JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005

Child Care: Presentations.

Chairman

I welcome everyone to the meeting, the purpose of which to assist the committee in its preparation of a report on issues relating to child care. The committee has appointed Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to act as rapporteur and it is expected that the committee's report will be published in mid-November.

A total of four presentations will be made today. First, we have the national representatives from the county child care committees. Then we will have the National Children's Nurseries Association, the Early Childhood Organisation and Cúram. After hearing from the national representatives from the county child care committees and the National Children's Nurseries Association, we intend to take a break at 10.30 a.m. so that we can attend the Order of Business in the Dáil. I welcome the representatives from the county child care committees, Mr. Alex MacLean, the chairperson of the BMW region of CCCs, if I can so call them, Mr. Jim Hewison, the south and east area representative, and Ms Mary Giblin, co-ordinator from the BMW region of CCCs, Dr. Patrica Flynn, family support services manager, and Ms Fionnuala Foley, development worker.

Members of the Oireachtas have privilege in what they say but the representatives do not. I trust they will not libel anyone.

Mr. Alex MacLean

The committee was given an outline of our presentation so because of the time factor I will concentrate on the summary.

As the committee is aware, EOCP funding comes through the equality section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As we move away from such funding toward Exchequer funding, what we are beginning to see is a service that is more child-centred than, as has been the case to date, equality-based. There have been enormous benefits for children as an indirect result of the equality measure but we want to put children centre stage. We also see a need for choice, so that people can begin to choose from a variety of settings with regard to what suits them and their families. We are trying to look at this in the context of social legislation — whether national or EU — so that, with regard to parental leave, flexitime working, term time and so on, it will encompass a holistic framework for families.

We have a number of issues with regard to supply and, in particular, affordability of child care services, which are very topical in the media. Great efforts have been made on the supply side through capital funding and, in some cases, staffing grants to community-based creches and pre-schools. If we were to expend, over the next two years, all the money granted from Europe, the supply side would be in order in some areas. Rather than the Exchequer funding two buildings, we are suggesting that all new schools should have pre-schools and after-schools built in as part of the planning process and that the local authorities, which have been very good so far in making available community houses in building estates, should continue along those lines and, perhaps through planning legislation, begin to build in many more of these facilities in various developments.

We are conscious of the fact that a great deal of child care is carried out in the informal childminders' network. Although we have been quite successful to date in bringing some of them into a more formalised system through grants and, in particular, training, a redoubling of efforts is needed to encourage them to come out of the black economy and enter a more formal structure. We must also ensure that the regulations that may apply are consistent with achieving a balance so that the people involved are not put off by taxation or regulation. A balance must be achieved between the needs of the children, the people delivering the services and the regulatory authorities. Some of the fears expressed by childminders in respect of taxation, regulation, etc., must be addressed.

With regard to affordability, we do not want to see any Exchequer initiatives driving up child care costs. We want parents to be enabled to become part of the system and it is not beyond the capabilities or expertise of the Department of Finance to develop appropriate measures. We are not tax experts.

We need to see the expansion of school age services because people do not necessarily stop work at 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. and their children must be looked after in a proper and caring way. One of the ways in which we can ensure children are central to a system is by increasing our training and quality awareness in all these services. We see child care as a universal service which should, as a matter of choice, be open to all parents. We recognise that we are not talking about free services because if people give even a little money towards a service, they own it and are empowered. That is important. Parents should be represented on the majority of management committees of community crèches. In addition, private operations should encourage them to participate in the management of these facilities so that everything becomes driven by parents, who best know the needs of their children, rather than having employees or outsiders trying to dictate some matters to them.

Some families, because of illness or other issues, should receive some targeted intervention but there should be a time limit on it. This would enable them to move back into the mainstream, rather than always being reliant on some sort of handout from the State. Some good measures have been withdrawn from the Department of Social and Family Affairs over the past couple of years. They should perhaps be put back in place in order to allow people be lifted up by the rising tide, rather than always being reliant on State intervention.

If we are to have children at the centre, we must see child care moving from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform into the care of the Minister with responsibility for children and beginning to be part of the overall family support being offered by the State, through its various agencies, to enable families to reach their potential. Initially, much family support is carried out by the HSE but during the current transition period this may not be the best location. The National Children's Office, along with the Minister with responsibility for children, has cross-departmental responsibilities. It is not just a matter of lodging them in one Department for everyone else to forget. Each Department, be it with responsibility for the environment, education, health or social and family affairs, has a key role to play. For example, the board of the National Children's Office should be comprised of assistant secretaries and people of higher grades so that we would begin to see them at the cutting edge of cross-departmental work in respect of children.

Mr. Jim Hewison

I apologise. My presentation is set up for Powerpoint and I ask the committee to bear with me.

Looking at the details, from our point of view, sustainability is the most important aspect. A lot of money is being provided and much work done, but if these smaller community projects cannot be sustained, the money will have been wasted. The approach I am suggesting, on which I have the agreement of people in the south and east, would involve a capitation grant for registered child care facilities, assuring the money would be targeted at the provision and delivery of such facilities at the coalface. This would be better than a system of tax relief for parents because one is not always sure — I have to be careful here because I do not have privilege — money is spent on what it is needed for. If there was a capitation grant, management committees, whether private, public or community-based, would be able to look at the issues of provision and quality rather than having to worry about looking over their shoulders for money all the time. Such a system would create more places and improve availability and accessibility. If people knew there was a capitation grant, they could work on that basis and be encouraged to create more places. A capitation grant would also improve affordability. As Mr. MacLean said, parents should pay something, depending on their ability to do so. Therefore, a community-based child care centre in a deprived area should receive a higher capitation grant than a private facility in a well-heeled part of Dublin 4, for example.

It is all very well providing places but the quality of provision is also important, as is the standard of buildings and facilities. New buildings should be built to a recognised standard such as that outlined in, We'd like this place, a report issued by the NCNA in March 2002. It contains an excellent example of what should be done.

Workers' qualifications fall to be considered under the heading of the quality of provision. FETAC and HETAC should provide clear progression paths from level 1 to level 12 for all child care workers. To achieve this, curriculum and course content should be provided, including a reference to accredited prior learning, APL. This would cover existing practitioners, some of whom have been practising for a good number of years and would find it difficult to do formal examinations. The APL system is well recognised.

In the south east we think the level 7 qualification should be the minimum required for all managers and supervisors of facilities offering more than eight places. That would be better than having someone start off without qualifications. Anybody can start a creche without qualifications. If we are to provide for qualifications, they must be properly recognised through the correct rates of pay. This would improve the retention of staff because recent reports show there is a quick turnover of staff. The money they receive is so low that they move elsewhere, with the result that their experience is being lost. Therefore, children are being looked after by learners, rather than by those with experience. This would encourage suitable persons to enter the child care workforce, including men. There are very few men working in the sector, but if there was a decent wage, it might help. An employment board should be established, say for five years, to promote conditions of work and correct rates of pay. In other words, if it was given a specific task to complete within five years, it would help to create proper rates of pay and working conditions.

