Seanad debates
Wednesday, 5 October 2005
Early Childhood Education: Statements (Resumed).
3:00 pm
Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have almost concluded my contribution but will make a number of final points. It is worth noting that Ireland has its largest population since 1871 and a significant increase in the number of children under the age of six years, who now account for nearly 10% of the population. The number of women who work outside their homes has increased by 60% in recent years. Logically, we must start planning to match child care facilities to the increased number of women at work. If women are leaving their homes and going back into the workforce, we must provide more and far better child care places.
While we have witnessed a large increase in such places, the costs involved are exorbitant, which has a significant implication for grandparents. They now find themselves taking very proactive roles in their grandchildren's rearing as, invariably, parents cannot afford to put their children into crèches and will instead drop them off at grandparents' houses early in the mornings. The Government should examine the bold possibility of paying the salaries of all the people involved in early childhood education. Mr.Donogh O'Malley took the bold step of introducing free secondary school education, which was radical in its time. We have free primary school education and teachers therein are paid in this way. We also have free third level education. It makes sense for the State to become involved at pre-school level, which has been the case in France for a number of years. The advantage of this over other schemes is that it would eliminate costs and ensure that parents who used crèche facilities would receive a direct bonus from it.
I am wary of tax breaks, exemptions and credits, which are an accountant's dream. I am unsure that the consumer will ultimately benefit from them. The obvious way that we, as legislators, can eliminate the costs of child care is to examine the possibility of paying the salaries of the people providing early childhood education. It would allow the State to control the quality of early childhood education on offer. While there may be some great facilities available I have heard stories of certain crèches that are perhaps lacking in good standards. By becoming involved, the State could regulate and inspect the relevant crèches and early pre-schools.
It is time to move on. In his speech on 28 September, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, referred to a White Paper but that was fudging the issue. We are behind schedule and must take radical steps. If the State becomes involved in the payment of salaries, it will make a profound difference for people who are paying, on average, €800 per month on child care, which is the cost of a mortgage. It is having a significant impact on couples who should be enjoying themselves, as they are now burdened by a mortgage on a house and what is effectively a mortgage on child care.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would not agree with the State paying masses of salaries, pension rights and so forth for teachers or others who work in the area of pre-school education as it would impose a very large burden on the State. I accept many of the Senator's points, including those he made last week, as they were relevant. However, I also accept that masses of tax breaks based on the general written and oral evidence required for such matters would not be sound. As Senator Browne said, accountants will be busy reckoning one's tax responsibilities but may be the only people to get anything out of the exercise.
This is a complex business. People believe child care is easy but it is not. Many reports have been published in the area, so-called special advisers have become involved and we have been told that the big brains in different Departments are discussing how to deal with the matter. I do not know whether a body will have overall responsibility for the area.
I have mixed views on this issue. I agree that more women are needed in the workforce and that more and more are going into it but I do not like approaching the matter from an economic point of view. Something is wrong with a debate centred on a woman being seeing as an economic unit who must go out and produce.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am wary whenever history and social attitudes ask women to work. During the wars, women were needed to work in the munitions factories and elsewhere but as soon as the wars ended they were told to go back home. I would be wary of seeing women as economic ciphers with that purpose alone even though people are needed in the workforce. Senators Ross and O'Toole have two worthy motions on the Order Paper relating to this issue, including an excellent motion containing five points.
When I come to work in the morning, I constantly pass what I would describe as harassed mothers, infants and little children who are barely able to trot along while holding onto their mothers and looking perplexed. The mothers are pulling and the children are crying and out of sorts even though I am sure that, while I do not know anything about them, they are going to very good crèches. I do not know what time they woke up to go to crèches at 8 a.m. It must be very unsettling for mothers. It must also be unsettling for young people and babies who have been hauled out of cots and beds, washed, scrubbed and had their nappies changed, to be given little dinner baskets and sent off to crèches for the day.
I read about a major survey carried out by Ms Penelope Leach, the famous child guru, and reported in The Observer last weekend. I do not have a copy but have sent for one. Ms Leach has changed her mind on this issue approximately ten times over the course of her life, saying mothers should be outside the home, mothers should be inside the home and the same for fathers. Her latest opinion, to which I do not subscribe, is that babies do best when mothers are around. One may take this as a general principle because mothers will spoil infants and do their every bidding. However, I do not like how this practically heaps blame on mothers who have gone to work, which is not the full answer, although I accept that whoever conducts studies on what to do about child care understands that it is a highly complex issue. No job is as complex as parenting.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Infants and young children are very complex human beings going through major changes in their lives. People are hauling themselves out of their homes every morning and back every evening, making themselves collapse with tiredness, running out to get a Chinese ready-to-eat dinner or take-away, drinking a large glass of red wine, going to bed and starting the whole rigmarole the next morning. Something must happen or the situation will give in. I am well aware that the economic well-being of the country depends on women and men being encouraged to work but all Governments to date have failed in this area. No one should bring out a half-baked proposal on child care as great danger lies in that approach.
