John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the House and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. This is just one of a series of debates in this House on the issue of child care and early childhood education. It is both commendable and significant that this is the case. Child care continues to be a topic that challenges, poses questions and in some ways divides us. When I first contemplated the motion before the House, it occurred to me that it might be less divisive than those in the past. I expected the usual cries from the Opposition of, "Is this the best Senator Minihan can do?" However, in discussing the child care package set out in the budget, I optimistically expected some harmonious support for the latest positive steps taken by Government. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

One element, in particular, the early child care supplement, has become a topic of some heated discussion in recent days. Of course some of this heat is generated by large amounts of hot air emanating from some quarters. I will turn to that specific issue in a few moments.

I congratulate the Government, and the Ministers responsible in particular, on the child care package set out in budget 2006. While may congratulations may be seen merely as expected and customary, I would point out that many interest groups, employer groups and charities have also welcomed recent developments. I could list at length the groups welcoming the measures announced in December.

However, it was the reaction of parents, rather than interest groups, that I watched out for most keenly after the Budget Statement. Comments from parents include the following: "The budget represents the most equitable way [they] could have done it", "I think the idea of allowing people to earn €10,000 without paying tax is excellent", "The maternity leave helps people who are working and the early child care supplement helps everybody", and "The €10,000 helps people in the home because they can probably take another kid in while they're minding their own". This is the context in which our debate should take place.

Of paramount importance is the fact that action on child care is child centred. We should not lose sight of this fact as we discuss the recent budget measures. Furthermore, we should recognise that no single party, from either side of the House, has a monopoly of wisdom on child care. There have been many considered and important policy papers on this issue, particularly, but not exclusively, in the run-up to the budget. I am heartened by the amount of work that was put into contributions to the debate made by all parties, interest groups and the public. That effort should be acknowledged and placed on the record.

Moving to the points raised in the motion, the Progressive Democrats are particularly supportive of the new five-year child care investment programme which, as we have heard, will support the creation of an extra 50,000 child care places. As Members of this House will be aware, my party and I have long stated the belief that increased supply is a key element in reducing child care costs. The Government is to be commended on adopting a partnership approach to implementing the programme. This will provide the essential framework within which Government will deliver on its commitment to quality child care services.

The child care investment programme is but one part of the co-ordinated and strategic approach taken by the Government, to be administered by a single office under one Minister. The establishment of the office of the Minister for children provides a new and indispensable focus on ways of delivering the best services for children. This is to be warmly welcomed.

Moving to the second element of the motion, the one I referred to earlier, the new child care supplement of €250 per quarter for every child up to the age of six is an important step in assisting parents further with the cost of caring for their children, particularly, as the motion states, during the time in a child's life when expenses tend to be the greatest. We must acknowledge that this direct payment of €1,000 a year, available equally to all parents regardless of whether they work, for each child up to his or her sixth birthday, is a truly significant measure, not just in itself but also because when combined with the increases in child benefit, now €150 per month, a family will now receive €2,800 per year for each of the first two children.

This represents real progress and real support for parents across the country. Despite the help it provides to parents, the early child care supplement has become an issue that greatly concerns Members opposite. Indeed, Senator Brian Hayes of Fine Gael is reported to have concluded that if even one third of the estimated 166,000 accession country workers registered to work here claim the child benefit and new child care payment, the extra cost to the State could reach €150 million. The criticisms appear to be based on the cost and the belief that this was a surprise to Government and that this supplement was only meant to cover child care costs in this country. I wish to address each of these briefly.

First, Senator Brian Hayes and Fine Gael are almost right in that some 160,000 people from accession countries have been issued with PPS numbers since May 2004. However, the number of workers actually still residing here is likely to be smaller. In fact, in contrast to the widely varying high numbers being bandied about by Fine Gael, just 300 accession state workers are in receipt of child benefit in Ireland for children living in their home country. Despite a further 2,000 claims being processed, it is obvious that in terms of cost, the Opposition has again proven itself rather suspect when it comes to the national accounts.

The second point is the intimation from the Opposition that this issue came as some surprise to the Government and, perhaps, even that the measure was not properly costed as a result. The precise topic was discussed with the Department of Social and Family Affairs two months prior to the budget. Furthermore, receipt of the supplement is based on receipt of child benefit. The budget figures were based on the total number of recipients of child benefit, which includes migrant workers. Unfortunately for the Opposition, this is another paper argument.

The third claim is that the supplement was only meant to cover child care costs in this country. The new early child care supplement is intended to assist parents with the cost of caring for their children and it is not exclusively for child care or child minding costs. The nature of the payment means it may be spent on other costs. Even, for example, if a parent has to live in one country but his or her children remain in school in another, he or she still has to bear a cost of caring for them. It is, therefore, not that complicated. Ireland should honour its commitments under Regulation 1408/71, which is concerned with the EU social security schemes and the free movement of persons. Irish people have benefited from this system for 30 years, availing in other countries from benefit systems more generous than those we could ourselves put in place in the past. Thankfully, under this and the previous Governments, our economic development has been such that roles have been reversed and to suggest this supplement should not be paid to people from other member states, when we have availed of reciprocal arrangements in those states for decades, smacks of something unpleasant. The regulations are in place to protect the social security rights of persons moving within the EU.

It is imperative that the correct training arrangements are put in place to support the delivery of the type of child care all Members seek for parents. The motion notes that it is expected that 4,000 or more child care workers will be trained annually over the next five years. While this is necessary and welcome, it must be properly managed and administered. I add the voice of the Progressive Democrats to those calling for the maintenance and development of best practice in child care. As I stated on budget day in this House, in contrast to approaches proposed by Opposition parties, in so far as a coherent policy can be discerned, the Minister considered all family configurations and choices. I, and the Progressive Democrats, have long made clear in our policy documents that we support increasing child care supply, choice for families and extended maternity leave. It is in this context that I support the motion.