The continued implementation of Garda vetting procedures for all child care staff is important and should be prioritised. Mr. MacLean has mentioned the issue of departmental responsibility and I agree with what he said — that responsibility for the child care sector should rest solely with one Department. All the budgets and personnel currently spread across all the Departments involved should be transferred to one designated Department. That is absolutely essential.

Pobal, formerly ADM, should maintain its monitoring and grant application roles, with funding to be provided on a once-off basis to meet the cost of architects, engineers and planning fees. We find that community groups, in particular, have great difficulty in completing applications. They must avail of the services of three architects, secure planning permission and obtain engineers' reports, all of which cost money. There should be a feasibility grant to cover such costs, which would improve the quality of the application, thus speeding up the delivery of new child care places.

The registration of all child care facilities, including child minders, should be made mandatory. Child minders are not covered by the legal provisions. The HSE and CCC should be involved with this aspect.

Mr. MacLean has referred to children with special needs. The change in emphasis from EU to Government funding means we can be more open to matters that do not necessarily concern employment creation. Facilities for children with special physical education needs, the socially deprived, Travellers and ethnic communities will be covered under the capitation system, thus adding to its importance.

Child care facilities offering more than 20 places should have at least one trained special needs care assistant. If we are to support children with special needs fully, they must have somebody who can look after them and that requires special training. The capitation grant will need to reflect this extra cost as much of the work is on a one-to-one or one-to-two basis at the most. If it starts moving towards a ratio of 1:4 or 1:5, we will end up not catering for children with special needs. Therefore, the effort must be concentrated.

All existing child care facilities in primary schools, community and private, should be grant-aided to provide school-age care. New primary schools should be built on a campus-style setting to provide pre and after-school care, a medical centre for children and catering services to provide nutritious meals. We are all aware of the problem of child obesity and this would be one method of dealing with it. School-age care should be covered by legislation and a registration system under provisions similar to those in the existing child care Acts.

Employers are not getting off the hook on this matter. Family-friendly employment policies should be encouraged. Employment policies should be introduced which are flexible and provide for part-time work, flexi-working and job-sharing arrangements, with longer maternity and paternity leave provisions. Working from home should be researched. People should be able to avail of the aforementioned possibilities without losing out on promotion, perhaps through reorientation programmes on their return to work. Many women say that having left work to look after their children, they find themselves at the bottom of the ramp when they return to work. When parents are at home looking after children, it saves money for the State. Even with some form of grant, it would be much cheaper than providing child care facilities in a formal setting.

If the above-mentioned suggestions were implemented generally, it would reduce the cost of child care to the State. Tax relief could be given to SMEs, in particular, to cover the cost of replacement staff. Small companies state they cannot afford to meet the cost of maternity leave. In its wisdom the Department of Finance should be able to find a way of making savings available directly to small companies to help cover the cost of employment and retraining. The provision of child care at home would also free up places in other facilities. The more children who are cared for at home, at those times when such care is required, the more child care places there will be and facilities available.

Chairman

I ask the delegation from the National Children's Nurseries Association to make its presentation, after which members may put questions to both delegations.

Ms Ashling Hooper

I am the national adviser for the National Children's Nurseries Association. I am accompanied by Ms Theresa Heaney, training co-ordinator, and Ms Martina Murphy, public relations officer.

Chairman

I remind delegates that they do not enjoy the same privilege as members. In effect, they have no privileges.

Ms Hooper

I am glad to know that before I begin.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We hope to provide some for the delegates.

Ms Hooper

I presume members have received a copy of the paper we submitted yesterday.

Chairman

It was circulated yesterday.

Ms Hooper

The National Children's Nurseries Association is a member-based organisation which represents 70% of day care providers. Our members cater for approximately 30,000 children in full-time and school-age care. I intend to focus on the financial supports required for this sector but will begin by mentioning the strategic policy and quality enhancement measures we consider necessary.

A ten-year strategy for early childhood care and education must be developed, as recommended by the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, report launched in July. A national child care management committee should be established as an interim measure to oversee this strategy. I am aware that the committee has already discussed quality measures. The regulations are inadequate in regard to pre-school services and the Child Care Act 1991 must be amended to allow for regulation. In developing future strategy we must build on the expertise available in NGOs and other agencies.

Our first financial support recommendation relates to employers and benefit-in-kind. We propose that employers should be able to subsidise their employees in regard to child care provision without any benefit-in-kind attaching to such payment. In the United Kingdom a cap is placed on the amount an employer can contribute towards an employee's child care costs. We propose a cap in the region of €100 per week. Such provisions would allow employers to provide on-site child care facilities or off-site facilities under its direction, or to purchase places in the greater child care sector.

Parents must be given choices in regard to child care, whether it be at home, in full day care or sessional services. A way of addressing child care costs is to introduce a sliding fee scale system, under which the State would pay the balance at an annual agreed rate, whether the service is private or based in the community or workplace. For example, a parent whose weekly child care costs are €180 but who can only afford to pay €100 would be subsidised to the tune of €80. Parents with the resources to pay the full amount would receive no such subsidy. Such an integrated system would afford parents better choice and allow them to choose the private, community-based or workplace-based child care service that best meets their needs.

Parental expenditure on child care incurred while accessing work or education should be an allowable expense incorporating a deductible tax credit. This would be offset by the increasing numbers of parents able to enter the workforce and the greater numbers employed in child care services. This recommendation was included in the national child care strategy in 1999. Such a provision would apply only to parents paying the full cost of child care, not those enjoying subsidies under the sliding scale system I mentioned.

We also call for maternity leave to be extended to one year. Another recommendation is that there should be a national child care contingency fund available to parents who fall outside all existing financial support systems. Arrival at a system of universal provision would mean such a system would not be required but it is necessary in the interim. For example, we encountered a 16 year old mother this year who wanted to return to school to take her leaving certificate. She did not qualify for any of the various education and welfare programmes and would have been obliged to pay full child care costs, an option that was not feasible for her.

A capitation grant of €2,500 per year per child should be given to child care providers, based on linkage to a quality measure. The capitation grant would be paid directly to providers on an annual basis. Another proposal is that the first €6,000 of income for child care providers and staff should be exempt from tax. This would have the effect of regularising the situation of some of those operating outside the formal economy. It would also increase the attractiveness of employment in the child care sector in which salaries are generally low, with many staff on the minimum wage or below the average industrial wage.

The equal opportunities childcare programme, EOCP, should receive increased funding. We have some concerns, however, in regard to geographical anomalies. Members have indicated that some areas are becoming saturated with places, while others have none. If EOCP funding is to work effectively, it must be evaluated on a demographic basis.