There are many caveats due to the complexity of the issue. Tax breaks were the means at one time. When I was a member of the Government, we deliberately decided on a policy of large increases in the then children's allowance, now known as child benefit. There was an enormous increase in that which was supposed to keep everyone quiescent but of course it did not because the economy outstripped it very quickly. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, now has some notions that effectively amount to means testing child benefit, which will not work. I could be mistaken and perhaps what he said did not amount to this. I do not think this is a good idea because the mother receives child benefit, which is intended for the child and helps a household a great deal. Means testing child benefit is certainly not the way forward. Giving more money to children under five may be the social and humane way forward. I can see the correctness of this approach. Who would begin means testing if more money was to be given to people who are in need rather than the well off?
It was proposed to means test children's allowance on one occasion. Former Taoiseach and Minister for Finance, Albert Reynolds, introduced the proposal which was stamped down within approximately a day. It disappeared as an issue because all the women of Ireland opposed the proposal. Nuala Fennell, a former Fine Gael Deputy — I think she was a former Senator — said "hands off children's allowance". We could all repeat this call.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Today it is called children's benefit instead of children's allowance, which is an old-fashioned term. Is this correct?
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The escalation in this allowance was very welcome when it happened. I do not know what the Government-appointed gurus are coming up with or what great solutions they will provide. I can certainly prophesise here that whatever solution they come up with, there will be an aggrieved portion of the electorate which will not like it. The mother or father who elects to stay at home must be looked after. Under the terms of the Constitution, he or she must be looked after because it makes mention of those who work in the home. There will be very fertile ground for legal cases if these people are not attended to in the mix of solutions to child care.
Part of me feels that a child who is cared for in his or her own home is better off for it. I do not mean it so much in terms of the love of a father or mother, although this is very important. It has to do with a child being in his or her own surroundings — being in a room, kitchen, garden or cot that he or she knows. If I can digress into my personal experience, when I started teaching and had young children, I taught for two hours a day until my children started primary school. My mother, who had been a teacher, advised me against putting my children into a crèche, which were just beginning to be order of the day. She told me to get a housekeeper and that my children would be better off in their own home. I often thought it was good advice; children are better off in their own familiar surroundings. This is why one sees perplexity and puzzlement on children's faces as they are being dragged out of cars and into crèches. What is going on in their minds when this is happening? Are they thinking "where am I going today, what is going to happen and when will I be picked up?". I wish those who are formulating this policy good luck. Theirs is a difficult task.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Government for giving us the chance to debate this very important issue. Members will have received a letter informing them about the Oireachtas crèche in the last day or two. I think everybody has received this letter. Whereas it is fairly short on detail, there are one or two very stark statistics therein. I suppose the one that is most telling and strikes all Members who look at it as most punishing is the cost of putting a child or baby into a crèche in the Oireachtas for a month. The figures quoted here are €728 per month for babies, €687 for toddlers and €630 for pre-Montessori pupils. These are 2005 prices, which will go up by 5% in 2006, which means they will be approximately €765 per month per child.
If one looks at these figures and examines them in the context of someone who works in this House, one will find that a staggering proportion of his or her income would be spent on crèches if he or she were inclined or forced to do so. We are talking about a payment for one child of possibly €9,000 per year and the figure is doubled to €18,000 after tax for someone with two children. The starting salaries of people in this House at the lower levels are approximately €21,000 or €22,000. Somebody who works in the Houses of the Oireachtas with two children and a salary of €22,000 who wishes to use the Oireachtas crèche on a full-time basis will be paying his or her entire income after tax and a few other payments on simply looking after his or her children.
These statistics are not economically unrealistic but they are socially unacceptable. It means that we are offering facilities in this House to people who patently will not be able to afford them. It is a bit of a nonsense that the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas is doing this. The crèche facilities we are offering will only be offered to the better off individuals who work here. I suppose it is a stark and telling example of what the rest of the nation must suffer. What it also tells us is that only the very well off can afford to pay for their children to get this pre-school education or care. It is quite staggering. I had lunch today with a woman who told me she had three children in crèches. This costs her €2,500 per month after tax, which amounts to €30,000 per year after tax. I presume this woman is a high earner. Presumably before tax, she must earn at least €50,000. A total of €50,000 of her income goes to seeing that her children are simply looked after, kept alive for the day and possibly cherished, nourished and cared for in a particularly laudable way. This state of affairs is absurd. We are now asking those we are welcoming into the workforce to create this great prosperity to hand over the bulk of it to see their children are kept safe on a daily basis. This is a benefit but it is one for which they are paying far too high a price.
Women who go to work have the choice to go to work, as do men. Many women do so due to economic necessity, many of them do it because they want to and many of them do it because they are extraordinarily well-educated, well-qualified and stimulating and would not flourish in the home environment without that sort of external stimulation.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not right that we should say they should pay such an enormous proportion of what they earn to see their children are looked after. As the Minister of State knows, the budget is approaching on 7 December. I hope that Fianna Fáil will indicate then that an imaginative package on child care will come to fruition. Senator White deserves credit for the lobbying she has done within Fianna Fáil on this issue.
4:00 pm
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Her lobbying has been determined and particularly effective. There should not be some half-baked package in the form of a compromise between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. We must grapple with this problem on both fronts, that of the unfortunate person paying so much to go to work in terms of time, traffic and other factors. It must be grappled with equally vigorously by recognising the extraordinary role of people who decide not to go to work.
