Alex White (Labour)

On a number of occasions during his contribution, the Minister of State emphasised the amount of money being set aside for this scheme. He indicated that €153 million will be dedicated to the scheme over three years. Global figures relating to schemes of this nature are important and are always welcome because it is good to know how much taxpayers' money is being spent in respect of them. However, it is not enough for a Minister or Minister of State to come to the House and merely trumpet the fact that so much money is being spent on a particular scheme because other issues are involved.

The issues to which I refer revolve around equity and sustainability. As Senator Prendergast indicated, there is a concern throughout the sector regarding the likely sustainability of many facilities as a result of the changes the Minister of State proposes. In this area, perhaps like no other, it is most important to have the confidence of parents, managers and volunteers that the service will be able to be provided into the future. There is no point in stating that everything might be fine this year and that we will see what might happen next year. To some extent, that is what the Minister of State is saying.

The Minister of State indicated that he lacks data and that he must collect it. He justified the change in the scheme largely by saying that his Department does not have sufficient information to indicate whether some disadvantaged parents are perhaps no longer disadvantaged. That is the way the Minister of State pitched this matter. He stated that we need to discover whether people who should not be getting it are, in fact, in receipt of the subvention. Essentially, that is the argument he is making and it moves the emphasis away from promoting and expanding a valuable community service towards an approach which is restrictive and which seeks to root people out and discover whether they are claiming that to which they are not entitled.

I am not stating that people should avail of services when they are not entitled to do so. As many speakers on both sides have stated, however, in the area of child care the situation is already quite precarious for many facilities. It would not be right to introduce a further uncertainty regarding the future for these people, many of whom initially established their operations as voluntary schemes when they identified a need in their communities and banded together to set up facilities. As already stated, their situation is precarious, especially in terms of the numbers of people they can recruit and the numbers already working for them, the use of community employment schemes — some of which are under threat — etc. There is already a great deal of uncertainty in the system. Unfortunately, this change increases the uncertainty rather than reassuring people and giving them confidence in the future which is what we need to do.

Last week I listened with interest to my namesake, Senator Mary White, in particular when she wondered why would there be a fundamental objection to people making known basic information. That is a fair point. We fill in forms every day of the week. What is the objection to people setting out clear and objective information? It should not be a problem. In fact, it does raise a problem in the context of the facilities themselves.

This problem has various aspects. Increasing the extent to which forms must be filled and administrative work must be carried out within these facilities will tie up the time of people who should be working on innovative approaches to child care, improving services and looking after children. Nobody objects to people giving information where it is appropriate to do so. However, surely it is wrong to ask people to give personal information such as a PPS number, schemes they are on or, in the new band, earnings. Where a voluntary group has come together with a voluntary board of management people know each other and will be concerned about sharing intimate personal information with other people in the community.