idea. This was raised by our county manager when discussing this issue recently. Where are we going? This would not have come to mind were it not for the non-attendance of men in the House. I am back to the issue of guilt. Women worry about whether we are going to forever question the decision to leave our children, but men do not seem to share that worry. That may be unfair as I am sure there are ‘new men' who would like flexitime so they could spend time at home. These men are to the fore in Scandinavian countries which are light years ahead of Ireland.

Ms Cox

They are not in the House.

Mrs. Jackman

Certainly not. I thought this would be debated in the Dáil. If it is I am sure there will be a clarion call to get male Members into the House but I am not sure if there will be much success.

This issue is on the agenda because childminders are opting for alternative employment due to the tiger economy, the impact of the Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations, 1996, and because large child care centres are experiencing difficulty recruiting and retaining quality child care staff. All parents want quality child care.

While we note the need for a policy of affordable child care for working parents, the real priority must be the care of children. Regardless of what IBEC says or what pressures come from industry, we must not forget to emphasise that we are talking about the care of children. There is reference in the strategy document to the needs and rights of children as the primary consideration but it is more noted than developed.

The social partners have pushed for action on child care. We can detail the needs but the kernel of the debate should be the needs of parents. There is a push and pull factor. Do I want to work now or do I want to spend the first precious few years with my children? If this is possible, can we strike a balance between work and minding our children? This was not addressed in the report but I hope it will be addressed by the committee. I hope the issue of flexi-working and the balance between men and women spending time with their families is taken on board.

I searched the study on the economics of child care in Ireland conducted by Goodbody Economic Consultants, to which the Minister of State referred, but I did not find much reference to the thinking in other European countries. We look to the Scandinavian countries as the pioneers of maternity leave, paternal leave, flexi-working hours and job sharing. However, all these issues must be re-examined. I was dismayed but not surprised to note in the document that the budget from the Departments of the Environment and Local Government, Finance, Public Enterprise, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others totals only £20 million. This sum was correctly targeted towards children in need and also the disadvantaged. However, £20 million is a very small sum if one considers the Constitution and the principle of cherishing all the children and women of the nation equally.

The first chapter refers to the reasons parents use child care. It covers demographic changes socially and economically and the increased participation of women in the workforce. However, the number of women in the workplace in Ireland is very low in comparison to our EU neighbours. The other important issue is the difficulty of reconciling employment and family life. I hope the committee will co-ordinate the policies in this area because it is not only a woman's issue nor does it relate only to children. It should be placed in the context of the family and the community.

Regarding the issue of affordable child care, the report states that prices ranged on average from £44 to £71 a week for full-time care. However, those are modest figures. The average price is closer to between £80 and £100 a week and there is not much reduction for a second child. It depends where one lives but in the context of a greater number of women in urban areas in the workplace, it is very expensive. The report states that the cost is among the highest in the European Union and works out at 20 per cent of average earnings. This is very high.

The report also refers to positive elements. I cannot dispute the recommendations which include a tax allowance for parents, tax breaks for employers, grants and subsidies for child care providers and relief towards child minder costs. These would be welcome. However, I question the equity of the tax proposals in terms of the emphasis on work and the needs of industry. An article in The Irish Times recently asked whether the tax allowances could be given to parents in general, regardless of whether they incur child care costs and with the rider that making it easier for parents to stay at home might not necessarily suit industry. This issue needs to addressed by the committee which will start work on Monday.

Another criticism was that the plan will not succeed in reducing the cost of child care. This is another equity aspect because £80 a week tax relief relates to two income, middle class couples on the higher tax rate. Where is the relief for single income families where one spouse looks after the children? Another issue is whether poorer women who look after their own children would be subsidising better off women who use child care. A further issue is whether the price of the tax subsidy will be factored into the price of those who provide the service. I am conscious of this aspect. Ultimately, an increase in child benefit would have been better because all mothers would have gained. It would have been an increase in untaxable income. I would have preferred that approach.

This matter relates to the needs of parents and not only those of industry and employers. It is about flexibility and more time with children. The crux of the debate is that it is an investment in society. The biggest issue is whether we are balancing the importance of being with our children when we want and if that would stave off further problems in society. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, will ensure that the issues which are not included in the report are considered by the committee.

Ms Cox

As Senator Jackman noted, the absence of male Senators for this debate is an indication of what is wrong in society. People do not understand that child care and looking after children is not only an issue for women. If this debate was not so important, all the Senators present should walk out in protest. The debate was arranged by the Leader of the House and the Minister of State is present, but it is appalling that there will not be many contributions from male Senators. The debate could be hijacked and used to make political statements, but common sense will prevail. I am sure the Minister of State will listen to our views and take on board our comments.

One might question the need for a national child care strategy because Ireland appears to have done so well to date. However, the issue is what has changed in Ireland and why we suddenly need to concentrate on child care. What is missing from society? An important and wonderful point about Ireland is that it is a Republic. The definition of a republic is that it is about liberty, equality and fraternity. Equality is the right of children to be looked after either by their parents or structures that are put in place which are as good as, if not better than, the type of care they would get at home. Equality is also about the right of women and men to balance home and family life; it is about the right of mothers in rural communities to find jobs knowing that their children are looked after for a couple of hours a day, a couple of days a week or five days a week.

It is also about the right of men to participate in the rearing of their children. As Senator Jackman said, children do not come about by accident. It is a biological fact that each child has a father. He may not be around or take part in bringing up the child, but the child did not arrive without the involvement of a father. This aspect must be remembered in the debate on child care.

In terms of my definition of republicanism, society and equality, the issue of child care must be considered in the context of the good of society, our children and our families. It is a complex area and not only a business issue. It does not only relate to women in the home or at work and it must not be a divisive issue. It is not only a woman's issue. It is an issue for men, the family and business. Most importantly, it is an issue for society.

If this aspect is not taken on board, there is no point debating this matter. We will be wasting our time. We all could do better things on a Thursday afternoon than take part in this debate. I could be going home to my children in Galway, but I am here because I believe in this debate. I intend to raise this issue at every opportunity regardless of whether it embarrasses the Government of the day or all the men who participate in society. I am lucky to be a Member of Seanad Éireann and part of the reason I intend to stay here is to make a contribution.

I want to acknowledge the work of the mothers and fathers, and the grandmothers who looked after children while mothers went out to work, mothers who sacrificed their promotional opportunities and the chance of a better quality of life to stay at home to look after their children. I commend the women today who look at the child care provisions available and say, "They are not good enough for my children. I wish they were better but because they are not good I am going to give up work, stay at home and be with my children seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I will do that for my children and for my family". I commend those women because it takes a great deal of courage and self-sacrifice to do that.

I also commend any father who does it. It goes against the grain and against society for a man to do so. It is difficult and they feel isolated when they choose to stay at home and look after the children while the mother goes out to work. We may give out about men – I have been joined by a Fianna Fáil colleague – but it is wonderful when people believe they have a contribution to make. We should recognise that fact.

The report focused on child care for people who are working outside the home. When the report was published in January it was courageous of the Government not to run to the hills with a pile of recommendations and implement them. While putting a six month deadline on it, we took the time to examine the issues together. We did not come up with a politically correct headline grabbing solution that would have made only some people happy. It will never be possible to make all the people happy all the time, particularly on this issue, but at least we are going about it in a constructive and, hopefully, a proactive manner. I sincerely and earnestly hope that, at the end of the six month period, the necessary money and resources will be made available and the recommendations of the interdepartmental group will be implemented. Both Government and Opposition are committed to making this work.