Many women — this mostly but not altogether concerns women — who have earned, and have the capacity to earn, a great deal have decided to make the sacrifice of not going to work and staying at home. They are pulled two ways on this issue but in the end have no option because of the money. On the one hand, they are made to feel guilty if they do not go out to work which should not be the case. They earn less and are made to feel less adequate members of society.
On the other hand, they feel maybe they should stay at home and look after their children because it is better for the children. That is an honourable choice and one we should recognise. If we are to recognise the role played, and financial sacrifices made, by those who go out to work and put their children into crèches, we must equally recognise that those who stay at home are also making a sacrifice.
The Celtic tiger is not all happiness, apple pie and ice cream. Economic prosperity has brought with it the most extraordinary social problems. Professor John FitzGerald yesterday made an interesting contribution to a SIPTU conference in Cork. He said that while affordable child care is already a big problem, it will get much worse. Among the reasons he cited for this are that many more women than men are progressing to third level education and employers will find that women account for a significantly larger share of the supply of skilled labour than men. Employers will have to attract and hold skilled women and men, many of whom have young children. Meanwhile, the supply of child care will likely decrease.
One can see where this leads. Traditionally, Professor FitzGerald said, child care was provided by women with less than leaving certificate education. Those numbers will fall as more women remain in education causing the price of child care to rise as providers will have higher potential earnings in other sectors due to their higher level of education. He added that while the largest group of people in society today comprises people in their 20s, in a decade it will be those in their 30s. This will have serious implications for society and employment because those people will have children and more children will need child care.
While there are good returns to be had from discos and nightclubs, in a decade those who are up late dancing now will be up late walking the floor with their small children. The number of young parents will rise in the coming decade. They will be better educated than the previous generation and expect good careers for both partners.
We must provide for this serious problem which will soon become an acute crisis. It has not reached that level yet but people who are working, particularly women, are stretched to the limits financially and in terms of their time.
As to what the Government can do, I have only one minute left——
Paddy BurkeShane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will restrict myself to broad principles. The package must be imaginative and cover money, allowances and tax credits. The important point, however, is that women and men have realistic options. At the moment they are almost prisoners of a system which requires them to go to work and pay all their money into a crèche if they have children. They pay such a substantial amount that they have very little spending money left over.
Alternatively they make a decision to stay at home leaving a large quantity of wasted skilled labour in the economy in the form of women who feel obliged to stay at home because it is not worth their while exploiting the labour in which the State has invested so much through their education. There is merit in a system which gives them options and compels employers to give them options to work part-time which Senator White proposes in her Bill.
Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not suggest compelling them but negotiating.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator suggests inducements for employers to allow women to work part-time so that they, the children and the economy will benefit. I plead with the Minister of State to give the Minister for Finance the message that this House wants him to produce an imaginative, comprehensive package that will solve this problem.
Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome my friend and colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Seán Power, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity for this House to add its voice to the evolving child care policy, which is a relatively recent phenomenon due to the growth in the economy over the past seven or eight years.
I must declare a small interest in this matter as I am chairman of the County Leitrim child care committee and have been involved in the child care area since it became an issue in the mid-1990s. At that time, as a member of Leitrim County Council, I was also on the County Leitrim partnership board which set up a child care committee to address the growing need for child care among women who increasingly sought to work outside the home.
When the Government set up the statutory committees I moved into the child care committee and have been chairman for several years. I come to this debate with a certain amount of baggage. I am pleased that more voices have been added to those early pioneering voices calling for a comprehensive policy on child care.
I acknowledge and compliment the Government on the initiatives it took under the equal opportunities programme. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has come in for a certain amount of vilification primarily because when one talks about child care the last place one would think the policy reposes is the Department that deals with law and order. This is due to the equality dimension of the provision of funding, initially from the EU and subsequently from the Exchequer. After all, the word "equality" features in the Department's title.
Several decisions taken since then have added to the confusion in this area and there is a need for clarification and a more comprehensive approach to the provision of child care. I acknowledge too the outstanding work of my friend and colleague, Senator Mary White, in this area. It is important that someone focus on this, and who better than a person with a mix of expertise from politics and business who is more than capable of addressing the real needs? I wish her well in her initiatives.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, was recently quoted in the national media — in remarks that he repeated at a party meeting — as saying that one of the immediate solutions to the increasing problem of providing child care services, since the Government had reached its target number of places, was to put more money into facilities. I was particularly struck that the statement came from the Minister for Finance. I was so impressed by it that I had to seek clarification in case he was being misquoted, but I am pleased to say that he endorsed everything that had been reported. He genuinely believes that the way forward is to provide more resources and increase places.
Perhaps I might give Senators some evidence, anecdotal rather than statistical, of the pressures faced by those currently providing child care facilities across the country. I add the caveat that there is a media perception that child care is about urban areas and big cities such as Dublin. However, that is not true. I live in Drumshanbo, County Leitrim, which has a catchment area of perhaps 1,500 people. In 2002, following capital grant aid from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, opened a new, state-of-the-art, all-day child care facility in the town. One part of the building provides child care facilities all day for babies through to pre-school age, as well as post-school facilities, so it probably covers the entire gamut. I believe it is now a condition of much of the Department's funding that one provides full-day care.
