Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I start by also paying tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. His brief is quite a difficult one in the sense that it straddles a number of different Departments — Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Health and Children; and Education and Science. He has focused very well on issues relating to children and has done an excellent job.

I was rather surprised to hear that Ministers of State in Ireland are paid approximately the same salary as Condoleezza Rice. It seems a very generous payment. I had not been aware this was the case. In this instance, I wish the Minister of State well. He can be proud of his contributions to protecting children.

We are all very conscious in this debate of the background of the terrible events in Monageer and the failure to protect two small children who, along with their parents, have lost their lives. I support the Government's proposal to establish an inquiry. It must be a fully independent inquiry and we must learn from what happened. One of the issues that has come up in this tragedy, and in others, is the issue of out-of-hours emergency cover to meet the needs of families in crisis. The HSE has a serious obligation in that regard to provide uniform cover across the country.

We are having this debate because the amendments being put forward by the Minister are outside the Bill and stray very far from the original purpose of the Bill. There has been a tendency on the part of the Government to include matters at a very late stage. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has been known to do this. However, the Minister who takes prime place as a serial amender is the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In this instance, we at least have an opportunity to debate these issues of considerable importance.

Some progress has been made on preschooling and child care provision but it must be ensured that children are at the centre of child care policy. I do not believe this is the case. The drive in the Government has been to get mothers out to work. The cost of housing has also forced them back into the workplace. While I specify mothers, obviously fathers have a very important role to play in child rearing. Families should be able to make their own choices as to how they rear their children. That choice, however, is very limited when economic factors determine the pattern of child care.

My Labour Party colleague, Deputy Wall, told me of a client of his who woke up at 5 o'clock one morning to the sound of singing. She discovered that the family next door were singing "happy birthday" to their three-year old. Dawn was the only chance they could celebrate the child's birthday because by the time they got home from work the child would be in bed. That tells us something about what is happening. We must reconsider the changes to child care. Policy must be shifted to an approach that offers parental choice, extends parental leave, provides flexibility in the workplace, particularly for women, and ensures there are possibilities for many parents.

The Labour Party recognises that preschool education is a very important part of a child's social and personal development. It can ensure the inequity in society is ameliorated and children are given the best possible opportunity to live up to their potential. That is why the Labour Party leader has made the commitment to provide one year of free preschool education to every child, should we be returned to Government.

I note the Minister's amendment on child care facilities relates to VAT. One complaint I receive from child care facility providers concerns commercial rates charged on their premises. It is worth noting that Deputies' constituency offices are exempt from commercial rates. The beneficence of the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, ensured this exemption. It seems a bit hard for people to understand why we should benefit and not child care facilities. I would be grateful if this could be clarified by the Minister of State.

Regulations and standards must be set to produce the best possible child care. However, it is rather bizarre that regulations apply to preschools when our primary schools, resourced by the State, have children occupying overcrowded classrooms, often with high pupil-teacher ratios, in substandard accommodation that belongs more to the Third World. Another issue that needs to be taken into account with primary schools is the lack of sport and physical activity facilities. It is bizarre that at a time of such prosperity the notion that a child should not run in the schoolyard persists in many schools. We have only one chance at childhood. It is a great pity the Government has been so disappointing in providing decent facilities for every child, particularly when there is an epidemic of obesity among children which is already causing considerable health risks. This failure to protect children needs to be addressed.

The proposal to provide for scrutiny on child care proceedings that will enable academic research is very valuable. Family law cases can often give insights into undercurrents in society. The experience in court can give us much information about the direction of public policy. I welcome that this can be progressed through the legislation. I have a client, whose marriage has broken up, who looks after his children but is not in good accommodation because the family home is occupied by his wife. He wants to buy a house but cannot do so because he cannot get the case into court that would determine the issues of property and custody. I thought I had helped him in this regard because the case was due in court in February. However, because another case overran, his case was not heard and he is back in limbo. The prime reason for this is a shortage of judges. Children, as well as their parents, in such cases are left in limbo when there is failure to provide speedy court hearings.

The role of the father cannot be diluted, whether he was in a married or unmarried relationship. We must ensure that the bond is reinforced as far as possible and practicable. This was raised by Senator Tuffy when this legislation was debated in the Seanad. I pay tribute to foster parents. Up to 84% of children in care are in foster care. Having children reared in a family setting makes an enormous difference. It protects children in a way that did not happen in the past when they were institutionalised and exploited to horrific degrees in some cases. I welcome the acceptance by the Minister of my amendment regarding people with a bona fide interest in a child. Hilary Rodham Clinton used the phrase, "It takes a village to raise a child." We need to recognise that outside of the parental circle, family and a wider community of people have an input into a child's life. Their concerns can be included when considering the best future for a child.

The Taoiseach made great play at his recent Ard-Fheis when he promised a constitutional referendum on children's rights. I was very impressed and thought he meant it. I was not sure what purpose it would serve but I believed it was a solid commitment. It seems to have disappeared like a will o' the wisp. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution made recommendations on the matter which the Labour Party supports. It will be up to another Government to deal with the issue of children's rights in the Constitution. If the Labour Party is in the next Government, I hope we will receive the same co-operation this Government received in developing a constitutional amendment on children's rights, as it is an important issue. I am not sure Fianna Fáil, in Opposition, has always done the right thing but I am sure with this new breed, we may see that change. I do not have much more to say on this other than to say we will support it.

See this speech in context