Ms Catherine Joyce:

I echo everything Mr. John-Mark McCafferty has said. We are in favour of reform of the child income support system and have been for many years. It is crucial that any reform does not leave people less well off, especially those on lower incomes. The concern around reforming the system is the risk that people in work and in receipt of family income supplement will lose out in any proposed changes. We welcome reform but the family income supplement is crucial to ensuring people are not stuck between a rock and a hard place where it makes more financial sense for them to be on social welfare and dependent on it than to go to work, because the added costs of the loss of income, going to work, child care and school care are key considerations. It is clear we need a system that supports people to be in work. There are issues about family income supplement but it is working for those who are on it and we need to protect it. If we are going to examine reforms, we need to stage them in a way that does not leave those people less well off while we move to a different system.

Mr. McCafferty mentioned the number of hours. That is an issue for people in low paid, part-time employment. If the number of hours is reduced to less than 19, that will lead to people dropping out of work because it makes more financial sense in terms of providing for families to be welfare dependent. Clearly we must examine how we reform the system and ensure those people are not disadvantaged by any reform. The development of a clear strategy for child care and after school care from birth to 12 years to support parents who are working is essential. We need a strategy that looks after school care and develops it on a consistent and strategic basis in order that an expensive, inconsistent and ad hoc system of variable quality is not developed. Clearly we must grapple with the issue of child care and after school care, from the point of view of both a child's development and welfare and supporting parents in work.