On the bottom level, there is an all-day special needs child care facility. Currently, 105 people access mainstream child care facilities, with a waiting list of 40 more, despite it being a small rural area. That gives some indication of the growth in demand for child care. Without labouring the point, I welcome the Minister's statements and look forward to the next budget, when I hope the Government will introduce a child care package.
I mentioned that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform had evolved along the way. During that evolutionary period, two other Departments were involved on the periphery. One was the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which was removed from the equation some two or three years ago. The Department of Education and Science, which had an even more peripheral role, is now totally uninvolved. I understand that interdepartmental discussions are ongoing, particularly between the child care section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Education and Science, and I hope they bear fruit.
I will not go over ground already covered regarding securing more resources, an issue that will no doubt be raised again. I wish to focus on the child's early development. I am somewhat concerned that Government policy has been directed almost exclusively towards using women — I say "using" in the widest possible sense — to contribute to economic growth. In other words, one gets women out of the home and into the workforce, providing child care all day if possible, and even after school. Effectively, the State provides a child-minding service so that we can get women working. That means that we will fill all those places and be rich and prosperous, living happily ever after.
I hope that, within that policy framework, which I broadly support, the necessity of examining the needs of children themselves is recognised. In many child care facilities, there is an inadequate focus on the development of the child's intellectual and other skills. For most of those involved in training at FETAC II and FETAC III level, it is a matter of child-minding rather than wider development. Some kind of publicly stated programme should be introduced by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Education and Science whereby all child care facilities, whether State or private, should provide a specific model to assist the development of the child's skills, particularly for those in pre-school, since it is they who attend in the morning and early afternoon. I would like to hear of developments in that area.
My final point relates once again to a rural issue. The child care committees of County Leitrim and County Sligo completed research in conjunction with County Leitrim Partnership identifying lack of transport for after-school services as a major barrier to women returning to the labour force. There are currently 21 after-school services in County Leitrim. Six of those have small-scale transport projects supported through own funds, fees and minor grants. Should funding be made available for those to continue, with the remainder provided to develop transport projects, the number of parents, particularly women, able to return to work or training would increase greatly, as they would be provided with a continuous child care service extending from school, starting at 9 a.m., to after-school projects, closing at 6.30 p.m. That request was transmitted to Irish Rural Link, which agreed to support the county child care committees in the north west in putting the issue of lack of transport for after-school services on the national agenda.
It is sometimes forgotten from a big-city perspective that there are large areas of the country where public transport is poor, inadequate or, in some instances, non-existent. If one is a woman who would like to get out of the home for an hour or two each day and has no child-minding facility or alternative means of having one's children looked after, and the nearest job opportunity is ten or 20 miles away — a reality for many — it is incumbent on the Government to examine rural transport as an integrated part of overall national child care policy.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator O'Rourke referred to the debate over whether it is better for children to have their mother at home or working. Saying that it is good for the child to have the mother at home can be taken as a criticism of working mothers. The debate should not be about all or nothing. As a State, we should try to promote and facilitate a flexible approach so that a person can do both at the same time, for example, working part-time and spending the remainder of the day at home. Parents can share the burdens in different ways, and people can dip in and out at various stages of their lives as it suits them. That is the way forward regarding the measures we implement.
I will relate my own experience. I have a child aged 13 months whom my partner minds in the home. There are many reasons for that, and choice is only one. Certain factors coincided and it became our preference too. It would be great for my little girl to have a day here and there in a crèche where she would have contact with other children. It is good that she has the chance to be at home with one of her parents, and that is obviously beneficial for the parents too. However, children also benefit from contact with their peers. If parents in the home had access to child care facilities which could be used for one day or even one morning per week, that would be a positive development.
Like Senator Ross, I welcome the provision of a crèche for Members and staff of Leinster House. However, I am worried about the cost, both from my own point of view and even more so for those who earn less than me. I do not need to use a crèche every day but it would be helpful to avail of such a facility once a week. I hope the new crèche will provide that type of flexibility. I have brought my little girl, Pippa, to Leinster House on several occasions and it is difficult to know where to take her. Bringing her to the office may mean others are disturbed. Is it appropriate to take her to the Members' bar? That is usually where we have found ourselves. I hope the crèche will provide flexible services for Members and staff, of both genders, who have children.
As part of the Government's plan to promote breastfeeding, one of the issues it raises is the need for employers to support breastfeeding mothers. Leinster House would be a good place to start with this initiative as there is limited support in this regard, although this is obviously not an intentional policy. The Government must take positive action to help breastfeeding mothers and parents in general. Parents who wish to bottle-feed their babies should also be afforded suitable accommodation in Leinster House.
The October edition of the INTO's In Touch magazine includes two items relevant to this debate. One outlines the findings of a survey of members on child care issues. This indicates that three out of four respondents use the services of carers who take their children into their homes. Policy in this area must do much more to support childminders, who are a major element of any comprehensive child care solution. Much of their work is done in the black market. One of the measures proposed by the Labour Party is that people who look after children in the home should be allowed to earn a certain amount tax free. This would regularise the position of childminders and promote better pay. A person looking after his or her grandchild could earn some money without having to worry about tax issues, registration and so on.
