Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

The Minister talked about outcomes and none of us would disagree that the optimum is to get an outcome where lone parents do not head the table of groups that are more prone to poverty. The route out of that is obviously through work. I am surprised, however, that the Minister is challenging all of us about the need for child care. She was the one who made that point last week to the astonishment of most of us, because it was flagged. The difficulty is the absence of certainty, although this measure will kick in for some next week, as Deputy Fleming said. It may be a small number of people, but it will still kick in when the Bill is enacted.

It is surprising how quickly the climate has changed for people who would have been making this argument on the other side of the House. Very often, one may be looked on as some sort of a head case if one makes the case for child care for a person going out to work who may have a seven year old at home. It will not concern seven year olds next week, but some element of it will kick in then.

If somebody signs on because they do not qualify for the lone parent's payment, and they have nobody to mind their child, they can then be refused the job seeker's payment on the basis that they are not available for work because there is an impediment for them to work. How will that be handled in practice? Should they not tell the truth?

The Minister referred to the Nordic model and municipal systems there, but their tax structure is very different. There is a high level of centralised services, as well as high local taxation and a lower level of national taxation in those particular countries. We are looking at a local government system here that has passed its sell-by date for optimum use.

If one was speaking about local taxation in the context of a very radically reformed local government system where child care, leisure services and the types of services available for example in Nordic countries applied one may well get a different response to local taxation but this is not what we are discussing which is why the Government is seeing resistance. I would be surprised if the Minister did not agree with this to some extent.

If this policy is about getting good outcomes the Government must work with people who require the services. I do not think it can be imposed without the introduction of a proper child care system. I do not think the Minister could make the argument she did last week and then persist with this section of the Bill. As I stated last week we do not have a crystal ball. It appears the Minister has made this commitment but I have not heard it made by the rest of the Government. I do not know whether the Minister made it on behalf of the Government or whether it is something about which the Minister feels particularly strongly and for which she will argue. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance will be amenable to her approach seeking funding for a child care system. In the absence of this the Minister could very easily find herself in a different portfolio by the end of this year. If she did not have the social protection portfolio and was the only member of Government advocating this where would the commitment stand?

See this speech in context