Alex White (Labour)

It is not. Senator Mary White has not examined the proposal if she believes it is only a PPS number. The PPS number and the number of children using the service are not controversial. However, one must also state whether one is on social welfare or any other scheme and which scheme one is on. Senator Mary White should read it. The so-called "third band" has not been clarified by the Minister of State and we are all waiting to see precisely what he means and how it will work. It will require information on people's earnings.

Senator Mary White may not have a difficulty with this and many people in the community may also not have particular difficulties with it. However, it will affect many parents already vulnerable in terms of the community or the workforce and who would consider it extremely invasive and ultimately divisive. It could put at risk the participation of many parents in the schemes and on the management committees of these bodies at a time when we are all trying to encourage an increase in voluntary participation in facilities such as these.

Women's participation in the workforce is at the heart of this debate. We want to ensure that where possible, women are encouraged to return to the workforce. However, life is never as straightforward as it sometimes may appear to us in this House. Women's participation in the workforce varies over time and it is not as straightforward as deciding to take one course or another. People may move from welfare to work and back according to the ages, stages of development and needs of their children. We must encourage women to engage in the workforce as far as possible but we must also allow for the changes which take place over the course of time.

This is a complex issue and its complexity is neither addressed by the initial version of the change which confined the subvention to social welfare beneficiaries nor by the changes signalled by the Minister of State. The emphasis in the system is restrictive. Instead of expanding, promoting, seeking new ideas and new people, taking a positive view of the future and encouraging people to be progressive about the type of child care provided it is regressive, restrictive and puts people off.

If this is an excessive form-filing exercise in which people must share this information, those who put a great deal of work into child care over the years, built it up and received grant aid for buildings will wonder where is the child in this. Rather than turning the managers of child care facilities into administrators and stigmatising particular parents why cannot we simply ensure the child is at the heart of this? We should all be interested in providing quality child care.

Nothing should be done to undermine the commitment of people to improving quality child care in the community, particularly those who come from the voluntary sector. Unfortunately, the scheme as it was introduced, the failure to explain it properly and the abject failure to consult with anybody in the sector has not been to the benefit of the child care sector. The Planet group stated it was aware of one group which was consulted. I hope the Minister of State will at least extend the six-month time period to a year and ensure we have a child care system that is grounded in a child development policy.

This morning, during the Order of Business we discussed briefly the issues which arise in many communities throughout the country where young children are at risk and which have a high dependence on welfare or a lack of incentive to work. Children find out about these and are affected by them early in their lives. Early start programmes driven by the child care system is the way to address these issues. I do not doubt the Minister of State's personal commitment to addressing them. However, I suggest to the House the scheme he proposes will have the opposite effect to what we seek to introduce.