Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)

I support the amendment. As I said earlier, if the compromise proposal had been accepted, I would have been willing to support the section. I am disappointed we did not receive an answer to our compromise proposal; therefore, I support the amendment on three bases - the issue of child poverty; the employment proposals before us; and the lack of provision for child care and after school care.

At the end of January 90,000 lone parents were in receipt of the one-parent family payment in respect of 149,000 children on whom I tried to focus in my Second Stage contribution because very often children are forgotten in this discussion. One-parent families are the unit group in Irish society most at risk of poverty. Children in one-parent families are poorer than other children. This is not speculation; it is a fact, as we have been told repeatedly by the OECD, the CSO, the ESRI which the Minister quoted, Barnardos and the Children's Right Alliance, while other NGOs have also come out in support.

When I spoke on the budget in December, I spoke at length about the cumulative impact of successive budget cuts on vulnerable families. I stressed the hardship felt within a family was most acutely felt by the children and the concerns I raised then were not new. They had been repeatedly raised in the context of budgetary measures, not only domestically but also by international observers.

On Second Stage I quoted Magdalena Sepúlveda, the United Nations independent expert on human rights and extreme poverty, who had voiced these very concerns when she came to Ireland in January 2011. She said children continued to be the group most at risk of poverty in Ireland, with families, in particular single parent families, struggling to provide food, appropriate housing, heating and decent winter clothing, and that the substantial cuts in child payments in recent budgets were of particular concern as they could exacerbate the situation of children and lead to an increase in child poverty rates, which were already worryingly high, and that this would represent a major step backwards for children's rights in Ireland. She went on to list all of the measures included in budget 2011 and said their cumulative effect could have devastating consequences on children's standard of living and their capacity to escape from poverty. We know this, yet the Government continues this regressive course of action.

Another argument made today to justify the amendment concerned the need to break long-term welfare dependency and to get lone parents back into employment. If none of the 90,000 lone parents in question is working, my first question is where are the 90,000 jobs for them to take up? However, it is not necessary to ask this question because 80% of them are either working or in education or training.

The age of seven years is too young. The affordability and accessibility of child care services for lone parents is already a huge issue under the existing payment provisions. When the baseline age limit of seven years is reached in 2014, what will the lone parents who are working and those who will be expected to take up employment do with their seven year old child? On average, the primary school calendar extends to 183 days. Seven, eight and nine year olds are in first, second and third class, respectively, and finish school at 2.30 p.m. Most schools ask parents to drop off their child between 8.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. There are not enough after school child care or affordable child care services available to cater for this need. Lone parents must work around their children's schedules and work part time, say, four or five mornings a week. More of them will end up unemployed in these circumstances as jobseeker's payments are not payable to those who work in this manner.

I appreciate that the Minister has acknowledged that lone parents should not lose the one-parent family payment when their youngest child reaches the age of seven years unless there is a comprehensive system of Scandinavian-style child care in place. I have made several arguments why we can do this but not in the timescale she proposes. I have grave concerns about the viability of such comprehensive and affordable child care and after school services being delivered in the next three years. A fully State subsidised child care and after school care system would need to be cemented in law and subject to consistent standards and regulations across all providers. Investment in training and the professional development of those involved in the sector is key to the development of such a system.

In the early childhood care and education sector salaries for what is being provided amount to €320 million, with a further €105 million being spent in the wider economy. The sector employs 22,000 qualified professionals. These are the numbers required to provide what is in place today. As nobody has said what we have is perfect, we need to expand it, which would be some feat.

I mentioned the capital grant provided for the child care sector; there was the awarding of a fund of €6 million, for which requests worth more than €60 million were received. That is indicative of the need for more infrastructure and building improvements in the sector to meet current, not future needs. There has been no significant investment in the development of after school care facilities and there continues to be a lack of information on the range of services provided across the country. The development of a comprehensive system of child care and after school care must be based, first and foremost, on a child's developmental needs.

The development of after school services will also need to involve schools. In general, the take-up of such schemes in schools was low, even when funding was available. Barnardos has voiced concerns that the Croke Park deal could provide a barrier to the establishment of comprehensive after school services by 2014 when the one-parent family payment scheme changes will take effect.

Given these complexities and the current economic climate, it could take as many as ten years for the child care supports needed to be provided. It is on that basis that I cannot support section 4 which should be withdrawn and reconsidered. The Minister should reintroduce it when she has the wide range of measures required in place. Most of us buy into and share her vision. Reform involves doing things together and joined-up thinking. I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider section 4.