We talked about supply, flexibility, cost, regulation and quality, all of which are vitally important to the debate on child care. The person who runs the crèche and the woman or man whose livelihood is dependent on their children using it, must have flexibility in order to accommodate their requirements. If my child is sick for a day or for three weeks I will take her home, but will I still have to pay for child care? I might have to remain at home on unpaid parental leave in to look after the child, but the crèche still has to function.

When we institutionalise child care there must be support for and recognition of the flexibility needed when one is looking after children. Cost is important. People may ask how one can begrudge £50, £60 or £70 per week to have children looked after. None of us begrudges that, but it is a huge cost, in fact, the amount is nearer to £100, £120 or even £150 if one has two or three children. This is particularly the case if one is living in Dublin, although it is not as expensive in the country. That is a huge cost out of an income and, for some reason, it always comes out of the woman's wages. If one measures the woman's wages and the cost of a crèche facility, one realises that often it is not worthwhile working. In such circumstances people may give up work and, through no choice of their own, they are forced to stay at home. It is a person's right to choose to stay at home, but it is not equality when people are forced to do so for economic reasons. That is not republicanism and it is not what our society is about.

It is vitally important for anybody providing child care to be regulated. It is not good enough in this day and age just to love children; they must be stimulated, well looked after, fed properly and encouraged to be active. All that takes time, money, training, expertise and professionalism. We must change child care from something that is done by "the lady down the road" into a profession. We must recognise the value of the work done. Women who work do recognise the value of child care professionals, but as a society we must also recognise it. We must establish proper qualifications for people to attain, along with structures for payment and recognition so that people who go into that business will be properly rewarded. That is part of the challenge facing the Government.

If we do not have good quality child care people will not use it. Nobody would leave a child in a crèche where it will not be looked after as well if not better than at home. Senator Jackman spoke about the guilt complex, with which everyone here can identify. There is incredible guilt in leaving one's child at a crèche at 8 a.m. and not seeing that child again until 8 p.m. The only way that guilt can be assuaged is to ensure that child care facilities are better than those at home, but that costs money. We keep coming back to the cost of child care.

I do not have the answer but I hope that at the end of the six month period the interdepartmental committee will have it. The challenge arises from how the cost of child care and training the professionals who provide it, relates to equality for women in the workplace. One of the difficulties for women in providing and paying for quality child care is that many women end up in jobs that do not pay enough to make it worthwhile for them to go out to work. In addition to the cost of child care, we need to take on board the issues of low paid work for women, proper training and more flexibility in the workforce. Child care is not just about crèches and training, it is about flexibility and job sharing.

Why can we not share more jobs? Given the technology that is available, why can companies not provide work stations for women at home? I could do my job very well from Galway on my personal computer, with a modem and phone. There is no reason I could not be at home one day a week instead of being here and if we were to implement a system of electronic voting we could vote from our homes.

Mrs. Jackman

We could.

Ms Cox

We do not have to be here, but we have to change the mindset. If the country is to continue to grow and we are to have a good quality of life, we must change the mindset. The family is important. Children are our future and without them we will become like America and the United Kingdom – countries people are leaving to live here. If we do not invest in our children and in our society we will become like those countries.

The Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, have our support. We are not here to make political jibes or score points off one another. As women, mothers and Members of the House, we are committed to finding a solution that will provide the republic that encompasses liberty, equality and fraternity.

Dr. Henry

It is interesting that the last two speakers mentioned the word "guilt". I suppose the Minister of State would also have used that word if she had not been so formal. It is dreadful for any woman who has worked outside the home and has been involved in child care to feel guilty for not staying at home all the time. We have come to a stage where business is saying positively that women must be at work. Having been at work when my children were young, at a time when not so many women were in the workplace, I cannot thank my adult children sufficiently for the little trouble they caused. It is one matter about which all women think when they become involved in child care, which is why it is so important to them.

While I welcome the Minister of State and the report, I remember welcoming similar previous reports. I hope the gestation period of this committee will only last until mid-August, which would be a good time to issue the results of the report because little happens then. I recognise the Minister of State has an enormous commitment to the issue and I expect her to follow it up. However, she should continue to pursue it because matters in the Dáil seem troublesome. It would be nice to have the child care issue dealt with should some local difficulties be encountered.

I remember the Minister of State and I walking the land where construction of the millennium block is taking place. That was at a time when we visited more than half the child care facilities in Dublin. Perhaps the Minister of State remembers that she and I, along with many other women Members of both Houses, put a great deal of time and energy into investigating if child care facilities could be provided for Leinster House employees so that we, as employers, could be seen to be leading by example. I hope the new block includes a crèche and child care facility. I would be glad if the Minister of State could say if it is part of the plans because I have tried to find out and failed.

Twenty five years ago, women were regarded as not being needed in the workforce. Until 1972, they had to retire from work in the public service within two years of marriage. However, the situation has changed completely and women are now anxiously sought for work in all capacities. It is not just a question of attracting them back into industry but also the fact that it is now extremely important to retain skilled workers. Therefore, what Senator Cox said about employers having to create a more work-friendly environment, not just for women but also for men, is extremely important. Much more flexible working hours and involvement by both men and women in part-time work, if necessary, must be examined. Part-time work does not necessarily mean a person working only for half a day. One day off a week can make the most dramatic difference in running a household because one knows that there will be one day when the whole of one's time can be devoted to dealing with the problems and joys of raising a family.

Regarding the nurses dispute, it seems staff nurses are the one group who have been left out on a limb. Perhaps the Minister for Health and Children does not realise that this is the group of women most likely to fall out of work if they are not properly paid. These would be the people at the end of their twenties and into their thirties with heavy domestic responsibilities. If they are not in a position to acquire and pay for adequate child care, they will be lost to the workforce. Hospitals are much better and more flexible about retaining their staff. Night staff, often composed of good, 30 year old, trained staff nurses, are frequently placed on a part-time basis so that they work only one week of nights a month. That sort of flexibility makes a huge difference in retaining trained staff in any employment.

Senators deplored the fact that more men were not present to become involved in the debate and that is very important. An enormous amount of power and influence is held by men. The Department of Health and Children established a committee to examine manpower in the medical profession. I was amazed when I saw the photograph of the committee to see that it was composed of 14 men. I objected publicly about this because over 60 per cent of graduates of medical schools are now women. Even if a few token women were to have been members of the committee, they could have assisted with their experience. The President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Mr. Barry O'Donnell, supported my desire to have at least some women on the committee. While they have now been included on subcommittees, my original suggestion was not accepted by the Department of Health and Children. This displays an unfortunate attitude and I would like to think it did not prevail everywhere. It is ridiculous to have a paternalistic hand sending out messages to young doctors. It would be much better to consult with them to see what they want.

The Employment Equality Agency yesterday launched a report by Dr. Jo Murphy-Lawless on new mothers at work. Mrs. Hayes, when launching the report, said there was a talent bank of women compelled to stay at home because they were not in a position to either find good child care facilities or pay for them. If we are to become involved in equality of education – like Senator Cox I am a republican with a small "r" and believe there should be equality for all citizens – it must be ensured that we are in a position to avail of these talented people. I will explain later why it is important to do so.

Parents are the main people involved in the upbringing of children, but society has a huge role in ensuring children are given the best possible care so that they grow into young adults who are an asset to society. Businesses will have to become more family friendly. The report from Jo Murphy-Lawless was very depressing because 30 young mothers were surveyed and asked how their pregnancy affected them at work and when they returned to work. They said they were regarded as a nuisance. Biologically it is essential women have children. If young women are not given more support when they are pregnant and when they have young children, they will be lost to the workforce.

