Ms Tanya Ward:

Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the registration system which has been introduced and which we welcome. The system for early childhood education has been developed in a very ad hoc way. The impact of this has been that there is a real lack of quality across the board. In other jurisdictions, early childhood education has been developed in a way that is properly resourced and subsidised by the state. The authorities in those jurisdictions have much more control over the quality of the education that is provided. We took a different tack and decided to give child benefit payments of substance to parents. Effectively, we did not choose to regulate the sector and we are dealing with the costs and consequences as a result. It is astonishing that when we established the early childhood year, on which we are spending a great deal of money, we did not even introduce either a basic registration system or a quality assurance system. We welcome what the Minister is doing in this area because it is a very important step forward. However, there is a long way to go in the area of early childhood education. What the authorities need to do is introduce a second free preschool year. This is extremely important because not only does the free preschool year subsidise the cost of early childhood care for families, it also means we obtain a better bang for our buck. In last year's budget, €136 million was cut from child benefit but only €18.4 million of this was reinvested into after-school clubs. What the Government should have done was used some of the money saved to establish a second free early childhood year because this would have been a good investment of resources. These are the type of issues we need to consider.

I could not agree more with the Deputy regarding the cost of poverty on children's lives. We are all aware that children who are living in poverty stop asking their parents for things. They do not ask for new shoes for school and they are happy to go to school in second-hand clothes. They are excluded by their peers, they do not go to the cinema, cafes, etc. They cannot take part in all the other activities in which other children are involved. They do not expect good presents - or any presents at all - at Christmas or on birthdays. They stop expecting all those things which are considered to be good about a child's life. That is the cost of poverty for children. One of the good ways in which this could have been addressed would have been through maintaining child benefit supplement. In the context of Deputy Regina Doherty's point, we are of the view that child benefit should remain universal. If one wants to tax people who are on high incomes, then one should use the tax system to do so. This might be politically unpopular, but if one wants to increase revenues, one uses the tax system to do so. Child benefit is the only thing families and children actually receive, so it should remain universal.

In compiling its report, the advisory group on tax and social welfare, which was chaired by Ita Mangan, did some work on reforming child income supplement. We would support research in this area but we are opposed to some of the recommendations contained in the advisory group's report. The group recommended that child benefit should remain universal but that it should be reduced and that a second tier payment should be introduced. To obtain the second tier payment, the suggested threshold would mean that one's income would have to be approximately €25,000 per year. That is not much more than what a family of two on the dole receives. In the context of trying to get people into work and out of the welfare trap, the recommendations in the report are very problematic.

On the points raised by Senator van Turnhout and Deputy Regina Doherty in respect of the child and family agency, our view on the costings involved is actually right. No one has carried out a proper costing with regard to what the agency needs to start up operations. It is dealing with many of the problems in the child protection system by bringing the different services together. Members will recall the report on child deaths which was published last year, the Ryan report and the report on child abuse in Roscommon. These reports highlighted that there are many problems around inter-agency co-operation, and a lack of information sharing. One of the key problems, however, is the lack of resources. There are just not enough social workers to deal with the high number of case files. What will happen the new agency if it does not have adequate resources? It will simply focus on child protection and it will not place an emphasis on early intervention. Children have a right to grow with their families. There is an obligation on the State to provide families with as much support as possible early on to prevent a scenario where they end up in foster care situations.

We are extremely concerned that the agency's existing budget is going to be cut. We have spoken to political insiders who indicated that it is a serious possibility. The new agency represents the largest reform of the public sector the Government has introduced and there is a possibility that its budget is going to be cut. One would expect that it would receive an injection of funds during its first year of operations to allow it to introduce new management systems. There is a huge job to be done by the new agency in integrating all the different systems. There is also a huge job to be done in the context of introducing new management systems within the agency. If one speaks to social workers who were working within the HSE several years ago, they will state that they could have been going about their business for three years without anyone discussing their caseloads with them or what was happening with the children involved. That was the background to it.

My final point in respect of the agency's budget is that it is carrying forward a historical deficit from the HSE. The amount involved is difficult to assess. Depending on to whom one speaks, it can be as high as €50 million or as low as €20 million.