Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I reiterate what has been said about the need for a more unified thinking around the issue of parenting and child care. It is vital that we have more family friendly employment practices. Today's article by Ailish Connelly in The Irish Times tells of some very disquieting attitudes in the workplace towards women when it comes to taking maternity leave and having children. This is an economically counterproductive attitude shown by many employers. As women approach their early to mid-30s, they will want to take time off work but it is a time when they will have engaged in much training and are moving into senior management positions. By not facilitating the possibility for people to take two years out for those important first years of their children's lives, employers show that there has been little change in their attitudes in this area. One would expect there to be a more generous attitude by employers.

In trying to get the balance right between the needs of parents who choose to work in the home and those who choose to remain in the workplace, I disagree with Senator White in her emphasis on the financial independence of women. The core issue must always be parental choice. Parents should not be militated against no matter what choice they make. It is a very personal, family-centred decision about who is responsible for the children and how they are to be raised. Whereas the tax individualisation policy was introduced to address the chronic shortage of employees in the workplace, we now face a new dispensation in which we have an ageing population and we need more pro-natal and pro-family policies. As the ratio of those on pension and in the workplace becomes more problematic, we need to plan to ensure we get the balance right. We need more pro-natal policies.

It appears that there has been a turnabout in the community child care subvention scheme and the Minister is due to announce a new income threshold next February under which families on low incomes will be able to access subsidised child care. As has been said by many in this House, there was considerable concern among child care providers about the fact that many people on low incomes would no longer be able to avail of the subvention that was previously available under the equal opportunities childcare programme 2001-2006. It remains to be seen what will happen but if there was the slightest concern that families on low income were to be excluded from subvented child care, that would be a disaster. It would go against all our policy intentions. It would leave people with the choice of either paying for private child care or going back on the live register.

I have a concern, an ethical issue, about what appears to be envisaged under the new regime whereby child care providers will be charged with seeking information from families about their income status. One must wonder about the ethics of this when one considers that child care providers, especially among disadvantaged people, are already tasked with the difficult problem of helping families and children along the way.