Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I propose to share time with Deputies Boyle and Crowe.

This Bill, which provides for a number of changes in social welfare arising out of the budget, arrived in my office yesterday morning. It should have been circulated a number of weeks ago, which would have given Deputies a reasonable amount of time to digest its contents and the implications for social welfare and those receiving social welfare payments. The fact that the Dáil is expected to debate this Bill within a few hours between now and Thursday afternoon is grossly inadequate. We should have been given a reasonable amount of time to examine the Bill. Deputies have only been given approximately 24 hours to consider and assemble their thoughts on what amounts to major and complex legislation with far-reaching consequences.

It is almost three months since the measures in this Bill were announced in the budget. The fact that this Bill has not been distributed sooner to Deputies, giving them greater time for reflection, means that the Dáil is being taken for granted. Such legislation should have been circulated to Deputies at least two months ago to allow them to subject the Bill to proper scrutiny and some form of analysis. Bringing this legislation before the House only 24 hours after it was circulated demonstrates an indifference to Deputies, who are expected to consider the Bill's various elements more or less ex tempore. What of the Government's previous commitment to the provision of adequate notice to the Dáil, from the Bill's publication to the point when the various Stages are taken? We have experienced such a situation before, where we were not given sufficient time to reflect on the legislation about which we were expected to comment.

One of the principal features of this Bill is the new early child care supplement of €1,000. This measure was welcomed, although I understand it will not now be paid until possibly September 2006. There are always delays in paying people but there are no apparent delays in respect of money coming the other way. The cost of formal child care is prohibitively expensive. Informal child care is estimated to account for upwards of 50% of all child care. In general, informal child care is provided by the extended family, neighbours or individuals undertaking it for additional money and plays a major role in keeping many people at work.

The cost of child care can rise to a staggering €250 per week in some of the major cities. For those lucky enough to live in a small town or in the country where travelling times are not so significant, it can be as low as €100 but that is rare. Some parents pay much more than that, particularly for childminders who tend to be even more expensive than the expensive crèches. There are probably advantages to hiring childminders in that the child is cared for in his or her own home.

A supplement of €1,000 per child is helpful but a grant of less than €20 is hardly sufficient to put a dent in one's overall child care expenses. Many parents with two children are deeply resentful of the cost since some crèches discount the cost of caring for a second child by upwards of 10% but many others do not provide discounts. It is a large financial burden on parents. While the €1,000 supplement is welcome, the cut-off of six years is rather arbitrary. I hope the fact that the supplement has been introduced means that both it and the cut-off age will be increased in the future. We will certainly look forward to increases in future budgets.

Prior to now, the greatest expense borne by most families would have been a mortgage. However, for many parents, child care costs have become even more expensive than their mortgage. This explosion in the cost of child care has only come about in recent years. Most people must work to afford a home, but the knock-on effect is high child care costs. Some child care providers have expressed the view that the Government should provide a financial subsidy to parents to assist with their child care expenses. Many other suggestions have been made to cut the cost of child care, including the formation of co-operative groups of parents who would look after children on a rotational basis, thereby cutting down on their spiralling child care costs. This would be infinitely preferable to an annual Government subsidy of €1,000. It would be preferable if people could establish and finance child care co-operatives. The subsidy merely chips away at the overall expense, which can sometimes run to upwards of €16,000 per annum.

There are also income tax considerations for childminders, who may be taxed if their total income exceeds the €10,000 limit. If a childminder's income exceeds €10,000, his or her entire income will be taxable, which is totally at variance with the Government's declared intention of providing incentives for childminders to provide quality child care in their own homes. The €10,000 limit should be re-examined and further consideration should be given to keeping the first €10,000 tax free.

Over the years, rising child care costs have outstripped the rise in annual inflation, forcing many parents to take the ultimate step of giving up work outside the home to make ends meet. Many women are forced to give up work leading to a major loss of talent. Women will frequently forego promotion or take time out to rear their families which affects their promotional prospects. This is why many top jobs, including those in the public service, are not held by women. A more realistic level of child care supplement should be paid to parents, together with child care tax credits. Parents throughout our EU counterparts are only required to pay an average of 30% of their total child care costs, while our Celtic tiger economy has displayed a breathtaking indifference to the plight of parents.

See this speech in context