Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy referred to the difference in treatment of one earner or two earner families. The difference might be closer to five and seven, but that is beside the point. More often high child care costs apply to two income families rather than to one income families. Unless there is such a discrepancy, families would not have the ability to deal with these additional costs. That is not to draw a distinction between the quality of parenting in either household; it is just a social fact of life, because one cannot be in two places at the one time. The difference in treatment takes account of that social change. Unfortunately, because the equal treatment of families was dealt with previously, regardless of whether these were one earner families or two earner families, people interpreted it as diminishing the role of motherhood in the home and so on, which is not the case. One must explain as best one can what is behind this provision.

The increase in participation of women in the workforce — their role is not restricted to that of motherhood in the home — has brought about the need for the tax policy to reflect that social reality. Maintaining the equal treatment policy would mean that two income earner families would not have feasible options. Real choice sometimes requires different approaches for different sets of circumstances rather than saying this is the way the tax system must work for everyone. People are beginning to understand what was behind the policy, rather than the unfavourable comments that initially met the former Minister, Deputy McCreevy's, introduction of the policy. It was ameliorated by the home carer's credit, which people saw as a sudden break with the established way of dealing with matters.

I am not claiming that we are approaching a comprehensive solution to the problem. Neither do I believe the tax policy is the means by which one can compensate in full families for the cost of child care. That would be a wrong message to send out. It is a question of ensuring that there is available to households sufficient disposable income to enable them to make choices that would have an additional cost compared to someone in different circumstances. One cannot socially plan for everyone to carry an equal burden in respect of the expenses they incur in view of what they choose to do, where they want to work, how long it takes them to get to work, the crèches available to them and so on. However, we must broaden the options for child care. It is not simply a question of providing more crèches or boosting the programme by hundreds of millions of euro. As has been said in this debate, it is a question of this House, on an all-party basis or through the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service if necessary, seeing what it can do to achieve a pragmatic solution of the child care issue.

See this speech in context