John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

This is a relatively small but important Bill dealing with child care provision. Child care related matters have always been given high priority. The majority of members of the community have supported any initiatives taken over the years in the area of child care and to improve matters for children and for parents. Given the major changes that have taken place in the make-up of the workforce over the past decade or so, the need for new initiatives has taken on much greater significance and a much higher profile in the hierarchy of priorities for individual politicians and also political parties.

In the period from 1975 up to now, the number of women in the workforce has more than doubled and now stands at 480,000. That development has generated a specific need and there is a much greater need for child care assistance and services now than in the past. This need has been generated by social changes which everybody accepts. Changed work patterns and arrangements such as people commuting long distances have led to identifying a need in this area. In addition to that, there are also the needs that existed in this area, such as the need for maternity leave and related matters and the need to provide care for children with special needs. We are trying to deal with some of these.

The needs in some of those child related services is obvious but they have not been met, despite efforts through tax benefit inducements to provide crèches and so on. There is great potential for introducing new initiatives and for innovative thinking in the provision of those services. Most of us would argue that there is a need to present a variety of solutions. For example, four or five measures can constitute a package of provisions. The obvious ones, including the provision of additional money to cater for the needs of children under five years of age, were mentioned. Such a scheme may not be easy to administer because of a tradition here that the State does not take back anything it has given. I cannot envisage parents being told that when their child is five, they will no longer be given such money. However, that is a matter for others to work out.

There is much legislation relating to child care. I refer to the 1998 Act, which this Bill amends, which specifically implements aspects of the EU directive on parental leave. Deputy Lynch referred to the Adoptive Leave Act 2004 and the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act was introduced around the same time. There are other legislative measures dealing with child care sponsored by various Departments such as the Department of Finance, the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Education and Science or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Is it time a consolidation Bill to deal with child care services was introduced? It could deal with the services I mentioned and others that are required. All these matters are on the same topic. Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to the cost of accommodation after the birth of a child and other costs, and there are changes that may have to be made. There is a range of issues involved.

Given the various items of legislation affecting more or less the same topic, it is confusing when a constituent comes seeking advice on his or her entitlements. I am aware that there are reams of information sheets available. Without being critical of those supplying the advice, it remains complicated. We need to examine and simplify such advice. Child benefit is under the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, tax incentives are under the remit of the Department of the Finance and health care is under the remit of the Department of Health and Children. Those of us who were members of health boards found that in the case of young people with special needs, the greatest impediment to making progress for the past 20 years or more was the split between the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children and the reluctance of either to accept full responsibility until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. We should have grasped that nettle much earlier and allocated the responsibility, under legislation, to a particular Department.

In the area of child care, we could do much more. One of the three primary objectives of the Bill, out of the eight listed, is the raising of the maximum age of an eligible child from five to eight years. I expect Opposition members to say the age limit should be higher and will suggest examples such as the cut-off date for primary education or the teens. It is a progressive step. As far as I am aware, it was the level recommended by the working group set up to review the 1998 Act. I stand open to correction but I believe that is correct.

The second important objective is that of raising the age of an eligible child with disability to 16 years of age. All of us in the public arena are aware of the extra duties, responsibilities and stresses that usually result from catering for a child with special needs. It is important to give recognition to it. We should factor in means to deal with those extra pressures in all legislation enacted. When people were becoming more aware of the environment in general, it was suggested that the legislation be proof read to see how it affected the environment. The same needs to be done in this area in respect of special needs cases, not in a patronising but rather in a practical way.

The third major change, to which previous speakers referred, is the extension of parental leave entitlements to persons acting in loco parentis in respect of an eligible child. It was important that this change took place. None of these changes need to be looked at in the negative. The Bill provides for five other changes but I shall not deal with those at present.

I appeal to employers to give cognisance to the thinking behind the Bill and to realise that it need not be a burden but reflects the reality of modern life. They should also realise that it can benefit them in terms of retention of skilled employees, employee goodwill, reduced absenteeism and so on. Many years ago I argued a case for a social and sports committee in a particular industry. An otherwise excellent CEO made the comment, when I raised the issue of funding and mentioned morale, that one cannot bank on morale. I quickly pointed out that he was technically correct but that one can certainly bank the results of good morale. I ask employers to look at the Bill in that regard and they can take initiatives further than the basic requirements.

To those who have argued against Europe and Ireland's involvement therewith in recent years, I must point out that a great part of the good social legislation on the Statute Book comes directly from EU directives. Some of the good conditions in society came about as a result of such directives. That aspect should be considered in any discussion on participation within the EU.

See this speech in context