I am always fascinated by Dr. Garret FitzGerald's articles. A few weeks ago he wrote one which interested me in which he said that women are delaying motherhood. I sometimes think there is never a convenient time for a woman to have a child. If she has one as a single teenager, that is wrong. Now 31 is the average age for women to have their first child and that is a rise of six years in a generation. Dr. FitzGerald said this would have serious effects on the health of the nation. I have not worked that out yet and have not been able to contact him to find out. One way it will have a serious effect on the health of the nation is that women who have children at an older age will be caring for them when their parents are growing old and will not be in a position to care for them. Hence society will have to do something about caring for these elderly parents. It is no wonder these women are delaying having children when they must become much more established within their careers, whatever their employment. Perhaps Dr. FitzGerald could ask his son, Mark, who is an auctioneer, about the fact that the price of houses is so high in Dublin that both incomes are required if people are to have a home.

Women are delaying having children and are having smaller families. However, when women have children, people should react the way they did with Sonia O'Sullivan having a baby, which is that it is delightful, rather than saying that, now they are pregnant, who will do their work and so on. Women will only have 1.9 children on average and the rest of the workforce should be pleased about it. Employers should ensure it is not a problem for women to go to the six ante-natal visits and the one or two post-natal visits. People should also hope that there will be no trouble for the children, as is the story in most cases, and that the women will return to work. A general change in attitude is important.

I was alarmed by the report because I had heard people say that there was no provision for breast-feeding, although we promote it with lip-service. It would be worth the Minister's while to ask the committee to include in its study that report from the Employment Equality Agency.

The Minister and Senators are right to mention the attempts to distinguish between mothers who work outside the home and mothers who work within the home. Mothers who work within the home are involved in child care services too. Up to 35 per cent of women who work solely within the home use child care services, but would more work outside the home if they could avail of child care services? This is important for society but it is also important for women.

Depression is one of the commonest illnesses in the world and it is twice as common in women as in men – the survey's findings vary from between 1.4 and three times as common, but the average is twice as common. The most interesting aspect relates to a specific group of women, those who are affected by depression. There is no problem up to puberty or in old age where the instance is the same. The group of women who get seriously depressed are women in their late 20s, 30s and early 40s. It is much more common in married women and it is very much more common in women with one or more children, especially if they do not work outside the home and are confined to the home. This has a serious effect on those women who are within the home and we should make some effort to try to improve the health care services. Far from the menopause bringing on depression, it positively cheers up women. References are available on request, as they say at the end of all good articles.

It is most important that we as Members of the Oireachtas, leaving aside the employers, try to make an effort to improve the situation regarding the availability of community child care. This has been left to the voluntary sector and it has been most emphasised in areas where there is poverty or a predominance of people with social problems. That is as it should be, as those who have the greatest need should be catered for first. However, we ought to look at the example of France, for instance, where for generations splendid child care services have been available to everyone within the community. Women do not want their children to become commuters. They want, if possible, to have their children cared for within pram-pushing distance of home. This is something at which we should try to aim.

Single mothers have been facilitated more recently under the vocational training opportunities scheme and I thank the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, for extending the scheme. Initially, it was set up for the long-term unemployed and there was a quota available for single mothers and the disabled, but in some cases there was not a full take-up of the scheme by the long-term unemployed and, although there were single mothers who would have availed of it, it was cancelled. I am glad the Minister has changed the system and removed the quota so that whoever applies is accepted on the scheme. Again, there is the problem of a lack of child care. This has been addressed in this report and it is important that not just single mothers but all mothers are taken into account. There has been a considerable amount of criticism about the fact that tax relief will benefit the better off. I acknowledge that it will benefit the better off but, like Senator Cox, I was rather alarmed by the levels of pay for most child minders. If tax relief is given, it will probably also benefit child minders who may be paid a little better. That is important because we want to raise the status of child minders. With better jobs available to these women, many of them will become involved in child minding.

I am rather sorry that there was no mention of children with special needs. The mothers of these children are really left out on a limb because they must have specialised care for their children. While the Minister for Health and Children stated that he will increase the care for these children, he is increasing it by about one-seventh of what is needed. I want to see a greater effort made there and tax relief provided for anybody minding those children. Indeed, tax relief should be given to a person who employs somebody to care for an elderly parent while he or she is out at work rather than have that person give up their job and take up the carer's allowance.

The notification of child care facilities has led to a drop in the number of child care places available because people are not prepared to upgrade their facilities. This report will provide tax allowances for people who are upgrading their facilities but that involves registration. Registration is a good idea but sometimes I wonder should there be two lots of legislation, actual and aspirational, because the health boards are not managing to get around to inspect the existing child care facilities. It will be a little like trying to inspect the food in retail outlets and restaurants where the health boards never have enough people to inspect them. While we want the best facilities available and we want the people who are minding the children to be well cared for, we should be careful that we are not making regulations which will not be enforced. Let the Minister be aware that I await 15 August.

Ms Keogh

I am pleased to be involved in these statements. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Mary Wallace, to the House. She, like all of us, has a great interest in this field and has the determination to apply the recommendations.

I enjoyed this debate more than many in this House because, first, the people know what they are talking about, which is always an advantage when one is discussing a subject and, second, as Senator Cox stated, it has nothing to do with party politics; it has to do with what we think will work and improve society. A number of speakers mentioned the word "society". The type of society we want and the type we are developing is crucial.

It is ironic that the crisis in child care, as it has been called by the expert working group, comes in the wake of many reports on child care. There are many recommendations in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, which reported to the Government in January 1993. I take issue with the title of one chapter in the report, "Women and child care", because I always emphasise when I am talking about child care that children have parents and not just mothers. As Senator Henry and Senator Cox stated, they are not immaculate conceptions. Children have fathers and mothers and both parents have a responsibility to their children. More and more men are taking on that responsibility but, unfortunately, not a significant number of them are doing so.

My problem with the title of the chapter is that it should have been "Parents and child care" but obviously this report was produced by the Second Commission on the Status of Women. The principles underlining the recommendations of the report are a precursor to the report before the House. Had those recommendations been taken on board and those underlying principles been observed, we would not have the present crisis. For example, a Senator stated this afternoon that child care is an equality issue.

The report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women says that "childcare is necessary as a support for parenting and for the reconciliation of family and work responsibilities". That is still the case. The report says that "all mothers work and need support for childcare". That is still true. It says that "childcare is a public as well as an individual responsibility" and "parental choice should be a key factor in deciding childcare arrangements". Then the report says, "the principle of partnership between Government, State agencies, employers, trade unions and community and voluntary groups offers most promise as a means of funding childcare or supporting its provision in other ways" and "as a priority, the State should intervene to provide childcare for children in categories of risk and disadvantage". I do not say that nothing has been done since the publication of the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women but very little has. This is why we are still discussing the crisis in child care six years later. I am incensed at this when I consider the changes in society in the meantime.

We are not examining this issue now because we have a better society which has developed an altruistic resolve to improve child care. The present discussion has everything to do with economic circumstances and with the fact that more women are in the workplace and employers are demanding better child care facilities. Is this something that has suddenly occurred to people? Of course not. We were discussing this issue six years ago and earlier. Maternity leave was introduced, not because the Government of the day decided it would be a good thing but because an EC directive demanded its introduction. Ireland was drawn, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century by our membership of the European Community and the European Union and not because we are a visionary society which adopted change enthusiastically. We are now being driven to do something about child care by economic circumstances and not by a wish to create a more equitable society. Because more women are needed in the workplace and because women generally take on the role of minding children, we must find an alternative form of child care.