The survey's findings on parents' main demands are interesting. Some 87% selected as very important the provision of better parental leave, including paid parental leave, 86% demanded tax relief for child care costs and 81% called for an extension of paid maternity and paternity leave. In addition, 66% of respondents would like incremental credit for years spent at home in full-time child care, 63% called for greater ease of job sharing and the same percentage demanded increased child benefit. This indicates the importance of flexibility and that people should have the opportunity to spend time with their children, whether they wish to work full-time or part-time in the home. This flexibility is particularly important to working parents. It is not a question of whether parents should be encouraged to look after their children at home or to avail of child care options that allow them to return to work. The objective should be to promote flexible arrangements and establish the financial and other measures which allow parents to have that choice.
Another article more relevant to today's debate is an interview with Professor Christine Pascal and Dr. Tony Bertram, authors of a book entitled Effective Early Learning — Case Studies in Improvement. The article includes some important points and I recommend it to Members. An issue it highlights, and one that has been raised by Members today, is that it is often forgotten that early childhood education is a societal issue. It is not an issue relevant only to women but one which all societies must address because one of the measures of civilisation is the "level of care and stimulation that it puts into the raising of children". The interviewees outline five key policy issues in regard to child care, including child poverty, welfare to work issues, introducing children to the "healthy life agenda", social exclusion and underachievement within certain social groups.
Another issue highlighted in this article is the importance of the quality of child care services and the training of service providers. The Government has largely been concerned with providing tax breaks for the providers of child care facilities. While this is welcome, we must begin to focus on the issue of quality of care, as we have begun to do in regard to nursing homes. The provision of early childhood education is not just about building and staffing facilities. A successful programme depends on the provision of quality education which deals with the five policy issues I have outlined. The importance of ensuring staff are highly trained is something the Government must address. Another important element highlighted in the article is the need to integrate services in order to meet the needs of parents and children in a holistic way, through such measures as family support, community provision and so on.
One way to implement significant improvements in early childhood education, in those situations where the infrastructure is in place and there is adequate provision for staff training, is through the use of underused school buildings. The Minister for Education and Science recently announced the building of a number of schools through public private partnerships. I hope this will not detract from the agenda that schools must be used for the community and not as a means of generating private profit. Schools offer an ideal means of providing early childhood education on a community basis.
Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. I have spent the last 18 months researching child care issues. During this time, I organised four public meetings in the Dublin South-East constituency and a conference in the Berkeley Court Hotel which was attended by the Minister of State at which he set forth his belief that this is an issue that must be addressed urgently by the Government. I visited crèches in the mornings and met hundreds of parents and crèche owners.
As a result of this research, I compiled a document entitled A New Approach to Child Care which most Members have seen. The Government must implement a bold and comprehensive plan for child care in the next two budgets. Piecemeal initiatives are insufficient. My document contains some nine propositions but I take this opportunity to focus on one particular aspect. I ask the Minister of State not to be offended when I observe that 95% of those who will draw up budget proposals on child care in coming years will be men. Many will be grandfathers who have never had to mind a child in their lives and are not familiar with the pressure of going to work to pay for a child or having to bring a child to a crèche. Men's DNA seems to dictate that it is a woman's responsibility to deal with the child care aspect of family life.
Article 41 of the Constitution concerns the family. It purports to be a family-friendly Constitution but we are not a family friendly country. The Proclamation following the insurrection of 1916 states we must cherish all our children equally but we do not. I speak from a social rather than an economic point of view. The State takes responsibility for the education of every child from the age of five, from national school through secondary education to free third level education. However, the gap begins the minute the child is born. The children of parents with money go to crèches. I have visited many crèches and witnessed the extraordinary intellectual stimulation and socialisation children learn from the age of six months. Research does not prove that the best education is received when a mother stays at home minding a child because some mothers are not suited to being at home all day every day. They are better off at work as they would otherwise be bored. A parent must have the choice to stay at home or go to work.
Every child born in the State should get an equal chance. When I visited private crèches I told the parents they were lucky they could afford a crèche. Some parents cannot even afford to send their children to a community crèche so they get no pre-school education. The parents cannot study themselves because no crèche is available where they live. A child born to an economically deprived family does not get a fair chance and the Constitution of 1937 is not family friendly in 2005.
During my research I came across the case of Jessica Starmer who was a British Airways pilot. She had just had a baby and wanted stay at home for two years but was told that as she was a pilot she was different and had to come back to work. In April 2003 the UK brought in legislation called flexible working which allowed an employee, man or woman, with a child under six or a disabled child under 18 to negotiate flexible working hours with his or her employer. That could involve working a shorter day, fewer annual hours, or taking two years leave. The employer has a statutory responsibility to negotiate. I have been an employee and an employer and it is the way of the future from both points of view. Naturally, such conditions cannot apply to some professions, such as doctors, nurses and teachers but with 21st century technology such as broadband and conference calls there is no need for many people to be in the workplace from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Before the industrial revolution people worked in their homes and women contributed as much as men, for example in artisan industries.
We need a Bill for flexible working arrangements. This week I brought a Bill in draft form, proposition no. 3 in this document, to my fellow Senators Kitt and Dooley and other Fianna Fáil colleagues and they unanimously supported it. I am waiting for a response from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, to whom I gave the draft Bill last night. I jumped the gun as I should have given it to him earlier but I am an entrepreneur and have to get going when a job is to be done. We in Fianna Fáil aim to be visionaries for the parents of the country by introducing a Private Members' Bill in the Seanad to allow the negotiation of shorter working days.
