Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome. As previous speakers noted, all Senators acknowledge her commitment to the issue of child care and her achievements in this area in the Government's first two budgets. Previous Governments also made improvements in this area, for example, through the introduction of paid paternity leave, a measure in which I was involved. While we are in a better place than was previously the case, we are coming from a disgracefully low base in the area of child care. It is often said by Barnardos that we spend approximately €10,000 per annum on every primary school child, €12,000 per annum on every secondary school child, €16,000 per annum on every third level student and practically nothing on children of preschool age.

People approach this debate from different vantage points but the political debate has always focused on the costs of child care to parent. It is as if this is simply a cost issue and the introduction of a tax credit would make matters easier. Other considerations, including the experience of the children and workers in the preschool setting, are sometimes lost. As we know, particularly in areas of disadvantage, the early years are crucial to a child's development. The terms "child care" and "preschool education" overlap and people can become confused or unclear about what they are talking about when it comes to child care and preschool education.

The impact of early childhood care and education on brain development is significant and the capacity of children to learn during these years is immense. Furthermore, damage done to children in these years is often irreversible. When I speak in this Chamber or in other forums I often cite statistics showing that a poor three year old child will have about 400 words in his or her vocabulary, whereas a three year old from an advantaged or rich background will have about 1,200 words in his or her vocabulary. It is difficult to address this gap when the child attends primary school.

We have not come from this debate from the perspective of the child but instead focused on parental cost. This is understandable and it is an issue with which the Department is dealing. As previous speakers stated, the potential negative experience of a child is being compounded by the lack of morale in the system caused by conditions in child care workplaces, including poor pay, and job insecurity. It is difficult to maintain motivation in any workplace if one is at the bottom of the pecking order in terms of payscales, certainty of employment and all the other issues raised by other speakers.

It is great that representatives of SIPTU, the trade union behind the campaign on child care workers, are present. On the issue of the sectoral employment order, I understand the Minister and her officials are open to the proposed measure. I acknowledge, however, that this is not her call to make alone because Government-wide support will be required for such an order to be made. While I have great faith in the Minister's instincts, political values and ethics, many of us have questions as to whether those who surround her at the Cabinet table share her views on employment rights, workers' rights and equality in the workplace.

As previous speakers noted, a gender equality issue arises because the vast majority of workers in the child care sector are female. This is vulnerable but crucial work. If one wants to damage a person in the long term, one should inflict the damage when he or she is aged under four years because it will be lasting. I am not in any way suggesting this is what is happening in the child care sector. However, if people are not properly paid and treated with respect, we should not be surprised if low morale seeps through the entire system.

The House discussed special needs assistants in primary schools who work with the most vulnerable students in the system. These workers feel undermined and uncertain about their career prospects because the Department treats them as an add-on to the system, rather than a central part of it.

We need to focus on three elements, namely, what is best for parents and how we tackle the costs of child care for parents; what is best for the child and his or her development; and what is best for the child care worker. These three elements do not necessarily have to compete. If staff are highly motivated, well paid and trained, professional and respected, the children in their care will benefit, as will their families.

I stand with previous speakers, SIPTU and child care workers on this issue. The sectoral employment order is the primary reason for my contribution to this debate, a view echoed by other speakers. If the Minister were to provide a commitment to introduce an employment order, this debate will have been worthwhile.

In terms of what the Minister and her officials are trying to do, as she will be aware, the Seanad can often surprise us because once we get out teeth into an issue on which we all agree, Senators can be forceful in supporting a Minister. This could benefit the Minister as she continues to make improvements in this area.