Another issue for child care providers is that of VAT. Child care providers are VAT-exempt, which means they do not charge VAT on their services. However, this also means they cannot register for VAT which prevents them from reclaiming VAT expenditure. We recommend that child care services become zero-rated in line with other providers in the health, education and farming sectors. This ability to reclaim VAT expenditure in regard to rents, equipment, lighting, heating and other services would substantially reduce providers' annual operating costs and thus stabilise child care costs.

Another matter of concern to our membership is that of rates. Child care facilities fulfil a vital infrastructural need and should, like primary and secondary schools, be exempt from rates. Moreover, rates are generally evaluated on the basis of the size of the premises. A child care provider who offers a quality service by providing extra space is, therefore, penalised because rates are based on the size of the building in square metres. This should be addressed. We note that Longford and Offaly county councils have decided not to collect rates from child care providers.

I deal with the needs of children last because they are the most important. All children should have access to a free pre-school place for the year prior to entering school, involving 3.5 hours of care five days per week for 42 weeks of the year. There is an economic myth that if child care supply is increased, the fees charged to parents will decrease. Our research indicates that a quality service, in which staff receive the appropriate rates of pay, equipment, training and professional development, costs €250 per week per child. Salaries account for 65% to 75% of turnover in a child care service. We cannot see a situation where the cost of child care can be reduced through an increase in the number of places, unless salaries are reduced.

Chairman

I thank the county child care committees and the National Children's Nurseries Association for their excellent contributions which will be most helpful in developing this committee's report on child care. As 20 minutes remain for this meeting and every member has indicated a desire to ask a question, I ask for self-regulation with regard to time.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

There is an acknowledgement by all members of this committee of the need to improve child care services. We hope to build momentum towards the achievement of this aim by producing a report which I have been asked to write.

On the BMW presentation, why are some places within creches and pre-schools lying idle? Is this significant in the context of our discussions?

Subject to the approval of the committee, I will recommend that a single Department oversee this area. It is ludicrous that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is involved, the historical explanation for which was that such involvement allowed us to access EU funds. The Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science appear to be the prime candidates for a supervisory role. Do the delegates have an opinion on this matter?

The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science with special responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, does an excellent job but, as Minister of State, does not have direct access to the Cabinet. This raises the challenge of fighting for funds at Cabinet level, one of the difficulties I encountered when Minister of State.

I ask Ms Hooper to tell us more about the existing small grant of €630, how it can be accessed and the extent to which it should be increased. With regard to the nurseries association, I do not understand why an expansion in the supply of child care places would not reduce costs. The normal law of the market is that increased supply leads to reduced demand. A moderation in cost should, at least, ensue.

Comments were made on extending the parental leave period to one year. I understand the take-up is abysmally low. What would be the point of extending it further if such is the case?

Deputy P. Power

Mr. MacLean noted that the informal nature of child care provision is significant in terms of its delivery. Can he estimate the percentage that lies within what he called the black market? He described possible steps for 2006 and 2007 which would include the introduction of fiscal measures to reduce the cost of child care. Can he identify these fiscal measures?

I want to ask Mr. Hewison about his proposal regarding the payment of a capitation grant. How much does he suggest the grant should be per child per annum? On those who work in the child care sector receiving training, gaining experience and then moving on, do they move to the private sector? My information is that staff leave private facilities to move to community creches, which appears to be a contradiction.

On Ms Hooper's proposal for a sliding fee, how would it be administered? If I understand her correctly, each child would be assessed on his or her parents' ability to pay. She cited an example where a fee of €180 might be reduced to €100. That solution would require that a means test be administered in the case of each child. I have questions about the logistics of such a system. According to my figures, a €2,500 capitation grant per child per annum would require a total budget of at least €450 million per year.

Deputy Costello

I congratulate the delegates on their excellent presentations. I ask each group to clarify their opinions on maternity and parental leave. Mr. MacLean mentioned a period of 26 weeks, whereas the National Children's Nurseries Association discussed a combination of maternity and parental leave for 12 months, which I presume would be paid. Will each group tell us the period of leave they recommend and how it should be paid for?

Are all the delegates in favour of the introduction of a pre-school year? How would it be delivered? Mr. Hewison remarked that new primary schools should also cater for pre-school children. However, the majority of new schools being built are either gaelscoileanna or Educate Together schools. The standard national primary school has fallen out of favour.

Every delegate supported the idea that a single Department should be responsible for this issue. Mr. Hewison has made the important point that the Minister of State with responsibility for children does not have access to the Cabinet, which means he does not have clout.

Ms Hooper estimated a figure for the size of the capitation grant. Will Mr. Hewison also make an estimate? If the 70% of full-day care providers represented by Ms Hooper care for 30,000 children, that implies a figure of 45,000 in the entire country. How far away are we from providing the services that are needed? Issues such as rates and VAT exemptions should be investigated because they could bring great benefits.

Deputy F. McGrath

I thank the representatives and commend them on their work. Ms Hooper mentioned that people working in the area of child care must be valued. Is she of the view that until the current debate began, those working in child care were not sufficiently valued by society? She also spoke about her members providing a service for 30,000 children. How many members does the NCCA have and what is the average child-staff ratio in the services?

On the issue of child care costs, Deputy Peter Power mentioned the reference in the submission to the €2,500 grant per annum per child and that this could cost in the region of €400 million per year to cover every child. What is the response of the representatives to the argument that if we want quality child care, we must face up to and deal with the taxation issue? If, in other words, we want quality child care, the economic reality is that we will have to pay extra tax. What is the view of the representatives on that? What do they believe is the broader view of society in regard to increasing taxation with a view to providing quality child care services?

Nobody touched on the important issue of the provision of child care services in disadvantaged areas. The reality is that 55% of children under the age of four in some estates in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and elsewhere are not prepared for primary school. Do the representatives accept that those children should be a priority when it comes to funding?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the groups. I will address my question to Ms Hooper. She said it was necessary to examine the myth that an increase in the provision of child care would lead to a decrease in fees charged and referred to the factors driving the cost of child care services. She also indicated that 65% to 70% of the turnover in such a service goes on the salaries of those providing the service. What are the other cost drivers? Many parents would say they sacrifice other necessities to try to meet the costs of child care.

Ms Hooper called for the abolition of commercial rates on crèches. It would be difficult to argue that point with the grocer, chemist or draper who pays commercial rates because they would ask the reason a private crèche should be exempt from commercial rates. I realise Ms Hooper made the comparison between secondary and primary schools but such business people would say this situation is different in that it is involves a commercial venture. I would like Ms Hooper to address that particular angle.

Ms Hooper gave us a figure of €250 per week per child, which she said would be the cost of providing a quality service that would break even for the service provider. If that figure is correct, how are child care facilities surviving if the current cost is an average of €170 per child?