I am not a member of the Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights but I watched the proceedings of the committee on the TV monitor when they discussed this report. Presentations were made by various bodies including the National Women's Council of Ireland. I was delighted to see a few more men there than are in the House this afternoon. I thought it significant that women are still making the same arguments in favour of child care but there are now economic reasons for men to listen. Despite the fact that more women are in the workplace and in positions of power and influence, society still has a strong male emphasis. If the interdepartmental committee does not make meaningful recommendations which are acted upon by the Minister, our present discussions will have been a waste of time. We cannot allow this to happen.

I have confidence in the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace. All sides of the House must support the moves which must be made and the decisions which must be taken. Various solutions have been put forward including increased child benefit and tax relief for child care costs. The complaint is made that these approaches will be too costly. This is what was said when maternity leave and maternity benefit were first proposed. The same was said when the social welfare equality payments had to be made. However, the money was found and those costs were met. The same must happen in this case. Society must accept this responsibility.

I agree with all of the arguments that have been put forward. We must have a child care system that is equitable and has regulations and standards in which we can have confidence. We have spoken of the guilt felt by mothers who work outside the home. I experienced that guilt myself as so many women did. However, I reminded myself that my daughters also have a good and supportive father and this mitigated my guilt to some extent. My children have two parents who love them equally yet, like every woman Member of this House and Dáil Éireann, I took on the major share of parenting. This was not because my husband refused to do so but because of society's expectations of women and our expectations of ourselves. This culture needs to change. The child care question is not a simple economic one. It is much more complex and difficult than that. It is at the very centre of the issue of equality.

The issue of child care cannot be economically driven. It must be child centred. The focus of our attention must be on what is going to work best for our children so that we can address their needs in the more equitable society that has been thrust upon us.

Many of the recommendations in this report are excellent. I want to see them implemented. I am in favour of increased child benefit even though it means that the children of the rich will receive the same amount as the children of the poor. We may be able to do something about that. Perhaps a sliding scale could be introduced. Increased child benefit does, at least, mean that children are treated equally whether their parents pay for child care or not. The question of tax relief for child care costs should also be examined. Perhaps we should approach that question from the perspective of the providers of child care services. We must provide help for those who cannot afford to pay for it themselves. These are not confined to women who work outside the home. Many other families are involved. We must focus on the children who need child care.

I agree that child care should be community based. We need not necessarily rely on workplace crèches. The development of facilities within the community should be examined. We must give incentives to the providers of the child care services. We must look at the provision of these services from an economic point of view and then look at the question from the opposite perspective of nourishing, protecting and providing for children. This is a complex issue.

Parents who are looking after children at home did not come within the terms of reference of the working group. These parents must be part of the whole question. Time and again I have found that if one is seen to support women who work outside the home one is assumed to be opposed to parents who stay at home to look after their children. This is a position which cannot be allowed to persist.

We have spoken of the nature of work and of the world of work. The child care crisis has been thrust upon us by economic circumstances and by changing attitudes. Women worked outside the home even when we did not have an employment boom. We must consider the options provided by job sharing and flexibility in the workplace.

Senator Henry referred to the recent report on new mothers at work, the newspaper report on which was headlined "Maternity leave does not suit the majority". How many generations will it take to address these issues? The main points of the study included difficulties in accessing child care, especially for first time mothers, and concerns about the impact of motherhood on promotion prospects. If mothers wish to continue to work should they take two or three years off or should they just take the allotted maternity leave? How will that harm their career prospects? What are the attitudes of employers towards such issues?

Members will have seen studies which show that, contrary to what many women might expect, many employers are delighted to have women in the workforce – despite the fact they take time off to have children, all 1.9 of them – because they are very responsible and, because they are looking at their long-term career prospects, they are content to stay within an organisation and build their profile there. Amazingly, many employers welcome this and know, even if it is just in economic terms, that just because someone takes maternity leave and has to pay a few visits to their doctor does not mean they are not an asset to the firm in the long-term.

There are many issues to be discussed. I am glad there is agreement on both sides of the House on this issue. The main point is that we cherish our children, devise an equitable system which recognises the changes in our society and value women, men and, above all, children who are the future of this country.

Mrs. Ridge

I enjoyed listening to the previous speakers. We almost all have had the experience of being a parent. I have had the added experience of being the national chairperson of the Irish Pre-school Playgroups Association, in a voluntary capacity. We were lucky at that stage to secure the services of one national adviser for the entire country, which was very welcome at the time. I am also a parent. I am not a grandparent, as far as I know, although one cannot be too sure these days. I welcome the fact that Sonia O'Sullivan's pregnancy can be front page good news because that shows an enlightenment in society of the fact that women have wombs and tend to become pregnant.

Regretfully, I cannot agree with Senator Henry that the average age of a first time mother is 31 years – in the area I represent it is more likely to be 15 years. However, that is another argument and I take Senator Henry's point about the increasing age at which women have their first child.

I do not have more wisdom than anyone else on this matter but I have a lifetime's experience. I was also – I have led a very full life – a tutor on early childhood education in the adult education department at Maynooth.

What is missing from the report is the very basic principle enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The report was approached with good will but its sectional interests are coming through very strongly. Principle six of the convention states:

The child shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents in an atmosphere of affection and moral and material security: a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstance, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without adequate means of support. Payment of state and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

However, this is not mentioned in the national child care strategy drawn up by the Partnership 2000 expert working group on child care This strategy offers complex solutions which are ineffective because of the intricacies of the basic question. This strategy emphasises its "commitment to social solidarity and a better quality of life for all our own people" as well as the number one key principle, both of which are necessary but not sufficient indicators for formulating an effective national child care strategy.

For example, although the strategy evinces equality of opportunity for women, it explicitly refuses to consider the situation of mothers – or fathers, as we must be politically correct – who remain in the home, although it advises us that over 16 per cent of these women also use child care facilities. These inherent contradictions reveal how the expert working group appears to have slight regard for the position of these women or their children. I do not think this has been done deliberately, but it seems they have not been brought into the equation as fully as other groups.

This indifference towards a group of women who are exercising a legitimate choice is a result of the – probably necessary, in their minds – aggressive marketing imperatives behind this report. I concur with Senator Keogh that this is all about money and the 20 per cent increase in the female workforce which is necessitated by today's booming economy.

While the strategy is clearly aimed at putting child care into the public realm, it fails to recognise that child care is still a predominantly private affair. Using receipted expenditure is clearly not satisfactory, as it prioritises working mothers and two wage families and stigmatises parents who remain in the home.

It is also of little benefit and provides little incentive to parents to job share in an attempt to spend more quality time with their children. We have all alluded to the fact that, because she had the children, the mother was the keystone of the family and reared the children and the father had the role of the provider. That model worked in our society until about 25 years ago, when it changed for educational, economic and social reasons. We all acknowledge the fact now that in some cases the father will provide the nurturing. The report does not help people who have made the choice to job share – bearing in mind the principles of the convention – in order to give the best quality of life to their children. It is a cliché, but our children are our future.

We all know ferocious problems exist. I cannot think of a better disincentive for having more children than what I witness with my own eyes living in the suburbs. I am aware of a one-child family which will never become a two-child one and that may not augur very well for society. A young working mother who lives an hour and a half from the city is obliged to bundle her child into its clothing, prepare its feed for the day and be on the road by 7 a.m. That is a crazy life; it is crazy for the mother, the father, the traffic and, most of all, for the child. Until a realistic approach is adopted to locally based services, we will witness an even greater drop in the birth rate for people who have to work to sustain their home and a reasonable quality of life. I am not happy with the support available to those who wish to job share.

