Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I, too, believe that this section should be deleted. If the Minister does not accede to its deletion, I will oppose the Bill despite that some of the measures contained in it are good and some of the amendments are progressive in terms of addressing some of the anomalies within our code. I took the time to try to be helpful to the Minister, who told us last week in this House - none of us expected it - that she would only proceed with the measures to reduce the upper age limit to seven years in the event of her obtaining a credible and bankable commitment from the Government on the delivery of such a system of child care by the time of this year's budget.

I do not think any of us expected the Minister to make the announcement that she came in here last week to make. She said:

I am undertaking tonight that I will only proceed with the measures to reduce the upper age limit to seven years in the event that I get a credible and bankable commitment [from the Government] on the delivery of such a system of child care by the time of this year's budget. If this is not forthcoming, the measure will not proceed. I will engage with my colleagues, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Education and Skills, to establish a co-ordinated, cross-departmental approach to ensure the required level of services are in place to support lone parents as their youngest child reaches the relevant age thresholds.

That was a major announcement. The problem is that it has not been followed up with an amendment to the Bill before the House which would prevent this measure from proceeding in the event of the targets she mentioned not being achieved. I appreciate she did not set those targets out in full in the House last week when she said, "I entirely agree that seven is too young for anyone to seriously contemplate any of these things without there being a system of safe, affordable and accessible child care in place, similar to what is found in the Scandinavian countries to whose systems of social protection we aspire". I do not think anyone will argue with her contention that such a model should be in place in this country. It should have been put in place and rolled out when this country had much more money than it does now. Even at a time when we are not as flúirseach with the few bob as we were, we should be investing in our future and creating jobs in this field. As a society and as an economy, we will benefit if we ensure children are catered for fully in school. If their parents are lucky enough to be in work or in education, they should be catered for after school as well.

I tabled two or three amendments relating to this matter to try to provide for some means by which the House could have an oversight role in this regard. I proposed that the provision the Minister has included in section 4 should not proceed without it being the subject of a determination by the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education. I suggested that the matter should, at the very least, be the subject of a report to be submitted to the House. My preference is for the joint committee to be the determining factor as that would be more democratic and would ensure we could monitor the progress being made with the delivery and roll-out of the approach about which the Minister said she will speak to two of her colleagues. I regret that my amendments were ruled out of order. I do not mean it as a slight on the Ceann Comhairle when I say that decision was somewhat bizarre. I accept that the rules are set in a certain manner. I was told my amendments would be more suited to a reasoned objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, as they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. That decision was slightly bizarre because the specific proposal in my amendment would have given effect to what the Minister said on Second Stage.

This section of the Bill gives effect to a cut that was flagged by the Minister and her colleagues when the budget was announced last December. People had hoped the Minister would have backed down in the intervening period by agreeing to reconsider the matter. I will repeat a question that was asked some years ago about the second or third child. What the hell are lone parents guilty of doing? Why should they have to suffer the penalties the Minister is imposing on them? I refer not only to this measure but also to the attacks on other entitlements lone parents were able to access in recent times. Those supports gave them an opportunity to play as full a role as possible in society. The cumulative direct effect on lone parents of a range of decisions made in budget 2012, when taken with this additional change, will make it very difficult for such people to go back to work or access the training or education they require in order to be fully available for work. I refer, for example, to the rent supplement change, the reduction in the number of weeks for which fuel allowance is payable, the child benefit cuts, the decreases in the back to school clothing and footwear allowances, the reduction in the earnings disregard element of one-parent family payment and the decision to stop paying the qualified child increase to lone parents on community employment schemes. Indeed, these people will be affected by the changes to community employment in general, such as the cut in the training and materials grant. If a recipient of one-parent family payment is on a community employment scheme, he or she will no longer receive the reduced payment. All of those cutbacks, including the one we are discussing under section 4, constitute a combined attack. Of all the groups that depend on social welfare in our society, lone parents have been most affected by the Government's targeting of social welfare recipients in budget 2012. The Minister is responsible for those changes.

The specific details of this proposal have not been worked out properly. The vast majority of parents will not abandon their children by leaving them home alone. However, what alternative will they have after this measure is introduced? When we discussed the single working age payment, the Minister said she would proceed with one of the proposals in that regard, which involves the transfer to the single working age payment of all lone parents who are in receipt of one-parent family payment. How can a parent benefit from labour market activation in the absence of support or access to services - if they could afford them - which would cater for their children's after-school needs and requirements during the summer holidays? Those of us who have children of schoolgoing age understand how difficult it is to juggle our own work when the school holidays start. I am at an advantage because I have a partner. The two of us are able to juggle our own work and ensure arrangements are made during the holidays and on half days etc. In this case, we are talking about children between the ages of seven and 14. Most children aged 14 can mind themselves for an hour or two - I would not recommend it on an ongoing basis - but that is definitely not the case with seven year olds. This substantial change is being introduced without provision being made for additional supports, which the Minister has accepted are required.

As a society, we have not addressed the fact that our schools lie empty after the end of the school day. Although that element of the necessary infrastructure is in place, none of the proposed changes I have seen would ensure that enough qualified child care workers will be paid to provide services that are not merely a continuation of the school day. The homework clubs in our communities are struggling to survive. The Minister and the Government are saying they will put such supports in place, but when one looks at the existing supports one sees that many of them are struggling to survive as they are at the moment. The support services in question that are delivering child care might be best placed to examine the Minister's proposals.

From the start of this debate, I have asked the Minister to withdraw section 4 and put it on hold for one to three years until after-school clubs and other provisions that will ensure children are fully catered for can be rolled out fully. I refer not only to one-parent families but also to those who are forced to give up work because their children cannot gain access to after-school clubs, especially those on low incomes who cannot afford the huge cost of child care.

I will leave it at that because other Deputies wish to contribute. I will have further points to raise.

See this speech in context