Chairman

I realise that there will not be enough time to answer all the questions but perhaps the representatives would focus on the priorities they believe are vital so that the committee can make the necessary response. There are five minutes available to each group to reply.

Mr. MacLean

Basically, some places are lying idle because of the question of affordability. That is the view of the providers. In terms of tax and sustainability, we would be looking at giving whatever tax benefits are available to the parents. In other words, the parents should have the choice. What we are trying to outline is a series of principles and we can then work through the detail in that respect. Regarding rates and VAT, as Deputy Costello indicated, various forms of tax exemptions could be investigated. We are not tax experts but we know that such expertise can be found in the Department of Finance.

On the question of pre-school places and the Department that should be responsible for this area, in Britain, Ofsted has taken over all pre-school regulations but that has not helped because it has examined this area purely from an educational rather than a holistic perspective. We are of the view that if we were examine the question in a holistic way, and given where responsibility for family support lies, the Department of Health and Children would be the appropriate organ to assume responsibility for this area.

In regard to a Minister being responsible for this area, all Departments have a wide range of responsibilities. Even if the area was the responsibility of a senior Minister, other tasks and opportunities would come into play. It is a question of weighing up the issues to strike an appropriate balance as to the best way forward.

I will not comment further other than to say that, in terms of child minders, the most recent reported estimated that 50% are in the informal network. However, previous reports indicated that the figure was 80%. That is the reason we are trying to concentrate on them in that if nearly four fifths of child care services are provided by child minders, how best can we bring them into the formal network with a view to it being of benefit to them. For example, if we bring them into the formal network, childminders will then pay stamps, be entitled to pensions and so on. It is a win-win situation for a variety of reasons, not just for the child but also for the childminder and also the parents. That is the reason we are concentrating on them rather than on some of the buildings about which we talked.

Mr. Hewison

I was asked about the capitation grant. A sliding scale applies. Some parents can afford to pay the grant in full while others cannot. The CCCs on the ground will know the areas where the parents cannot afford to pay and recommendations can be made in terms of the capitation, ranging from €100 per week to zero, that should apply. If there are special needs trained staff in a facility, that should be taken into account in the capitation grant. The figure of €450 million in respect of cover for every child is not available, as such. We do not have sight of that figure, so to speak. If we were talking about 2015, which we are planning for in the NCCC, that is a different matter. For this year or the next year, the contribution to the capitation grant could range from €100 per week to zero depending on parents' ability to pay. Members may ask how will the grant be paid. There is a system in operation to cover that. FÁS, of which I am ex-employee, had a system in place whereby external trainers and costs relating to community trainee workshops and Traveller workshops were paid on a capitation basis. This was done on the basis of a monthly report being submitted for approval to the local committee, which in our case would be the CCC. That was sent out to ADM or Pobal, as it now known, and it would pay the cost. In that context, everything that was happening was monitored and we would not have provided capitation grants in respect of empty places. This would reduce the costs.

Regarding 80% of childminders being in the informal network, that number has probably decreased since the publication of the relevant report. A question was asked about how we can improve the take-up on the €630 grant. That is tied into factors such as insurance considerations, attending training programmes and registration. If a capitation grant is put in place and childminders' fears about entering the tax net and thereby causing, in some way, a reduction in their husbands' tax credits are allayed, more people would enter the formal system and more of the grants of €630 would be taken up.

Ms Martina Murphy

The laws of economics suggest that if the supply of any product is increased, the cost of the product should decrease. For a long period we have contended that, in light of the many variables to be taken into account in terms of the provision of a child care service, the law of economics is being defied. In historical terms, child care in Ireland was unregulated and pre-school regulations have only been in place since 1996. It is only since late 1998 or early 1999 that the sector has been inspected and the provision and quality of the service examined. For many years, the fees that were paid for child care were low and did not represent an appropriate cost of provision. The provision of the service was subsidised by low wages and that continues to be the position. Employees engaged in child care provision probably start at a salary close to the minimum wage of €16,000 per annum. Reflecting on the work we are asking people to do in this sector, we are trying to professionalise the service offered. These people are asked to do important work in terms of the influence they have on the early care, education and development of children, who are the future members of our society, but they are paid very little. The question arises as to what drives the cost of child care? Deputy McGrath asked what the ratios were. They vary with age groups. In the case of babies, there must be a ratio of 3:1 at all times. If a service is open for 11 to 12 hours per day, breaks, among other matters, must be covered. Therefore, a staffing ratio of 1.5 will be needed to care for three babies. The statutory ratio for children aged between 1 and 3 years is 6:1, which some services find quite difficult to achieve. The ratio for children over the age of 3 years is 8:1. It is not necessary to be an economist or a mathematician to think about the costs involved.

On the breakdown of the costs involved, people have not been valued. Our organisation believes many providers are trying to increase the value of the work being done through training, qualifications frameworks and attempts to professionalise the sector. As people and children have not been valued, child care has not been valued.

On the make up of the cost of child care, there is more to staffing than salaries. One must factor in ongoing costs for the training and development of staff and added benefits which people have come to expect today. Child care professionals are as entitled to added benefits as other employees. These ongoing costs constitute at least 75% of the total cost. Variables include food, cleaning materials, hygiene products, as well as educational supplies and materials, all of which add to one's cost base and account for a figure of approximately 11% or 12% of the cost of running a child care service. In addition, one faces building costs and rates. A service may also be required to pay rent. There are services which cater for approximately 100 children and receive a rates bill of between €25,000 and €30,000 per year. I will return to the rates issue. Additional costs include water and refuse charges and gas and electricity bills, which account for approximately 20% to 22% of the total cost.

After all of these costs are deducted, service providers hope to make a profit but we are now witnessing services and members of our organisation which are closing down. Some are closing down because they have not had a return for many years, while others realise the supports they need to upgrade their businesses are insufficient, or it is not worth the effort to upgrade. We have seen some displacement, a result of the way in which EOCP funding has been distributed, leading to saturation in some areas and considerable gaps in others.

If one compares a child care service with, for example, a grocery or bar, the potential earnings from a building designed for a child care service are capped because the number of children which can be catered for is capped due to space requirements and others correctly imposed under the child care and pre-school services regulations. Services face inspection by the Health Service Executive, during which they will be told the number of children they can cater for in a particular building. The potential earnings from such a building are limited, unlike buildings owned by a grocer or bar owner which in many ways are unlimited. Child care is a necessary service. If we say we would like to introduce a universal pre-school provision, we must think about where services will be provided. Some may be provided in pre-schools attached to primary schools but, typically, they will be provided in nurseries, crèches and pre-schools that are subject to commercial rates.

Chairman

Do Ms Giblin, Dr. Flynn and Ms Heeney wish to add anything?

Ms Teresa Heeney

Our concern is that the person with responsibility for child care should have access to the Cabinet. We hear rumours from the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science about who wishes to take responsibility. The needs of children must be taken into account at Cabinet level. We really do not care which Department has responsibility as long as someone takes it.