Any strategy which encourages women to work is good but I do not feel it is the answer to everything. This strategy does not take on board the position in which many women, of necessity, find themselves. They are obliged for all sorts of reasons – perhaps the best one being their real wish to stay at home and be the prime nurturer – to go out to work. I would like the report to have shown greater flexibility in that respect. At the end of the day, the strategy does not allow greater flexibility on the part of women to ensure the best possible quality of life for their children in the first instance and for themselves.

The strategy also fails to deal with other connected issues, among them child poverty. Levels of child poverty in Ireland are the second highest in the EU. I believe a more accessible and equitable system of child care is required to address this, one which does not punish parents for their life choices. This report is in danger of doing just that. The previous Government attempted to address the situation by tying the alleviation of child poverty into child care

The strategy emphasises the need to tackle the diverse obstacles of child care in rural and disadvantaged urban areas. It proposes to do so in terms of receipted expenditure. Therein lies the nub of the problem. Receipted expenditure does not apply to many parents. Child care provisions are cited as a necessary weapon in the struggle to combat social exclusion yet, by excluding stay-at-home parents and effectively punishing job-sharers and other parents working flexible hours to facilitate better care for their children, the working group has possibly added to the prospect of social exclusion.

Further discrimination results from exempting child care expenditure when means testing income. This again punishes parents who do not work full-time or place their children in full-time care. Indeed, the strategy rather than improving quality of life further decreases the number of choices open to men and women with children. While previously working mothers were stigmatised, this strategy goes in the opposite direction by disregarding the input and value of stay-at-home mothers. I support the need for, and the right of, women to have a positive role in the workplace. I equally support the needs and rights of women in the home. What about the rights of the child?

Mr. J. Cregan

I should preface my remarks by saying I do not consider myself nearly as qualified to speak on this topic as the previous speakers who, in the main, are mothers but it would be remiss of me not to attempt to defend the absence of my male colleagues.

While I would agree, by and large, with the vast majority of the statements made, there are a few points I wish to address. I compliment the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, for commissioning this report. This is a wide-ranging and complex issue and the report and its recommendations are, of necessity, very broad. The issue of cost was referred to by Senator Keogh. While I would agree that cost should not be a major factor in the consideration of child care it is important we spend money correctly in this area.

In regard to the supply side of the child care provision, I am not convinced people are reluctant to become involved in what has become a lucrative area. I have no problem paying for the cost of child care but having to pay to hold places for children is very difficult. I presume the issue comes down to supply and demand at the end of the day; people are so glad to find safe places to leave their children, they feel obliged to pay this money. However, that places a huge financial burden on them.

Why are we facing these difficult decisions at the moment? The most practical reason cited in the report relates to the fact that greater numbers of women are taking up employment for various reasons. They are perfectly entitled to do that. Other reasons are also outlined in regard to parents having to avail of child care facilities. Some people may wish to take up employment while others may wish to further their education. Reference is also made to short-term crises and longer-term family difficulties where respite is required.

There are many reasons women take up employment but the most basic relates to the need to have a second wage coming into a home in order to maintain or enhance a family's standard of living. Housing shortages and huge mortgages place a huge financial burden on people. They are entitled to go out to work and earn their living. The money earned may foster a greater sense of independence or may mean a family can have a holiday at the end of the year. Essentially, it means we will create a better standard of living for our children, the people about whom we have spoken most and who are the most important in this equation.

I obtained a copy of the report this morning and glanced through its general content. Did children have any input into the report? I believe their views are important. Traditionally children were minded in their homes and that is the best place to mind them, be it by a father, mother or both. I have experienced this myself and I like to think I have by and large lived up to my responsibilities, although my wife might not agree. Many of my colleagues have done likewise and I defend them in that regard. Over the past ten or 15 years people have learned to share responsibilities in marriage and it works reasonably well for most people. It is not fair to paint everybody with the one brush or to make a general accusation that men are not present because they are not interested. Whether inside or outside the house, many men share the responsibilities and take this problem seriously.

Senator Jackman mentioned the problem here and said that in putting our development plan together this matter has been raised. Location will become a problem. By and large crèches and child minding facilities are located in housing estates. This adds to the traffic problems. We must provide for such facilities in our development plan when we are planning for the future as they will become more common.

I wish to make comparisons between the cost of nursing homes and nursing home subvention. When the situation pertaining to nursing homes was regularised and payments and grants were put in place, the cost of keeping a person in a nursing home soared. On the one hand, we were providing grants for the upgrading of nursing homes and paying a subvention while, on the other, the cost of staying in a nursing home increased dramatically. I am comparing like with like in that additional overheads will be placed on people when we insist that all crèches and facilities are properly registered and the cost will, in turn, be built into the fee paid by parents. We should not lose sight of this.

We must be satisfied that those with whom we leave our children are responsible and that the children get the best possible care. We must be cautious, especially in light of the frightening stories concerning child abuse in recent years. That said, child abuse also happens within the home when parents are present. However, when parents are not present we want the best for our children.

I do not believe that even the best care outside the home is better than care within the home, although it may be better and necessary in exceptional cases. It would be ideal if women could leave work to rear their children and subsequently return, but for obvious reasons that would not work. The next best thing, which is also mentioned in the report, is for children to be cared for by relatives. I have had personal experience of this. However, not everybody is so fortunate and given the number of women, in particular, entering the workforce it will become increasingly difficult to find a relative, be it a grandmother, an aunt, or somebody else, to mind children.

The report emphasises training, qualifications and associated issues for those who provide a service. I wish to compare this to the training and qualifications required in the nursing profession. We are going too far along the route of training and qualification. While people should be properly trained, there is another side to nursing, mothering and caring for children, the natural instinct. We are tending to drift from the vocational aspect of nursing and putting too much emphasis on training and qualification. In the past most mothers and fathers did not have a qualification, but they had a natural instinct and by and large it worked. It is the best training of all.

In terms of the financial cost, the Minister gave figures which are quite substantial on the supply and demand sides. I agree we must find the funding, that a policy must be in place and that we must give our children the best chance. We must get our priorities right in terms of recommendations and spend the money wisely and properly.

I take issue with my good friend, Senator Cox, who is of the opinion that payment for child care services always comes from the mother. That is not always the case – fathers also pay their way. A crèche has been mentioned in terms of the new development. I encourage the Minister in this regard and know she will support it. I hope it will be put in place.

We cannot lose sight of parents who are still fortunate enough to be able to stay at home and look after their children. I notice this was not taken on board in the report, but we should try to compensate those people in whatever way we can.

Ms O'Meara

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this report so soon after its publication and I congratulate the Minister and welcome her to the House. The report was published in the past week and we have the first opportunity to discuss it. Being one of the first to call for this debate, I am pleased the Leader responded so quickly and that the Minister has made herself available.

I apologise for being late. Senator Ormonde and I were present at the meeting of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Women's Rights which heard submissions on the report by the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Childminders' Association and the Nurseries Association. Their comments were very apposite, in particular, their remarks on the reaction to the report by the Government and commentators. In that regard, I concentrate my remarks on the report and what it contains. I could speak on this subject for the entire afternoon, as I am sure the Minister could. I have been a first hand consumer of child care for the past 15 years, having been a full-time mother in the workforce since my eldest son was born.

