Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I wish to share time with Deputies Healy and Gogarty. The Social Welfare Bill 2005 is set in the context of the budget. The first conclusion I drew from the budget was that it was not written by one person. This was not because its language varied but because concepts varied throughout. I did not believe it was necessarily about winning the next general election. The budget showed that the Government was trying first to test and then tap into the mood of the public. Two very distinct views are evident in this budget, one of which is found in the section dealing with social welfare and social affairs.

The budget and this Bill do not merely concern gains and losses, rather, they concern political and social mapping. The fact the Government's one major achievement has been the rolling out of the economy poses difficulties for it because this success story no longer resonates with the public as the primary delivery function when it is presented to them year after year. The public wants to see a hands-on Government and better delivery of public services, be they health, education, transport or social welfare services. We are now living in the post-Celtic tiger era, although we are not living in a post-Celtic tiger economy. The agenda has changed for a cohort of young parents, homeowners and commuters who might have been footloose five years ago. These people do not see themselves as workers with children; they see themselves as families connected to their chosen communities and which have matured. They are concerned about the shape and direction of their social and physical environment.

Child care was the centrepiece of the budget. There is a considerable difference between a child care policy that puts children centre stage and one whose aim is to encourage both parents to continue working. The former policy prioritises child protection and welfare and regards child care as more than mere child minding. Such a policy recognises the importance of preschool education and the role of the community.

The budget represented a missed opportunity, although I accept it could not deliver everything in an area neglected for so long. The extension of maternity leave in 2006 and 2007 is very welcome. The unpaid weeks for both paternity and maternity leave are of dubious benefit. They are obviously beneficial, but many people simply cannot afford to take unpaid time off. The child care supplement had to start somewhere and the under fives was where the primary focus obviously lay. While there may be some acceptance of that, there was little expectation that it would be done in such an exclusive way. For parents who are paying the equivalent of an additional mortgage each month for child care, there will be disappointment with the overall level of support, particularly for those whose children are aged over six.

I also have concerns about the €10,000 exemption from tax and PRSI levies for child minders who mind up to three children. It raises serious issues about child protection, given that there is no registration required. In Scotland, carers who care for children for more than two hours per week are required to register and there is a training and vetting requirement as well. The county child care committees are to have a co-ordinating function, but they have an absolute minimum of resources. We would divert the small amount of training that is currently being carried out if these committees are given this co-ordinating role without additional resources. The child care sector needs to be structured and that means charting careers. It is appropriate for child minders to see their job as a career. However, that would also include pensions and that is an area that should be examined.

Reliance on grants and a market response is not enough. A major initiative is required in developing community based facilities in every community. A portion of child care facilities are required to be built in large residential areas for every 75 houses. Essentially, the community cannot make the large rents that are charged. A significant number of non-profit community groups could be brought into the equation. Many communities are interested in running multi-use child care facilities, including after-school care. That may be particularly appropriate for lone parents. It has the effect of cutting down the cost of child care, while continuing to provide a high level of service in a child centred environment. It represents an opportunity that must be taken. The Minister should speak to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about Part V of the Planning Act 2000 as amended in 2002, especially where houses will not be delivered. It is an important area of social progress.

Much of what has been announced will not be delivered by this Government, but will be delivered by the following Government. I welcome many of the increases in social welfare. Small changes are meaningful, such as the right of carers to work an extra five hours. That provision could go a little bit further, especially for those who are caring for children with disabilities. I was very disappointed that child dependant rates were not specifically addressed. This area needs to be tackled urgently.

See this speech in context