As of this morning, we have 621 members, which means we represent approximately 70% of the full day care services in Ireland.

Ms Mary Giblin

I reiterate that there is a need to maintain existing child care services and staffing grants to community groups, particularly those in disadvantaged areas. There is possibly also a need to introduce free child care places. It is the responsibility of the county child care committees to have a voice because we work very closely with them in disadvantaged areas. There is a need to continue the good work already done.

Chairman

That is a good point on which to end. I thank the representatives of the county child care committees and the National Children's Nurseries Association for coming and helping us in compiling our report on child care.

Sitting suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Irene Gunning, chief executive of the Early Childhood Organisation. Before she commences her presentation, I remind her that whereas Members of the Oireachtas have privilege in committee matters, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I invite her to make her presentation.

Ms Irene Gunning

I would like to clarify that the name of the organisation is IPPA, the Early Childhood Organisation. Our name has a history and has changed during the years. Originally, approximately 37 years ago, all of our members were playgroups, whereas now they run a wide range of child care services, including playgroups, full day care services, after school services and so on. I am sure the committee has heard from many others that the children involved in such services range, more or less, from birth to 14 years.

We all have benefited greatly from the equal opportunities childcare programme, EOCP. Our organisation has received grants in recent years which have enabled us to carry out very important work in furthering training and development and improving the quality of services. First and foremost, the best interests of children must be at the centre of any child care policy. The EOCP is a measure under which the number of child care places has been expanded to meet an economy demand to ensure equal opportunities for parents. The term "child care" is associated with an economy measure — places for children while parents work. Perhaps it is time to start talking about children's services, with the emphasis on children. The best interests of the child should be the basis for moving forward because from birth all children have a right to equality of opportunity to develop to their full potential. Parents and families benefit from support in the care and education of their children. Nowadays these services play a huge role in providing support as family patterns have changed. Lifestyles have also changed with the result that families do not always necessarily have the backup of extended families that was available in the past. These child care and early education services provide that support.

Children have a right to quality pre-school services funded by the State. Quality child care services promote children's health, well-being, learning and development. They provide family support and facilitate access for parents to employment. They also support community regeneration and support the economy. Everybody is in agreement on the need to do something because these services are so fundamental and crucial and at the core of society.

Child care services need investment in order to be affordable, sustainable and meet national quality standards. Staff working with children play a vital role in influencing their development. Therefore, they need to be highly skilled and have access to appropriate training, support, pay and conditions. We need to increase Government investment in children's services and child care. We have heard about European targets set at 1% of GDP. We would like to see the Government reach that level of investment. As members will know, the OECD report published in 2003 stated that we were well under par when compared with the other OECD countries. We recommend increasing the figure by 0.1% until we reach 1% of GDP. Bob Geldof spoke about the amount of funding that went abroad and he complained about the low rate of Irish development aid at under 0.7%. The OECD report mentions us spending only 0.4% of GDP on childhood services. While we need to help people abroad, we also need to look at how we support children in their earliest years. To move forward from the EOCP, we need to work towards a target of at least 1% of GDP.

I return to my first point to elaborate on support for parents. These services provide support for parents but there is a range of supports that would be appropriate for parents. Parents need choice. We endorse the recommendations of the Commission on the Family on the mechanisms to assist parents with support programmes that enable them to find the best way to rear their children. We recommend the extension of maternity leave to 26 weeks, the introduction of two weeks paternity leave and the provision of an additional 26 weeks of parental leave. We should work towards maternity leave of up to one year over time in order to be in line with other countries. The first year of a child's life is one of the most significant in terms of development and research supports the belief that, in most circumstances, young babies are best cared for by their parents when that is also their parents' preference. The existing short duration of paid maternity leave is not conducive to this.

We endorse most of the NESF report, which represents a very good benchmark in terms of how to proceed. Many of the reports converge on the way forward. We support a free, quality pre-school service for all children for at least one year before they attend primary school. The positive return on this type of investment is clearly articulated. I have attended so many meetings at which we have discussed the need for research-led policies. There is overwhelming evidence from research that investment in early childhood education brings a return on investment. The very famous research came from Ypsilanti on the Perry pre-primary schoolchildren who are now aged 40. At age 27, the return on investment was $1 spent and $7 returned. Now that they are aged 40, this has increased to a return of approximately $17. This is very strong evidence. We recommend a universal approach. There could be targeted groups initially as an interim step towards it becoming universal. It is a right for all parents who wish to send their children.

We would like to subsidise all child care services, including childminding, and out of school provision to ensure that they are affordable to parents. Child care costs in Ireland are among the highest in Europe and parents receive the lowest level of support in meeting these costs. With a limited number of exceptions parents tend to pay fees from their private means. Affordability is an issue that must be addressed in policy formulation.

We would support direct subsidisation to child care providers for places for children from one to three years and extended care for children from five to 14 years for all parents in education, training and employment, thereby reducing the cost to parents by 50% and by up to 75% for those working on minimum wage levels.

We would like to see funds assigned for all service providers and staff working with children under three years, pre-school children and school-age children to attain national quality standards over an agreed period. The basic issue of the qualifications of staff is fundamental to the quality of experience that children have on a day-to-day basis. We know from the various reports that we need to raise the qualification level of staff working in these services.

Funds have not always been available to send staff on training. Through the EOCP we have been able to carry out some training but it only does so much. This is a crucial factor in the quality of the services. Staff training is vital and funds need to be made available. The other problem about training is that it is not mandated anywhere. There is no legal requirement other than the regulations stating that a suitable qualification is necessary. However, such suitable qualification is not stipulated. The IPPA has worked tirelessly to improve qualification levels in this area. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is developing a new national framework for learning and a new national quality framework is being developed through the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. These are good steps forward, which we welcome. However, services will need support in improving the levels of quality to meet these new standards.

Additional supports need to be provided to children with additional needs and those experiencing disadvantage. Some children have particular needs that require extra support. We would also see that as being important.

Chairman

Perhaps there are other items on which Ms Gunning might pick up from the questions. We are running somewhat short on time. I thank Ms Gunning for her presentation.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The presentation was very interesting. I thank Ms Gunning for attending the meeting. As she knows, we are preparing an all-party committee report that will place a strong emphasis on further support for child care. It is a question of how best that is to be done and at what pace. The delegation has suggested that integration should be the responsibility of one Department but it has not recommended which Department this should be. For historical reasons, it is currently under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Chairman

I suggest that the delegation write down the questions because they will be banked together and we will then return for its response.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The Departments of Health and Children or Education and Science have been suggested as alternatives. Has the delegation any views on which would be the best home for child care? I presume there should be one lead Department, with access to other Departments.

On the question of training, the reference to our Nordic neighbours and third level courses, is it the view of the delegation that persons involved in child care require third level training? Will the delegation explain the meaning of the term "higher education level courses"? Will it amplify the reference to the necessity for on-site support for services?