I will begin by stating what this report is about, as there is much talk about what it is not about, what it should be about and what it should result in. It is a response to the needs for women in the workforce in the Celtic tiger. Having campaigned for the greater provision of child care, not only from the point of view of being a working parent but also from the point of view of increasing equality, engendering equality in society and the right of women to have a choice to participate in the workforce, it is ironic that it has taken the demands of employers for the Government to wake up to the need to develop a strategy which allows women into the workforce. I wonder about the thought behind this.

I am concerned about the notion of a market-led approach to the development of child care. The report is excellent, comprehensive, wide-ranging and a major contribution to the debate on child care. However, I am bothered by its market-led approach. While the notion of generating the supply and demand sides is valid and credible, and is a solution to the problem at one level, it operates from a narrow starting point which could inevitably be very short-term.

We need women in the workforce and many women need and want to be in the workforce. I make no apologies for stating that I have always been and have chosen to be a full-time working mother. When my son was six weeks old I went back to work because I was self-employed at the time and did not have maternity leave. The experts will probably say that was a criminal thing to do but he was cared for by a woman in the neighbourhood who loved him dearly and who carried him around in her arms all day, more than I probably would have done if I had been at home. Senator Henry talked about depression among women in the home. I would go around the twist very quickly if I was a full-time parent in the home. I love my children dearly and they are happy and well adjusted because they have had the benefit of very good quality child care which I and my husband were privileged to be able to afford and provide for them.

This report is called a national child care strategy, which it is not. It is a strategy to allow women participate in the workforce because the economy now needs women to participate in it. I know of a number of groups will say quite clearly that this is based on a gender equity approach and the equality of women, but I do not accept that. I reject the market-led approach as a policy maker and politician. I accept, however, that there are a number of solutions in this report in terms of its objective to get women into the workforce. As policy makers, we must have a much broader view.

In that context, I and groups like the National Women's Council, were bitterly disappointed by the Minister's immediate response to the report. To a large extent, I wonder if it is already a dead duck because his immediate response was to say "that is all very well, but". He set up an interdepartmental working group which is clearly not an implementation group and if it is, will the Minister of State tell how it is?

The Minister of State said the interdepartmental group will look at costings. Who is on this group and who will chair it? Precisely, what is its terms of reference? Who will it report to and, most importantly, who will drive the recommendations of this committee? Will it go to Government for another round of consideration because it probably should do so? From my experience in a ministerial office, particularly in relation to the report of the Task Force on Long-term Unemployment, I know there is a necessary and important process to be gone through in relation to reports such as this – to have an implementation report, a clear decision and set of nuts and bolts or lists of things to do, in effect, to make it happen.

It seems the Government is not clear about the way forward. Does it accept the notion of tax relief as a point of policy? Can we expect the Minister for Finance to come forward with the proposal contained in this report in the next budget? We do not know if that is the process to be followed, and I would like to know what is.

Complex solutions are presented to the problems posed to families which want to participate fully in the work force. Tax relief is one which has been given most media exposure, not surprisingly since the majority of journalists are probably middle class working parents. This proposal would put £20 per week into the pockets of working parents. It is presented as a solution to the problems of the cash strapped working parent in that it would provide some of the cost towards child care. I suggest the immediate effect of the tax relief proposal would be that the cost of child care would go up. Because there is a ceiling of £4,000 per year on the tax relief proposal if the cost of child care goes up, the effect of the solution would be completely undermined; in other words, the money would go straight to the additional cost of child care.

Similarly, it is costed at £30 million in year one and £66 million if, as the Minister of State said, all in the informal economy were regularised. I assume that is based on current participation rates. Does the Minister of State agree that the availability of this type of tax relief would encourage women into the workforce? As we know, this is one of the objectives but then we are presumably looking a rising scale of costs. The Goodbody report said that by 2010 it is expected that 60 per cent of mothers will participate in the workforce, so presumably the amount spent by the Exchequer on tax relief will rise at an extraordinary rate. Garret FitzGerald questioned the figure in the report in his piece in The Irish Times last Saturday. It seems to me – I am by no means a figures person or an economist – that £30 million is quite low.

On the question of equity in the availability of tax relief, one commentator suggested that the effect of tax relief would be that poor families would, in effect, subsidise better off families. I am very taken with the recommendation in the report on tax allowances for those currently in the black economy who are working in child care – in other words, women who are minding other women's children in their homes or in the child's home – and the problems presented by their being in the informal economy. While there is a need to recognise them, there is also a need to recognise some realities. In many cases, those women will not want to be recognised by the formal economy because of the potential income loss to the household if the second earner is on social welfare. I welcome the imaginative approach by the expert working group to this dilemma faced by many families and the very realistic approach taken in the report. However, I wonder how the Department of Finance will react to it.

A point was raised by other speakers in relation to flexible working and so on. This report leaves employers completely off the hook. It suggests a range of grants, subsidies, capital allowances and so on to encourage workplace crèches, in particular. That is fine in practice but what is the quid pro quo? We seem quite happy to pour money into private sector provision but what are we getting back in return? In return, we should demand of IBEC a widespread easily available system of job sharing, term time working, morning only working, one day off a week or whatever. It is time IBEC realises that if it wants to keep skilled workers, mostly women – it is now realising the extent to which it is losing them – in the workplace, it should offer solutions to the problems parents face.

The main problem is not money. One may get up in the morning to find one's child has a temperature or one has to spend all day in hospital, as I did recently. I was happy do so and was in a position to drop everything and spend the entire day in the hospital. Many women cannot do that and it causes a major crisis in a household. I spoke to a neighbour recently who said her child had flu and she would have to take sick leave. We all know this is a reality but the issue can be faced by flexible working. I am not confident this will be brought forward, not only because of IBECs approach but also because the Minister's Department stubbornly refused to concede to paid parental leave. Unpaid parental leave is, therefore, available to those who can afford it.

There has been no indication of any commitment to come forward with imaginative solutions. We are a long way from a national child care strategy. This report is a huge step forward and the reaction which it has engendered is very interesting because what some people call resistance to the notion of women in the workforce, I believe is based more on a questioning by many of us about the quality of our lives. We spend so much time going to and from work and at work that we never see our children. The quality of our family lives is so different from and probably inferior to the quality of life available to us as children growing up. Like many in this House, I grew up with my mother – who as a national school teacher was not allowed to continue in the workplace – available to us on a 24 hour basis. As a result we had an idyllic childhood. However I hope that does not mean my children are any less adjusted, happy, secure, fulfilled or independent than any of us were when growing up.

Ireland has changed and circumstances have changed. However there is a questioning of the quality of our lives, individually and in our com munity. In some cases, small children are being dumped in crèches in the morning because parents have no other choice. The Government has not come up with another solution.

I do not favour the tax relief solution, I favour the child benefit solution. However I do not blame any taxpayer, particularly working parents, for demanding tax relief. They deserve tax relief and help from the State for the job they do as workers and as parents. It is time we adopted a policy approach which recognises the needs of children.

I am sure the Minister of State would agree we all have the one objective, that is to provide a high quality affordable system of child care to which every family has access, whether the parents are working at home, are working part-time, are lone parents or are both working. That is the least we should demand and expect. It is the least we are capable of devising in this period of economic boom which is largely due to the efforts of parents in the workforce, many of them women.

Dr. M. Hayes

I should enter the debate in order to strike a blow for equality and to restore some sense of gender balance.

Ms Ormonde

Hear, hear.

Dr. M. Hayes

The attendance is indicative of where this issue affects parenting and child rearing. It should not be left so much to the women Members of the Seanad to make the case. For many years I was involved in this policy area in Northern Ireland where, perhaps as a result of that policy, things are, if anything, worse than they are here in terms of provision.

