Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)

It is important to respond because the Minister has raised some important points. I agree with her on the question she raised about the relationship between parent and child because one point made by single parents concerns the need for them to act as role models. When growing up, it is important for children to see their parents being actively engaged in employment, getting education, bettering themselves and so on. However, lone parents have stated that on foot of the measures the Minister proposes to put in place in this legislation, they will no longer be able to go out to work when the child reaches seven years of age and some will be obliged to give up their part-time jobs. When the children concerned perceive that their parents are no longer able to go to work, what kind of mentality will this create in their minds? It is important to the parent that he or she is able to go out to work and it is important to the children to see such parents being actively engaged and being in a position to be able to go out to work.

I note the Minister stated there are minimal savings to be made in this scheme. She spoke of how previous Ministers have had a greater vision, which they brought to the people and put in place and how that has worked. In this context, I do not believe people can perceive such a bigger vision behind this measure, even though the Minister is attempting to present it as such to Members. People are not buying into it and do not perceive the measure as being part of a greater vision. Therefore, I seek clarification as to the research on which this decision was based. I note no consultation process took place with those groups that had been consulted in previous years, such as Open, Barnardos and so on. Who was consulted? Did the civil servants produce a report for the Minister in which it was stated she was required to make X amount in savings and which then provided her with a number of options? The amendment specifically refers to putting back this decision for a number of years and Members should consider what must be done if the savings are only minimal. Given the type of debate Members are having today, I consider this to be an ill-judged decision and different options should be considered. Were other options presented to the Minister by her civil servants? Alternatively, was this decision made by the Cabinet and, if so, was the Minister under pressure from her colleagues in Fine Gael because apparently, the Labour Party is not in favour of this measure? It is important to ask what is the rationale for the decision. The Minister has stated it pertains to getting lone parents back into employment. It is not about saving money because the Minister has indicated the savings will be minimal and she should set out precisely what are the envisaged savings. On the other side of this issue, the lone parents' advocacy groups have stated lone parents will lose their jobs because of this measure. They have stated those lone parents who are in part-time positions at present will be obliged to give them up because they were not able to afford the differential cost for the child care. As this means there will be a loss of revenue, has such lost revenue been taken into account in respect of this model? I do not believe great savings will be made from this measure but it is causing a great amount of upheaval among lone parents. One must consider what are the other options and whether there is a better way to save the money the Minister intends to save.