The delegation refers to the tensions that exist between the need to support mothers working outside the home without disadvantaging those who stay at home. What is its view on the best method for resolving those tensions?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome Ms Gunning and thank her for her interesting presentation. I am interested in her reference to stay-at-home mothers and the question of how their needs and those of their children can be met. Stay-at-home mothers and parents choose the option of working in the home and their financial and other needs must be considered. What use is made of child care facilities by stay-at-home parents who may wish to have part-time support?

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome Ms IreneGunning and commend her on her work in this area. Have child care and those who work in the area been valued and respected in the past 20 to 30 years in the same way as the third level education sector and those employed within it? People make a fuss about third level education and fees but the issue of child care and pre-school provision in disadvantaged communities has not received the same reaction.

The delegation referred to the spend of 1% of GDP as being a target figure. From the delegation's perspective, is this a reasonable if not a conservative figure? Reference was made to child care in the North of Ireland and Italy as being good models of on-site services. What is the delegation's view of fringe services that offer different choices for children and families? Is it aware of other international examples of excellence? It is important to be aware of good practice in child care because low quality child care can be damaging to children.

The submission states that children can benefit socially, emotionally and intellectually from good quality child care. If resources are being expended, should not the first provision be for children living in disadvantaged communities because, if required, middle income families can buy the services? Many poor families have no access to child care and they should be a priority for any Government or Minister.

Deputy O’Connor

I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to Ms Gunning. I am always particularly pleased to see Tallaght-based organisations coming to the Oireachtas. The same issues have been raised in other presentations. I am pleased to acknowledge the all-party approach being expounded by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe because it is an important issue for us all.

I made this point to the Department last week when I queried which Department should be responsible for this policy. Many of us understand the need to have it associated with education.

Last week I visited one of my local schools in, to use Deputy Finian McGrath's description, a disadvantaged community in Killinarden. This school has an excellent Early Start programme which clearly is of assistance in that community. It provides a tremendous opportunity for children who might otherwise not have one.

It is clear that child care is the issue and it has been well signalled to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, that action must be taken in the budget. I have a great deal of confidence in the Minister, Deputy Cowen. I do not wish to make a political point but in my view he will understand the politics of the situation and the demand that exists from people whom we all represent. He has a great job to do in that regard.

Fianna Fáil is delivering on a daily basis and I have no doubt that the budget——

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

There are disasters on a daily basis.

Deputy O’Connor

Chairman, I am being provoked.

Chairman

Members should just ask questions.

Deputy O’Connor

I am particularly interested in the social inclusion issue and the IPPA view on the prioritising of child care in disadvantaged communities, to which Deputy Finian McGrath referred. It is legitimate to pose the question as to where the priorities should lie in the case of a family that needs to access child care in circumstances where the mother stays at home. It is fair to hear the views of the organisation. If the committee hears people's views it will have some idea of what communities want.

Chairman

I ask Ms Gunning to be as brief as possible and to concentrate on the points she regards as particularly important.

Ms Gunning

In answer to the question, I suggest that the lead Department should be the Department of Health and Children. High levels of training are crucial. The younger the child, the more important it is that people are trained. It is not so much about handing over wads of valued knowledge but rather about taking a holistic approach that understands the child's emotional, social and intellectual development. High levels of training are vital but this is not always adequately understood or appreciated.

The IPPA submission refers to child care and its reframing as children's services. Ireland needs to have excellent services for its children. They have a right to a quality education from birth. Parents are the primary carers and these services are supports for parents who have a choice about whether to use them. The economy is linked with the words "child care", whereas it is children who need these services and who are entitled to them.

The IPPA has a tradition of running playgroups. It began doing so long before there was any demand in the economy for child care. The IPPA started as a result of parental movement. Parents wanted a safe place for children to play because play is the way children learn. There will always be a call from some parents for part-time, sessional services, while others will need full-time services. Ireland owes it to its children to be in line with other OECD countries in terms of having excellent services for children that, in turn, support families.

The target figure of 1% is conservative and we should look to the excellent example of the Nordic countries, where the figure is 2.2% or higher. There are excellent examples of services in the Nordic countries and in northern Italy, in Reggio Emilia, which I have seen in operation. I am not so familiar with the French services.

The way to go is towards universal provision of services because there is a great deal of stigmatisation involved when one targets certain disadvantaged groups or areas. As we build up to a higher level of investment, we could target certain groups but the approach should be universal. We need a healthy mix of children within the services. If disadvantaged children are grouped together, the example provided by those who have good play and social skills will be lacking. Where there is a healthy mix of children, there are better supports available going forward.

Chairman

I thank Ms Gunning. That is a very good response. It may not be what we are all looking for but it is the response of the IPPA and the committee is very grateful to that organisation for its input to our report, which we hope to publish in mid-November. I welcome MsCaitríona Lynch, president of Cúram, and Ms Áine Uí Ghiollagáin, vice president.

Ms Caitríona Lynch

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation extended to us. Cúram is an organisation which has been in existence, under various guises, for over 22 years. It is a non-party political, non-denominational group, made up of men and women who seek to represent the needs of carers in the home, that is, parents and those involved in caring work. According to the most recent figures from the CSO, there are over 500,000 people, 95% of whom are women, involved in caring in the home. It is important to recognise, therefore, that carers, their spouses, partners and children, represent well in excess of 1 million people who are in a situation of not having the work within their families recognised or supported.

Cúram believes that the best course of action is to concentrate solely on the child and what is best for him or her, regardless of the career opportunities of parents. International research, recently published in Britain, is important in this regard. The research follows on from a 1996 report — entitled Family Matters — to Mr. Jack Straw, MP, which perused and reviewed family and social life in England. The most recent international research shows that family care, particularly mother care, guarantees the best outcome for children. It also indicates that institutional care is the least best option. The results indicate that mother care consistently gives the best results for children and that crèche or institutional care consistently gives the least best results for children.

We ask the committee to consider a proposal drawn up by us which we believe will give the best value for money and which will open up choices for parents in terms of child care provision. I wish to illustrate the situation in which many parents currently find themselves. As stated earlier, there are 500,000 people providing care in the home. However, that figure refers only to people who have a spouse or partner who is earning an income. It does not include single mothers or those dependent on social welfare. We are talking, therefore, about a large number of people who are living a way of life that is not being supported by the State. Unfortunately, not only is it not being supported, it is actually being mitigated against by the tax system. This means that such a way of life is not a choice opted for by many people.

Let us take the example of a single income couple where the mother is at home caring for a child and the father is the breadwinner. They need extra money, for whatever reason, and that will provide them with an income of over €33,000. There are many ways in which the extra money can be earned. The father can, for example, do nixers or overtime or the mother can go out to work part-time. If their preference is for the mother to stay at home and they choose that option, they will pay up to €5,000 more per year in income tax than they would do if she went out to earn the extra money. This is social engineering and is clearly not giving a free choice to parents to exercise their right to be the primary carers of their children.