I welcome the Minister of State and I welcome the report. However, as has been suggested, most of these reports reflect the voices of lobbies of one sort or another. The views of the underrepresented tend not to be so well expressed. I did not hear in the report the voices of children and women who choose to remain at home while rearing their children. They also have very important needs. They need respite, support and help. Parenting, especially the role of the mother, is most important and valuable in our society. If one wishes to talk about economic and social costs, we need only consider the cost to future generations of poor parenting.

Another group of women who would stay at home for child rearing if they could are those who are driven to work by economic necessity to pay mortgages and other costs. They too need to be helped and supported. I agree with Senator O'Meara, the essence should be choice – people should be able to choose. I do not place any more weight on one than the other, they are all proper ways of proceeding. However in all cases people need help and support.

The other voice that should be heard is that of the child. It used be a principle of child care law that the needs of the child were paramount in all cases. That also needs to be borne in mind. As Senator Keogh mentioned, we are dealing with deep societal changes, in the way people work and their attitude to parenting, with which we have not yet come to terms.

An argument could be advanced on the basis of research in Scandinavia and elsewhere, that our children go to school too early. Perhaps school going age should be increased. Children who do not enter the formal education system until age seven might do better in the long-term. However that requires a totally different approach to pre-school and kindergarten, about which we have not even begun to think.

Much can be done. I agree with Senator O'Meara that the policy should not be market led. However some of the answers might be market led to get the provision we are seeking. The role of the State should be to ensure the highest quality of care. It is important children are not simply warehoused for the day. They need stimulation, help and training. There is much to be said for the community child care facilities available in France and other European countries.

Employers can and should do a lot more by way of job sharing, flexitime and other methods. There are enormous possibilities with new technology. My secretary in Belfast had a baby in the autumn who requires more care than the average baby for certain reasons. I am glad to say we have been able to arrange her working day so she comes in two days one week and three days the next week. She does all her work from home as she is linked into the hospital computer system. She has her own terminal. There are enormous possibilities to enrich parenting in that way and enable mothers to work and spend more time with their children if that is their choice. Whatever we do we should be careful not to allow fathers to evade their responsibilities to share parenting.

Most schemes which are intended to reduce social distance and help compensate the poor and the disadvantaged for their difficulties somehow end up increasing social distance. The middle classes and educated people who know their way around the system can take advantage of it. Nothing would contribute more to good parenting and childminding than helping to lift as many people as we can out of poverty. No one part of policy can be separated from the rest. I commend the Minister of State and the report and I wish her well with it.

Ms Ormonde

I will throw away all my notes at this stage and talk off the top of my head because all my points have been raised many times by various speakers. Fianna Fáil is committed to this issue. The Celtic tiger has been around for a long time and we have only been in Government for two years. I did not hear anything from Labour regarding what it did or what it stands for. It is into negative thinking and that is a pity. We should be as one on this report and how best to move forward. It should not become a political issue. There seems to be an undercurrent of that and it is a pity given we are talking about what is best for the child and all of us in society.

I welcome the Minister and compliment her and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on their commitment and thoroughness in trying to build on the resources we have had over the past few years. It is only when that is done that we can bring the whole policy into focus and estimate the cost.

I read the report of the National Forum on Early Education, which has not been mentioned here today. We have been debating the report of the expert working group on child care and its views on child minding. I read the report of the Commission on the Family and its views on the changes that are taking place in the family. These issues must be taken into consideration before the formulation of a policy which can work. I compliment the report, but I fear it reflects sectional interests. This must be reflected, but we must look at those in the workforce. The fact that this report was drawn up as a result of the Celtic tiger economy and the lack of women in the marketplace is to be welcomed. However, this must not prevent us looking at what is being done for women who decide to stay at home.

This is a global issue. We are living in a changing society and work practices and the duration of the working day must be teased out before deciding on a final policy. We must not throw money at issues in future; we must work to get value for money. We are talking about the provision of quality child care that will be accessible and give equal opportunity to all mothers. We are talking about choices in terms of whether mothers or fathers stay at home or are driven by market forces to go into the workplace. We are talking about how to do the best we can for our children. In the area of child care there are childminders, crèches and eight to 12 and after school concepts. We do not know what is best for each child. Many young children do not benefit from group care. Because of the nature of their personality, many children need to be cared for on a one-to-one basis.

I welcome the fact that the report refers to standardisation of formal training. One Senator stated that it is a natural instinct to want to help children. I accept this, but training must be structured to deal with the complexities of young children. We need an occupational profile of all those involved in the child care area. We must also look at the number of crèches that exist. The role of local authorities in providing crèches in local areas must be examined. Perhaps there should be a ruling in future development plans that all new housing schemes include a crèche. At present there are objections to my trying to provide a crèche in my constituency. The view is that this is a more mature area and that a crèche would not be acceptable. It is mainly women who are objecting to this.

There must be a costed co-ordinated plan. Tax reliefs versus child benefits was mentioned. The Minister of State said that the cost of child benefit would be in the region of £700 million. What about the quality of service? I welcome an interdepartmental committee to deal with this issue. This morning the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform heard submissions from the National Women's Council, the Nursery Association and the Childminders' Association. The contributions were very worthwhile but a fear was expressed that the report seemed to be biased towards working women and did not reflect the woman in the home. The National Women's Council is of the view that it represents all women.

The appointment of the interdepartment group is the way forward. This group can examine all the points, bring all the reports together and look at the costing. However, we need to begin the work quickly. It must not be market-driven because we may not always have a Celtic tiger economy. We must look at how family life is changing, the social structures in terms of single parents and whether the man has the choice to stay at home while the woman goes out to work. I would like to think that this is a society issue and not a woman's issue. The Minister has made it clear that this is a society issue, that all aspects must be implemented and we must take into account the well being and education of the child.

On reading the report of the National Forum on Early Education, I was impressed with the services that will be put in place to deal with the community and bring young parents into the school. The school is a great place for setting the tone of an area. Many young parents do not know how to parent. While the child is of the utmost importance, we must make sure that parents know how to parent. Many parents are very young and think that having a child is the end of the story. The important question is how to deal with the child from the age of naught to 12. The group concept is not suitable to every child. Many children need one-to-one care.

There is a lot of material in this report which needs to be examined. The idea is to bring all the reports together, produce a strategy and formula which will be for the betterment of society and endorse the rights of children, which is access to quality child care.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I realise it is bad manners to refer to the absence of Members in the Chamber. I will not go down that road and would ask that others do not go down that road in the future. Obviously different debates interest different people and I am sure this topic is of interest to all Members.

I welcome the debate on this report. This is a very broad issue. I have reservations about the interdepartmental committee, but I will be pleased if it solves some of the problems. We have waited a long time for this report, so I suppose another six months will not make much difference. I am worried that this is another buck-passing exercise. The Minister of State has dealt effectively with many issues in the past, such as the handicapped. I am sure she will not be responsible for foot dragging but she may need to rap some Departments on the knuckles.

Child care is a topical issue and some practical contributions have been made during this debate. The problems will not be easily solved. We are trying to balance the rights of those who want to work or who have to work. Many mortgages are based on two and a half times a salary or both salaries. We must look at the issue of finance when considering child care.

We must also consider those who spend a lot of money on crèches and child minding facilities. Some people work all day and Senator O'Meara painted a bleak picture of a baby being fed at 6.30 a.m. and then bundled into a car and brought to a crèche so the parent can get to work. This problem is exacerbated by traffic problems in Dublin. There has been much talk of parents' rights to work, but such a scenario is not a great start in life for a child. We have to examine ways of getting around this problem.