There are many jobs where, if a parent has to take a child home at 3.30 p.m., they are not allowed to remain at home. Everybody in the House knows that many employees do not have to be in their job from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and after-school care is costly. The benefits to an employer of flexible working include loyalty from staff, high morale and motivation and less absenteeism. This is a 21st century Bill in the new electronic age. It is necessary to deal with child care as a package. I want Ireland to be a family-friendly country where every child has an equal chance. Senator Terry, with whom I have been discussing this matter for a year and a half, is on the same wavelength as me.
The Progressive Democrats propose introducing tax relief for people minding children at home. I have not heard anything as ridiculous in my life as the suggestion that we should open up that hornets' nest. The complications attached to it are so obvious I do not need to spell them out.
I said when we were in Cavan that Fianna Fáil can be as visionary as Donogh O'Malley in 1967 when he introduced free secondary school education. The issue is work-life balance.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Life is not as simple as it was, nor is society. When I was a young parent I was a victim of the marriage ban, as was Senator White. When I married I had to give up my job and I was tied to the house. Circumstances thankfully changed quite quickly after that, but I had made up my mind, or perhaps I was conditioned into believing, that the best way forward for my family and I was for me to stay at home. I did so for several years until my youngest child was in primary school.
Life was simple but it was not rosy. It was difficult to survive on one salary then. We took one holiday a year if we were very lucky and we had one car. Staying at home did not make life easy, but I believe now that it was a good time and a good opportunity made available to me. This is not to say anything about the mother who does not stay at home, about whom Senator Tuffy was concerned. She mentioned that Senator O'Rourke stated that the woman who stays at home is doing a better job of caring for her children than the mother who goes out to work.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator O'Rourke did not intend that inference and neither do I. I am glad I had the opportunity to stay at home. Many young couples today do not have that opportunity, and I believe this to be the important point.
Many people discussing this issue mention it in the context of having to work and the growth in the economy. People place much importance in that. To turn this on its head I wish to put the child at the centre of the debate rather than the economy or the workplace.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The question of what is best for the child should be asked. We should work around that concept and provide the best possible care for that child. If that means helping the parents, or one of the parents, to remain at home, we should do so. If it means that the parents have to work, we should look after the parents to enable them to deliver what is best for the child.
I may be attacked for this statement, but I believe the child is best looked after at home for at least the first year of its life. The Government should act on this, providing such a choice for parents. If a mother or father, as in SenatorTuffy's case, chooses to stay at home, it should be facilitated. First, however, we should look after the mother who has given birth to the child. We should extend the maternity leave and, following from this, the parental leave. The parental leave should be made paid leave. The provision of parental leave up until now is only available for well-off parents. The less well-off cannot afford to take unpaid parental leave. I would like to see the Government bring forward a package that would allow a parent to stay at home for the first year of a child's life. Such a provision may not come about in the next budget, as it would have to be brought in incrementally.
Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Senator looking for these measures to be brought in now?
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The package may be introduced on a phased basis but it must be presented. The child should be placed at the centre of the debate. We do not value parenting as much as we did, yet parenting is the most important job that any person will do.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There should be much more debate on parenting. Young families should be told that there is a 30 or 40-year lifespan in the workplace, and children growing up will take up perhaps ten years of this. Both parents and children will eventually be grateful if more of the parents' time is given to the child's early development, but the Government must support them in doing so. We should support the parents by giving them the choice in the first year to stay at home and by changing work practices, as Senator White has suggested.
We should address the balance between work and life. I cannot understand how families survive when a child is put into a crèche in Navan at the early stages of the morning with, for example, parents going to work in Dublin and arriving back at 7 o'clock in the evening to collect the child. That is not right. If that is the type of society we have developed, it is not a good society. Children should be put first, and both children and their parents should be facilitated in order to ensure proper development at least until the stage of entering school. More time will be available to parents at that stage. Much more debate is needed on this issue.
I welcome Senator White's Bill and admire the work she is doing. I am not casting aspersions on her proposal, but the Government Bill should be brought forward. That is what is required.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator White is good at promotion but we wish to see the Government Bill and how much it values children and parents.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In accordance with the Order of Business decided this morning, the Minister is to be called at 4.55 p.m., with each speaker having eight minutes. Others are anxious to contribute to the debate.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I take up the point that Senator Terry made on giving parents a choice and having the child at the centre of any child care proposals. That is one of the more important issues being discussed here. Although we do not need a debate on whether parents should work, we have all seen the statistics on the increase in female participation in the labour force.
An emphasis existed in the past on investing in schools on the basis that children attended school aged four years or over. Through the years successive Governments neglected the issue of child care from birth to the age of four. There were strong arguments against having investment in child care, with some of the reasons emanating from educational quarters. As a member of the INTO, I am aware that the organisation was concerned that such a proposal could result in an early education system that might be carried out by non-professionals. We should not be concerned about that now as we are discussing an overall child care package that is not entirely about education at an early age.
It is clear that Ireland has changed, with a large increase in population since 1994, and children under the age of six years comprising approximately 10% of the population. There has also been an increase in the number of women working outside the home, from 483,000 in 1995 to 771,000 in 2004, an increase of 60%. Public investment in child care is less than 0.2% of GDP, which reflects poorly to the European average of 0.5% of GDP. Every Senator has made that point.