The work of parents in the home is not recognised. Women are seen as an untapped workforce and have been encouraged to join the labour market. It is their absolute right to do so and we would also encourage them in that direction, if that is their choice. However, we are convinced that women are also an untapped resource as child carers, in terms of them being the consistent and best source of good outcomes for children. It is necessary for the economy that we have children. A major problem coming to the fore in Europe, which we will face in future, is the fact that we are not producing enough children to sustain our economies and pay for our future pensions. We need to encourage the bearing and rearing of children. However, people cannot afford children at present. It is becoming too expensive for couples to have children and to sustain and keep them. A universal, even-handed incentive for parents to take up the option of caring for their own children in their homes will not only benefit children, it will also, in the short term, prove to be much cheaper than pouring money into the black hole of professional child care.

Ms Áine Uí Ghiollagáin

When one listens to the experience of parents across the board, one discovers that they have great difficulty funding the care and education of their children. If they choose to go out to work, they must pay the equivalent in some cases of more than a second mortgage. If they decide to stay at home, they lose their second income and are hit with an extra tax bill on their first income. The question is whether we want people to have children and choices.

With that in mind, we put together a proposal for recognising all child care. In page 2 of our submission we point out that to have a fair system of support, one must recognise all children's need for care and allow parents flexibility in arranging specific care delivery. I know of a woman who has been in the workforce all her working life. She had two children and she just had a third child who has a disability. He is profoundly deaf. She decided that the best way to care for this child is to take off work and deliver care to him. However, she is trying to decide whether she can afford to do so. We must address not just what parents would like to do but what they judge is the best thing for their children at a particular time.

The next criterion is that parents should not be penalised for choosing between types of care and education. We need to provide competition between providers. When one subsidises just one sector, one will draw people into that sector because they will not be able to afford the extra costs of going to others. In the case of elder care, it has been proven that the initial budget for the nursing home subvention scheme has been increased beyond any of the initial and continuing estimates.

A system of support must be flexible and transferable. Even the OECD, in its report on Irish early years education for children, suggested that the Government should consider introducing one year's maternity leave. However, that would not suit all at home parents because some would like to share the parenting and caring between them. If only the mother can take off a year, it removes choice from parents. A fair system of support should be able to be utilised by all actors in this area. For example, if there is an at home mother, father, grandmother or aunt, a childminder or a crèche, it should be done without prejudice. Anyone who looks after a child should have a reasonable income and social welfare coverage and should be able to pay into their public pension.

Finally, it must be economically, socially and demographically sustainable. Some of the many things suggested in the media are increases in child benefit, which would not discriminate between parents, and refundable tax credits. Tax credits, as they stand at present, would help only those in the 42% band. In the case of a married family, it would include people on approximately €60,000 per year and single parents on approximately €35,000 per year. People on lower tax bands, such as those on social welfare, would not benefit. A refundable tax credit would benefit everyone.

We propose that we should focus care on children. In other words, the first thing that should be done is to set up a care fund and the care needs of children assessed. We could then decide how large it should be and how we could assemble the fund. We could assemble it from child benefit and from the equal opportunities child care programme. While it has focused on parents in employment, that will no longer be the case. We may need Exchequer contributions and we could ask for a care levy. In preparation for the most recent budget, the ESRI examined social services such as those offered in Denmark and what these would cost in terms of increases in tax bands. It indicated that there would be an 11 point increase on both the base rate and the upper rate. In other words, these rates would increase from 12% to 31% and from 42% to 53%. This would work in that we would have the care fund and each child could access their caring supports. Parents would be the key actors because children would not be responsible for disbursing these funds. This is reasonable in the sense that parents have the responsibility under the Constitution to be their children's guardians and to deliver their education.

Each of the subsidies would be broken down into a system of vouchers, including hourly vouchers. These would not have to be paper vouchers, they could be electronic in nature. Parents could then decide how they would deliver the care. The key element is that it is completely flexible and transferable. It would allow parents to decide that this week they want to do X and next they want to do Y. It would enable communities to have people who would be able to facilitate their different needs. It is difficult for parents to afford respite care for children with disabilities, especially if they are not in the social welfare system. If one is not receiving carer's allowance for a child, it can be difficult to access subsequent supports.

The care vouchers would be delivered to the person who undertakes the care. If parents encash a voucher for, say, €10 per hour, they would only get €8 an hour. The €2 would revert to the Exchequer. Some of it would go towards one's tax, some towards one's public pension and some towards one's social welfare coverage. This would mean that there would be a recognised market rate for child care, a minimum rate, and all those who would undertake to offer child care would be recognised equally. This would have positive results because we believe that many people who have just one or two children would be willing to collect other people's children after school on a regular basis. This would save much of the discussion around opening schools for extended hours. If parents would like to drop their children to a neighbour's house before and after school, it would be a reasonable way of funding it. It would give people who have excess capacity at home, and who only have children in school, an incentive to be more engaged with their communities and to provide services within them. People are currently turned off. If one is at home, one feels one is paying for the privilege. There is no incentive for people to become involved in helping others who have better tax incentives.

Chairman

If there are further issues to be dealt with, perhaps our guests might wait until after members have asked questions. They might bank the questions because I wish now to allow members to ask questions. Thereafter, I will return to the representatives for brief replies.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I thank the delegation for coming before the committee. Its presentation was very interesting. My questions start from a base whereby I am very much in favour of child care support. I appreciate the benefits of stay-at-home childminders, particularly parents, and, more importantly, mothers. Does Ms Lynch believe there should be absolute equality between stay-at-home and working mothers so that equivalent benefits would be provided for both groups?

I refer to Cúram's proposal for a care fund. Has this approach been tried in other countries or is it a new concept developed by the group? For where will the funds come? The group states that some of them will be provided through child benefit. Does that mean there will be a reduction in child benefit payments, with money redirected into the fund? What percentage of child benefit will be redirected? Will it be a principal component in the financial structure of this fund? Under the proposal, every parent will be given vouchers, which can be given to other parents who provide a childminding service or which can be used for professional child care support. How will this be administered? I do not fully understand how it might work. If the proposal is not accepted immediately, does the group have an alternative proposal regarding how stay-at-home parents might be assisted? What would be the best incentives to encourage them to continue with their excellent work rearing our children, of which I had personal experience?

Deputy Costello

I thank the representatives for attending and for their interesting presentation. I agree that individualisation has made it difficult, particularly where the working partner earns in excess of €5,000 in overtime and additional payments. Ms Lynch did not refer to maternity or paternal leave during the first year of a child's life. What are Cúram's views on the current provisions for paid and unpaid leave? Should career breaks be provided in the first year following birth? What are the representatives' views on pre-school provision?

