Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

Early childhood education in Ireland has developed significantly since the forum on early childhood met in 1998. We have had the White Paper with its emphasis on promoting quality in which various actions were contained. In the special needs sector there are 14 pre-school classes for children with autism located throughout the country. Ten stand-alone autism facilities that provide an applied behavioural analysis model of response to children with autism cater for a number of children of pre-school age. The Department of Education and Science has also sanctioned the establishment of a pre-school for six children with hearing impairment on a pilot basis. Much has been achieved in the area of early childhood education in Ireland since the publication of the White Paper. As many Senators have said, early childhood education is intrinsically linked to early childhood care. It is impossible to speak about one without the other.

This is not the first time we have had this big national debate. We had a similar debate a few years ago and it led to a number of Government decisions. The massive investment by the Government in the Early Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006 is testimony to the Government's commitment to the child care issue. Funding for this programme has increased from the original amount of €318 million set in the national development plan to €499.3 million, following the increased capital provision made in budget 2005.

The funding approved to date will, when fully drawn down, lead to the creation of some 39,900 additional centre-based child care places. This will be in excess of the original target set at the start of the programme of 28,000 places and the revised target of 31,000 set at the mid-term review. That is a tribute to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which has administered this project. It was the first, stand-alone, national project in this area. Many of our European Union partners have been developing their child care infrastructure since the end of the Second World War, while we only started this programme in 2000. We have obtained value for money from the programme whose performance has outstripped our expectations. We have been constrained in the programme because of the EU contribution which meant the programme had to be focused exclusively on issues concerning participation in the work force. That led to certain omissions in the programme but in future we will have to fund the programme ourselves exclusively from our own resources. We can address some of the issues and omissions in the programmes in that context.

Senator Tuffy was concerned that quality and putting children first was not at the heart of our endeavours. However, under this programme quality is as important an issue as quantity. In fact, substantial investment has been made in enhancing the quality of the places provided. The investment made in county child care committees is targeted not just at identifying local needs but also at enhancing the quality concerned, which is vital.

Senator Terry and Senator White made eloquent pleas on the question of parental leave. For the past few months, I have been involved in the preparation of the high-level working group's document, which has been submitted to the Government. How we should structure parental leave is one of the options the Government is examining. From the many documents that have been produced recently, the evidence is clear that it is essential for a child to be with its mother initially and with either parent after a period in the first year. We must promote and secure that situation. Changes in our labour and employment practices to secure that objective are worthy of support. It is not something that can be done overnight but if we set ourselves a target objective we can work towards it. I was glad to hear Senators mentioning that point which is an important issue in the debate.

Senator Norris referred to another important issue which is that investment in early childhood education is vital. All the research indicates that intervention at that early stage in the educational sphere is essential. I am using the term "education" not just in the formal scholastic or academic sense, but also educationally in the sense that it must be inextricably linked to the care of such children. There is no doubt that investment in this area is vital.

The Government will have to examine how it can deepen participation in early childhood courses. Many families are already paying for such courses and teachers point to the noticeable advantage such children have when they participate in the formal school system. Our junior and senior infants' curriculum in primary school is not a formal educational system any more.

It is interesting to study the arrangements in Finland, for example, which has among the best scholastic results for 15 year olds in the world. They only just pip us on literacy, but are well ahead of us on mathematics. Primary education does not commence in Finland until what we would call first class in our primary schools. Finland has a state-provided kindergarten service for all children aged two to six. In a sense, of course, our State does provide that service for children aged four and a half to six. However, we must examine how we can deepen and improve our responses at pre-primary school level, to ensure a greater take-up by children of the essential courses they require at that stage. I was delighted to hear Senator Norris raising that issue, which the Government will address and which will have a big impact on dealing with educational disadvantage.

Child benefit has increased by 272% since 1997. It has more than tripled from €38.10 in 1997 to €141.60 today. Despite that increase, there are currently problems of affordability and accessibility in the system. That is one of the reasons we are having this national debate. The question of affordability concerns a wide range of issues, including the welfare system, child benefit, income tax and tax breaks. I do not want to anticipate whatever the Government may decide in that respect, but we must recognise that however we adjust or taxation or welfare arrangements — and I am not saying there may not be merit in them — the key question is how we can increase the supply of quality child care provision. Simply introducing tax reliefs or welfare changes without increasing this supply, will not address the problem of affordability because if one has a restricted supply of quality child care no adjustments to the tax code will enhance it. The measures we adopt——