Much investment is needed in community child care. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform allocates grants of more than €1 million to some community child care centres yet many do not have a site and have to buy one. If a new school was being built in any part of Ireland the money to buy the site would be provided. That is an issue about which many forget. While many are refurbishing buildings the cost is enormous.
The issue of transport must be taken into account. In regard to disability Senator Mooney said that children with special needs may have to travel long distances in mini-buses around rural Ireland. One does not want the same happening with child care. We have seen on "Prime Time" the strain and stress on young couples who have to travel long distances to and from work and avail of child care before going to work.
An issue that arose when the matter was discussed in Cavan was the black economy. Unfortunately that is used in regard to a granny, granddad, aunt or uncle looking after children. It would be foolish to stop this as families make their own arrangements. It is important to be clear about this as it goes back to choice. I have heard some experts say that people will have to be retrained in certain skills. I would not like to say that to some grannies who think they know much more about child care than I or my generation. Perhaps that issue should be left aside.
In the past the Government increased child benefit which was useful. As a result one could say to people working outside the home that the increased child benefit could go towards paying for child care. For that reason it is a complex area.
I wish to refer to the rural social scheme about which not many are aware. It was introduced with rural people and those involved in agriculture in mind. I see great benefits for that scheme in the area of child care and looking after the elderly. Sometimes we think a rural social scheme is about building walls and looking after the environment. There are innovative schemes for child care as well as the work normally associated with community employment-FÁS schemes.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, for what he has done. We are all familiar with the private child care areas. However on the issue of community child care, even though more than €1 million has been allocated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the amount will have to be increased to take into account refurbishment of buildings, lack of a site and lack of money to buy a site. This will have to be done carefully in certain areas to avoid children travelling long distances to child care centres.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I compliment Senator White on the work she has done. I do not have a problem with means testing so long as the bar is set high enough. A lady spoke on the radio today who has two autistic children. When her husband got promotion all her supports were taken away. She argued her case. Eventually her supports were reduced from €180 to €36. That is not support. The point made on the Government side that we are no longer quite as family supportive as a country as we think is well made.
I wish to refer to the OECD report. It makes the point that early childhood education is a vital foundation in terms of physical development, brain growth, motor skills, language, intelligence, personality formation and so on. This is the key point. It also makes another significant point that the section of society that benefits most from this intervention is the poorest. Yet that is the area of least take up because of less support and less assistance.
The female drop-out rate from the employment system after the birth of a first or second child is high. A point was made earlier about the unaffordability for many of the crèche in Leinster House. The OECD report points out that typically, a second earner in a couple family with two young children in care with earnings of two-thirds of average salary has no net return from work after child care costs. That is mad. It shows Senator White is correct when she says we have to do something really imaginative. We have also an unfortunate situation in Ireland where we have the ambition of giving women the choice of going out into the work place. The ideal is to have the two parents in the home. My father died when I was six. My mother brought me up and did a pretty good job. Certainly my childhood was enjoyable. It was difficult for her. The ideal is that two parents would bring up the child equally but that is not the real world.
In Ireland only 45% of lone mothers are in employment whereas the rate is 81% in Austria, 76% in France and 84% in Japan. Here again we are at the bottom of the table. The Cathaoirleach has indicated I do not have much time. The OECD report includes in this the Barcelona objectives and spells them out clearly and how they should be reached and what needs to be done. It is along the lines of what Senator White has suggested. The section of society who would benefit most are the poorest and most vulnerable.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the group that is getting least. It is up to the Minister of State and his colleagues to redress the position.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to raise a point of order. I and other members of my party wish to contribute to the debate.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator knows how the Order of Business was decided as he was present.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I hope the House will return to the debate.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators who have had the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I note the interest others have had in making a contribution. It is timely that the Seanad should debate this subject when there is an intensive national debate in progress on the issue. Senator White referred to the children of the nation. The children of the nation in the 1916 Proclamation included adults as well as infants.
5:00 pm
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Early childhood education in Ireland has developed significantly since the forum on early childhood met in 1998. We have had the White Paper with its emphasis on promoting quality in which various actions were contained. In the special needs sector there are 14 pre-school classes for children with autism located throughout the country. Ten stand-alone autism facilities that provide an applied behavioural analysis model of response to children with autism cater for a number of children of pre-school age. The Department of Education and Science has also sanctioned the establishment of a pre-school for six children with hearing impairment on a pilot basis. Much has been achieved in the area of early childhood education in Ireland since the publication of the White Paper. As many Senators have said, early childhood education is intrinsically linked to early childhood care. It is impossible to speak about one without the other.
This is not the first time we have had this big national debate. We had a similar debate a few years ago and it led to a number of Government decisions. The massive investment by the Government in the Early Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006 is testimony to the Government's commitment to the child care issue. Funding for this programme has increased from the original amount of €318 million set in the national development plan to €499.3 million, following the increased capital provision made in budget 2005.
