Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I admire Senator Cox for her honesty and courage in standing up to the parties in Government as they have not been listening to us for many years. I believe it was the Taoiseach who admitted that he did not realise child care was such an issue until the two recent by-elections, which shows the Government was not listening. Child care should have been an issue long before now. It should not be addressed in terms of just facilitating women returning to the workforce or helping to retain them there as this matter is about providing a good quality, affordable and overall child and educational care facility in every sense of the word.

We are playing catch up but this amendment does not do the Minister justice. While we must accept many such amendments have been made, this only scratches the surface. I acknowledge and welcome that much of the work carried out under the early opportunities child care programme, EOCP, was focused on disadvantaged areas. If we are to invest money, the less well off in our society must get a leg up first. Money invested at that level brings about a good return but money invested anywhere in the child care area is well invested.

I am not sure whether my figures match Senator Cox's but I recently acquired a report launched by the Combat Poverty Agency, which states: "Public expenditure in Ireland on pre-school education and care is near minimal. Less than 0.2% of Irish GDP is invested in child care, half of that of most other industrialised countries and just a fifth of the EU target of 1% of GDP". It goes on to state: "International research has shown that the rate of return to society in the long term is significant." Money invested in early childhood education and care, irrespective of where children come from, will pay dividends in the long term, of which there is proof. Taking the prisoners in Mountjoy Prison as an example, they certainly did not get any early childhood education and fell out of education at very early ages. Look at what this costs us in the long term. If we are to start from scratch, we must target money at the early years, as we will see a return benefit to society.

Currently, 80% of children are minded in the informal economy, which is an unregulated sector that we do not place great value on. It mainly involves family members or friends and is unpaid work for many people. Some people are lucky, as they have a granny or sister down the road who will do that work but this is becoming more and more difficult because people are no longer in positions or do not want to do it. Perhaps the granny will take her daughter's child or other children in or the sister will do it. We must put such child minders into a regulated market but ensure that we do not tax them out of it. If one allows them to earn a certain amount tax free, one could regulate that market and improve the quality. We must ensure the quality is of an extremely high standard because the child must be at the centre of this.

We must also examine the first year of a child's life. All research has shown that year is better spent at home with the mother where possible. We must try to introduce it through extending maternity leave and paid parental leave. This could be done over a number of years, although not too many.

Work-life balance issues must also be considered. It is not good enough that parents must leave home at seven o'clock in the morning, drop their child to a crèche and collect the child at seven o'clock in the evening. That is not good for any child and it is not good for parents. We must consider what type of society we want. Those hours and pressures on parents must be tackled. This must be done in consultation with industry and local government to ensure parents are facilitated in getting flexi-hours or in other ways to combine work and family.

We must be careful that we do not discriminate against the parent, whether it is the mother or father, who chooses to give up work and stay at home. They are also at a financial disadvantage. We discuss parents who have high child care costs. However, the couple or single parent who chooses to give up many advantages by staying at home are also at a financial disadvantage. They are trying to survive on one income. My son and his wife have two children. They have chosen to live on one income and they make enormous sacrifices. That work must be recognised. Work by parents, particularly mothers, has been undervalued for many years. It is time to re-examine society and put a value on it. I do not mean monetary value only. It is about the child's care, education and early childhood education and providing working or stay at home mothers with the ability to access child care or early education.

I support the concept of one year free pre-school for three or four year olds. That is of enormous benefit to the child. Studies show that such a pre-school year will benefit a child's development for many years. That is a long-term benefit to society. Child care should be under the remit of one Ministry. Having it spread across so many Ministries is doing it a disservice. With so many people having responsibility for it, who is ultimately responsible? That must be tackled and I hope the Minister will examine it.

Barnardos states that the issues of affordability and lack of places are still of concern to parents. It states that child care costs to parents in Austria equates to 5% of gross average industrial earnings, in Japan it is 8% and in Ireland it is 20%. This rises to 50% if two children are in day care. Much needs to be done to make child care affordable and providing places will be an enormous task.