I refer to the care fund proposal. How much of a child's life will the fund cover? Will it cover the child once he or she is born or will he or she be covered from pre-school onwards? The proposal is positive in nature because it would provide flexibility for each parent to choose the best service and to avail of the funding through vouchers and so on. The assessment of need, however, could create difficulties. The care needs of parents in 2005 may, depending on circumstances, etc., be different to those that will exist in 2006. It is difficult to imagine child benefit payments being transferred to a child care fund. How does the group envisage that happening? How could a voucher system be monitored? For example, how would vouchers be encashed? How could it be ensured that they were being used for their intended purpose?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the representatives of Cúram and thank them for an interesting presentation. I also thank them for highlighting the single income family issue and the dilemma created by individualisation in the tax system, which, I hope, will be brought to the attention of those who need to hear about it.

Cúram is the only group before the committee to ask why should people have children at all. Ms Lynch outlined the difficulties faced by people who have children but who also wish to work. In a number of European countries, particularly Germany, the authorities pursue parents, usually fathers who have reneged on financial support to the mother, until they take responsibility for the care of their children up to 18 years of age. However, that is not the case in Ireland. There are many examples of men who have children indiscriminately and who do not have contact with them, never mind providing maintenance for their upkeep. Should something be done about this?

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome the delegation and I commend Cúram for its work on child care. Ms Lynch stated that Cúram is a non-party political, non-denominational group. How many members does it have? How many people does it represent in the debate on child care? The first page of the group's submission refers to the "perspective of those for whom they care". Does Ms Lynch feel that Cúram's perspective has been excluded from the wider debate on child care issues?

The submission also states, "In recent years, the number of men on home duties has not increased and the proportion of unpaid work carried out by men has dropped". Will Ms Lynch elaborate on the meaning of the term "home duties"? My experience is that men are more involved with their children now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. My parents say that younger fathers have a major input into the lives of their children nowadays. Where did Cúram obtain the information? Is it correct, given that my experience is the opposite?

Cúram states, "Taxpayers deserve good results for their input and no value for money assessment of the potential policies can take place under the current conditions." Will Ms Lynch expand on that? The lack of an economic and social evaluation of people who look after children in the home is an important issue.

I compliment the group for mentioning children with disabilities in the submission. They have not been mentioned enough in the debate on home supports and financial resources for child care.

Chairman

I ask Ms Lynch to be brief in her reply and to focus on the issues she considers important so that we can pay attention to them in our report.

Ms Lynch

I will reply to the questions of Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Costello by outlining a particular scenario.

Mrs. A and Mrs. B each have children and both need to take care of them. Mrs. A decides to pay for her children to be cared for in a crèche. She pays a percentage of her income and keeps what is left, her pension and her social welfare rights. Mrs. B decides to pay for child care by surrendering her total income and has nothing left. In addition, she relinquishes her pension rights, leaving her with no pension and relinquishes her social welfare rights. Both have paid from their income but Mrs. B has now become invisible and there is no paper trail. Mrs. A is still seen as she is paid an income and the money paid on child care is visible. That child care is now subsidised as tax individualisation allows a tax break, paid for by Mrs. B. The latter has no income but is paying an extra €5,000 per year because she has chosen to stay at home. If child care subsidies are regulated to maternity benefits, tax breaks and supporting people paying for child care, then the latter are subsidised. If she receives maternity benefit, she will remain at home breastfeeding her child and be paid for it. If Mrs. B remains at home and breastfeeds her child, she receives nothing. If Mrs. A receives tax breaks to help support her child care, Mrs. B will continue to care for her children, sacrifice her income every year and receive nothing. If Mrs. A receives a subsidy on the sum paid in child care costs, Mrs. B receives nothing.

Child care subsidies given to support child care in this country must be spent equally on the children of Mrs. A and Mrs. B. It is untrue to suppose that the parent in the home is not paying for child care and does not incur cost. The parent in the home pays tens of thousands of euro for child care every year by doing without income. That is why we propose our method, which focuses solely on the child and the work involved. All children need care, whether the parent remains at home or works, and it must be supported equally. Benefits involving child care must not be given through a system that examines the income earned by parents rather than income surrendered by parents.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Is full equality what Ms Lynch demands?

Ms Lynch

Yes, full equality for children.

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

I was surprised when Dr. Gabriel Kiely of the UCD family studies centre was asked to give some indication of how much more men are doing. I thought men were doing more but the reply was that while men were doing more in real terms, the amount of unpaid work has increased due to demographic changes. Men are doing a smaller percentage of unpaid care giving work than in the past.

Deputy F. McGrath

I am not sure I agree with that.

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

If Deputy Finian McGrath contacts us we can send him the study. We have been excluded from the debate and the reason I joined Cúram is that there were no unpaid parents or carers included in social partnership. That is still the case and Cúram was the place I could best represent myself as a parent and a carer.

Chairman

What is the membership figure for Cúram?

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

Our membership is 500 but there is no other organisation bringing these issues to the table and that is the reason I joined. We would like to work with any other organisation we can find. As we represent people without an income, most of our members have asked us to waive the €10 membership fee. We represent people at the bottom of the heap.

Ms Lynch

According to the last statistic, we represent 500,000 people.

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

The best thing about child benefit is that it is universal. One does not have to apply for a means test to receive it. People with literacy problems or households that refuse to submit to means tests will not be excluded. The payment is received by everyone, including those with obstacles to benefits through the social welfare system. This is a payment to all children and that is why we seek a universal system. We should retain the positive elements of the child benefit system and parents who are better off can pay into the care fund at a higher rate than those who are less well off.

Chairman

What about child benefit?

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

We would see this as an improvement on child benefits. It would not run on child benefits but the database is already there, as are the workers. The Department of Social and Family Affairs would have to undertake some training but there are no major budgetary difficulties in changing and improving child benefit.

Chairman

Is there any other important item the delegation wishes to communicate?

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

A parent would sign the digital document and include the PPS number of the child. This would improve the system of child protection. One would know who is caring for each child and how many children each childminder cares for. In the event of problems with a childminder or crèche, it would be easy to identify the children in that person's care.

Deputy Hoctor

I wish to pose a question on the mandatory obligation and financial maintenance of children and the matter of responsibility.

Ms Uí Ghiollagáin

That goes beyond our brief. However, in the United States it was claimed that if fathers ensured they paid, children would not have a difficulty. As a result of the individualised system in the United States, even when fathers paid it was not enough to sustain the two households. Two incomes are needed to sustain one household. A Harvard economist, ElizabethWarren, undertook this study and proved that ensuring that fathers pay is insufficient. Children's access to their parents is an issue we try to highlight but we do not have any expertise in it.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for highlighting a novel, innovative approach that needs careful examination.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.08 p.m. until Tuesday, 25 October 2005.