There is also the case of people who job share, week on week off, but who have to pay for both weeks as they cannot reserve a crèche place on the basis of the child attending every second week. This involves extra expense of £75, £80 or £90 which comes out of the family income.

We must ensure that staff who work in crèches and playschools are properly trained. Some of these facilities are very well run but others may pay more attention to profit than to what is best for the child. There is a need for rules and regulations. We have introduced regulations governing issues such as the size and facilities provided in crèches.

I do not wish to minimise the difficulties involved in tackling this issue. There is a need for a balance in weighing up the various rights involved. Some people may wish to stay at home as there is sufficient income. We would all like to spend more time with our children. Many people return to work on a part-time basis. This can lead to problems if, for instance, a child becomes ill and the parent has to take sick leave. We need to look at this area.

Will the Minister of State indicate the number of Departments represented on the interdepartmental group? There is a danger that Departments only look after their own area. All Departments look over their shoulder at the Department of Finance because the bottom line is that this will cost a lot of money. These provisions will not come cheap whether they involve tax reliefs or benefits.

I wish the Minister of State well. This will not be an easy task but we have to make a start. Certain things can be done. Senator Ormonde mentioned the provision of facilities. For instance, playgrounds have been constructed in certain areas of Dun Laoghaire. This is only one aspect of this matter but we need to consider whether facilities such as crèches or childminding facilities should be provided by local authorities or health boards.

I wish the Minister of State well as she faces a difficult task. I hope there will be definite proposals when we debate this issue in the autumn. The Minister of State will not solve this issue in the short-term. However, she should be able to make a start in this important area. As we debate work practices we should not lose sight of the fact that the main concern is the development and care of children.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Miss M. Wallace)

Senator Cosgrave questioned whether the interdepartmental committee was a delaying exercise and inquired about the membership of the group. Senator Jackman asked who the committee will report to and whether the expert group has any further role. Senator O'Meara asked about the chairman of the group, to whom it will report and its terms of reference.

The report of the committee will go directly to Government. At this stage it is not envisaged that the expert working group will have a further role. It has completed its task and it is now up to the interdepartmental committee. Like Senators, I have had concerns that if issues go to interdepartmental committees they remain there forever. However, as noted by Senator Ormonde, it is important in this case to bring all relevant Departments together to feed into the issue and to cost and prioritise the recommendations of the report.

It is important to note that the committee will comprise senior departmental officials. The Departments involved are: Finance; Health and Children; Education and Science; Social, Community and Family Affairs; the Environment and Local Government; Tourism, Sport and Recreation; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Agriculture and Food; Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Ten senior officials from ten Departments will work for the next six months to cost and prioritise the recommendations.

It is important that other relevant reports are being brought together – the report of the Commission on the Family, An Action Programme for the Millennium and the important report on early childhood education. The terms of reference are to evaluate, cost and prioritise the proposals of the expert working group and the recommendations on child care in the report of the Commission on the Family, the report of the Forum on Early Childhood Education and An Action Programme for the Millennium. These are all relevant reports and it is important that senior officials and Departments collate them.

It is also important to note there is a six month deadline within which the committee might report to the Government. The Government is keen that the senior officials report within six months with regard to the terms of reference. The committee is chaired by the second secretary in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Bernard McDonagh. I hope people will recognise that the committee comprises senior officials from all the relevant Departments.

Senator Jackman and Senator Ormonde referred to child benefit. It is important to recognise the costings set out in the report. An additional £20 a week per child would be approximately £728 million if granted in respect of all children up to the age of 12. An important point is that if £728 million was available, would that be the correct way to spend it? Would it do anything with regard to the issue of supply which concerns many parents in the workforce because places are not available for their children? Would it do anything for the people working in the sector who, as Senator O'Meara pointed out, like to be in the black economy and have the associated benefits or for those who would like to pay tax and PRSI to ensure they have benefits later in life.

There are many complexities in this area and one wonders if spending £728 million on child benefit would ignore all the recommendations with regard to standards, quality, supply and the strategy for the future. The committee's job is to evaluate this area and prioritise the recommendations. However, the 27 recommendations brought forward by the expert working group do not include a recommendation with regard to child benefit. It is referred to in the report but it is not covered by the recommendations.

Senator Jackman and Senator Keogh referred to issues in relation to flexi-working time. My Department is organising a round table forum on family friendly policies on 25 February. This forum is being held under Partnership 2000 and will involve representatives of employers and employees. It will examine possible ways of reconciling work and family life, which was mentioned on many occasion in this debate. It is an issue for parents in the workplace.

An important aspect of parental leave which was introduced on 3 December last, is that it cannot be swapped between fathers and mothers. Many Members, including Senator Maurice Hayes and Senator John Cregan, raised the importance of the father's place with the child. The Commission on the Family deals with the issue of children in the wider family, the role of the father and the mother and other matters. All these areas will be discussed by the group and that is why it is important the interdepartmental committee examines this report in tandem with the other three documents I mentioned.

Senator Henry and Senator Cregan asked about the crèche in Leinster House. It is part of the buildings under construction in Leinster House at present, which are due for completion in approximately autumn 2000.

Senator Cregan is correct that most men now share the responsibilities of parenting. This must be recognised. The Senator emphasised the importance of quality child care. His comments with regard to training were interesting because many people working in the sector would like to have accreditation. If they had a certificate, they would like it recognised as a qualification. Senator Ormonde also referred to this point. It is important that people have a recognised qualification in addition to their suitability for the job.

Senators Hayes, Cregan, Keogh and others raised the issue of consultation with children. A study was commissioned on behalf of the expert working group on the needs of children. The Consultation with Children and Parents project involved consultation with children in centre based child care services in two urban and two rural areas. The children expressed their views on what they liked about the services and what improvements they would like. Parents and staff were consulted separately. The study was considered in the development of principles which underpin the strategy for children where consultation is the main point.

Senator Ridge and Senator Cregan raised the issue of women in the home. Senator Ormonde was also concerned about this as were all the Fianna Fáil Senators who spoke. They were concerned that equity should be applied to women in the home. Senator Ridge said she was concerned that the report of the expert working group did not address the needs of parents who remain in the home. It is important to understand that the group's terms of reference were not directed at parents in the home. The group made comprehensive recommendations with regard to its terms of reference. The needs of parents in the home has already been addressed in the report of the Commission on the Family in the context of the needs of the family as a whole.

The points raised by Senators Ridge, Ormonde and Cregan with regard to women in the home demonstrate the importance of the interdepartmental committee taking into account An Action Programme for the Millennium and the report of the Commission on the Family when it is reviewing this document over the next six months. The Government is committed to the view that women in the home must be treated with equity.

I welcome the informative comments of the Senators. We are of one mind on the importance of child care. An important point raised in the debate is that the child is central to everything. Many of the comments related to the complexity of the issue. However, we must go forward and the job of the interdepartmental committee over the next six months will be to cost, evaluate and prioritise the recommendations in this and the other documents to which I referred.

I assure Senators that senior officials from the relevant Departments are members of the committee. The first meeting will be held next Monday so they will get down to business immediately. As Senators noted, this issue will be discussed again in six months. At that stage, it will have been fully analysed in terms of evaluation, prioritisation and cost by the senior officials. I thank Senators for this timely debate between the launch of the report last week and the first meeting of the committee on Monday.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Miss Ormonde

Next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.