Mary Henry (Independent)

Senator Cox's excellent contribution was very interesting because it reminded me of the situation of 30 years ago. Sadly, no progress whatsoever seems to have been made in the area of child care. It is depressing that I have been in this House for 12 years and that one of the first things I did was to look, with Deputy Mary Wallace, for a site which would be suitable for child care within the environs of Leinster House. We located several places, but there is nowhere for staff or members of either House to have their children looked after. We will have a swimming pool and a gym before we have somewhere for children to be looked after, despite the great demand.

Senators Cox and Terry spoke about the involvement of women in the workplace. The issue of women in education has made a huge difference in the involvement of women in the workplace and in the economic success of the country. We have just discussed the OECD report on higher education. Part of it showed more women than men now attend our third-level institutions. There has been a huge increase in participation by women. More women also go on to do postgraduate degrees and post-doctoral research. They are not just staying in education until the age of 24 or 25 years, but perhaps until they are 30 and involved in research, which is extremely important for the success of the country. These women have serious difficulties in terms of child care because they are on much lower grants and funding than those in employment. They are in a serious situation. I am a member of a trust association in Trinity College which tries to help students with difficulties. Appeals for funding for a crèche in addition to the one we already have is one of the most urgent issues we must address.

There is another issue which I have raised over the years and which I consider would be helpful in the area of child care. Senator Cox mentioned that one cannot get tax relief on child care or elder care, etc. It is terribly difficult, because one is, after all, employing another person. France, which has good municipal child care, has a system whereby one can buy special books of cheques in banks, building societies or post offices which can only be used for employing people in one's home. One can buy cheques each year up to the approximate value of €5,000 to €6,000, and use them to pay for child care, elder care, grinds or piano classes. One does not pay tax on the money, nor does the person receiving the cheque. It cuts out the black economy. It is a very useful way of ensuring people can get other people to work in their house for a certain amount of time. It gives them tax relief without costing the State a great deal of money. Perhaps the Minister of State could raise this issue again. I had hoped the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, would look favourably on the matter before he went to higher places, but it did not happen. Perhaps the present Minister, Deputy Cowen, will do something when I put it forward.

The Minister of State and Senator Terry raised the very important issue of child care for children in disadvantaged areas. As we saw in the OECD report, free fees have not resulted in more people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds accessing third-level education. These people fall out of education at a much earlier stage and must be helped at pre-school, primary and secondary stages. In parts of Dublin, the success of breakfast, dinner and homework clubs shows how much they are appreciated. They are extremely popular and seem to play an important role in keeping young people at school.

The issue of parental leave, which we discussed last week, was addressed. Without such leave, a great number of people could not avail of programmes to enable them to return to education. As I pointed out in last week's debate, this is one of the most important factors in retaining people within the workforce. Mr. Peter Sutherland seems to think that we will not need 45,000 immigrants annually but almost double that figure to fulfil our economic requirements.

Recently, there have been some extremely ill-informed and malicious comments concerning teenage mothers. It was stated that they were becoming pregnant to avail of the State's largesse. That stupid idea had been put firmly to rest, however, because there is plenty of international evidence to show that is not so. Nonetheless, it is true that teenage mothers are likely to remain in poverty for the rest of their lives. It is vital to get them back into education as rapidly as possible.

In the course of this debate someone said such mothers should not receive the lone parent's allowance unless they go to school. They will go to school but in some cases they may have fallen out with their families and so there is no one to mind the baby. Another problem is that in order to obtain the back-to-education allowance that might be used to pay a child minder, one must be out of education for two years. I cannot speak for the Minister of State, but if I had left the education system at 16 years of age, it would have been much more difficult for me to re-enter it at 18. It is easier to recommence schooling after taking only a short gap to give birth. I hope the Minister of State will be able to get the Department of Social and Family Affairs to change its rules on this matter because they are not a good idea. Even attending a Youthreach programme counts as being in education. The existing rules do not constitute a good way of encouraging young people to resume their studies.

Parental leave is extraordinarily important, particularly when children suffer from illness. The financial situation is difficult enough for two-parent families where both partners are working, but it is impossible for lone parents.