The funding approved to date will, when fully drawn down, lead to the creation of some 39,900 additional centre-based child care places. This will be in excess of the original target set at the start of the programme of 28,000 places and the revised target of 31,000 set at the mid-term review. That is a tribute to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which has administered this project. It was the first, stand-alone, national project in this area. Many of our European Union partners have been developing their child care infrastructure since the end of the Second World War, while we only started this programme in 2000. We have obtained value for money from the programme whose performance has outstripped our expectations. We have been constrained in the programme because of the EU contribution which meant the programme had to be focused exclusively on issues concerning participation in the work force. That led to certain omissions in the programme but in future we will have to fund the programme ourselves exclusively from our own resources. We can address some of the issues and omissions in the programmes in that context.
Senator Tuffy was concerned that quality and putting children first was not at the heart of our endeavours. However, under this programme quality is as important an issue as quantity. In fact, substantial investment has been made in enhancing the quality of the places provided. The investment made in county child care committees is targeted not just at identifying local needs but also at enhancing the quality concerned, which is vital.
Senator Terry and Senator White made eloquent pleas on the question of parental leave. For the past few months, I have been involved in the preparation of the high-level working group's document, which has been submitted to the Government. How we should structure parental leave is one of the options the Government is examining. From the many documents that have been produced recently, the evidence is clear that it is essential for a child to be with its mother initially and with either parent after a period in the first year. We must promote and secure that situation. Changes in our labour and employment practices to secure that objective are worthy of support. It is not something that can be done overnight but if we set ourselves a target objective we can work towards it. I was glad to hear Senators mentioning that point which is an important issue in the debate.
Senator Norris referred to another important issue which is that investment in early childhood education is vital. All the research indicates that intervention at that early stage in the educational sphere is essential. I am using the term "education" not just in the formal scholastic or academic sense, but also educationally in the sense that it must be inextricably linked to the care of such children. There is no doubt that investment in this area is vital.
The Government will have to examine how it can deepen participation in early childhood courses. Many families are already paying for such courses and teachers point to the noticeable advantage such children have when they participate in the formal school system. Our junior and senior infants' curriculum in primary school is not a formal educational system any more.
It is interesting to study the arrangements in Finland, for example, which has among the best scholastic results for 15 year olds in the world. They only just pip us on literacy, but are well ahead of us on mathematics. Primary education does not commence in Finland until what we would call first class in our primary schools. Finland has a state-provided kindergarten service for all children aged two to six. In a sense, of course, our State does provide that service for children aged four and a half to six. However, we must examine how we can deepen and improve our responses at pre-primary school level, to ensure a greater take-up by children of the essential courses they require at that stage. I was delighted to hear Senator Norris raising that issue, which the Government will address and which will have a big impact on dealing with educational disadvantage.
Child benefit has increased by 272% since 1997. It has more than tripled from €38.10 in 1997 to €141.60 today. Despite that increase, there are currently problems of affordability and accessibility in the system. That is one of the reasons we are having this national debate. The question of affordability concerns a wide range of issues, including the welfare system, child benefit, income tax and tax breaks. I do not want to anticipate whatever the Government may decide in that respect, but we must recognise that however we adjust or taxation or welfare arrangements — and I am not saying there may not be merit in them — the key question is how we can increase the supply of quality child care provision. Simply introducing tax reliefs or welfare changes without increasing this supply, will not address the problem of affordability because if one has a restricted supply of quality child care no adjustments to the tax code will enhance it. The measures we adopt——
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——must be carefully targeted to increase the amount of places. Questions of affordability may well have to be addressed and in that context the Government can examine various options.
Responsibility for pre-school regulations rests with me. The regulations have been in place since 1996 and marked the first time that statutory controls were applied to the sector. A review is almost complete and I will consider how the regulations have worked. There is a danger that if one regulated too far in this area, one may further restrict supply. On the other hand, essential child protection concerns have to be addressed. There is a difficult balance to be struck in that respect.
I note that one political interest has suggested that we should amend the regulations to provide that a person who minds up to five children at home should be exempt from them. That proposal is not as simple as it seems, however, because the current regulations permit up to three children, other than the family's children, to be minded in the home. That can already permit quite a substantial number of children to be minded in the home. To permit up to five children, who are not members of the family, would increase the size of this domestic-exempt crèche substantially, so that proposal will have to be examined carefully. Having said that, the public debate is welcome and valuable ideas are being put forward which will be examined.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have no desire to curtail the debate, but I ask the Minister of State to be conscious of the time available.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious of the time, a Chathaoirligh, so I will draw my comments to a close. The co-ordination of services has been examined by the high-level working group, which is chaired by the National Children's Office under my direction. I have taken a close personal interest in the preparation of the document, which has now been submitted to the Government. There is a range of policy options in the document. First, we must make the link between education and care, and the benefits to be gained by individual children, as well as by communities and society in general. Second, we must increase the supply of appropriate early childhood education and care settings by developing capacity in the system. Third, we have to include measures which make services more affordable and, fourth, we must ensure quality is a design feature in the child care system. The high-level group has pulled these strands together and presented options for the development of a broad strategic plan for the future. That is the right way to proceed and I believe it will yield the results we all wish to see.
We cannot lose sight of one critical issue which is that children must remain at the centre of all our policies and services which affect them. Actions must be child-centred, family-oriented, equitable, inclusive, action-oriented and integrated. I look forward to the outcome of the work of the high-level group and I assure Senators that the Government is totally committed to the provision of a comprehensive service to children and families.