Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I will probably be done by then.

I welcome this debate on the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2024, which I am taking in the place of my colleague, Deputy Jennifer Whitmore. I am disappointed the Bill has been drastically pared back, so much so that only seven of the children's committee’s 96 pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations are now relevant to the legislation before us. Extensive provisions on child welfare and protection have been put on ice. That is regrettable. We are told another Bill will be published later this session. The importance of honouring that commitment cannot be overstated, as I am sure the Minister accepts.

It is one year since the pre-legislative scrutiny report was published and more than six years since the review of the Child Care Act 1991. We should be further along the process at this stage. At the very least, I hope this time has been used to strengthen the outstanding Bill to take account of the recommendations of the children’s committee’s and the Ombudsman for Children.

Among the many observations made by the Ombudsman for Children was the draft Bill’s weakness in respect of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, which is an increasingly pressing issue. This followed a 2020 report by the Ombudsman for Children which found that more than 120 unaccompanied children were housed in hostels with no care staff after 5 p.m. The likelihood is, of course, that this number will have increased significantly since then. An investigation by Noteworthy, which was published in December 2023, found that 62 asylum-seeking children had disappeared from State care since 2017. That is an absolutely shocking figure. It represents a complete abdication of responsibility to those children and is an indictment of the Government. While I accept there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving in Ireland, a country running a surplus of €8 billion should be able to meet that demand. We have not just a legal but a moral obligation to protect these very vulnerable children.

It is also worth noting that it is nearly one year since researchers in UCD published their shocking and disturbing report into the sexual exploitation of young girls in State care.

The report found that girls as young as 12 were being horrifically abused and deliberately targeted by predators. However, that was not the first time the Government had been alerted to the sexual abuse of children in State care. The Government has been on notice of this abhorrent abuse since at least 2020 when Tusla was notified of concerns about a sexual exploitation ring targeting girls in State care. In view of these shocking State failures in the care of vulnerable children, there can be no excuse for the Government’s delay in advancing the child protection provisions.

Returning to the Bill, clearly a stronger early years and childcare regulatory framework is needed to protect children. This was brought into sharp focus by a 2019 RTÉ "Prime Time Investigates" programme which revealed serious breaches of the existing regulations in three early years services. While I appreciate the concerns expressed by some representative groups, legislative change is undoubtedly required. A do-nothing approach would not be sustainable, nor in the best interests of children. The additional enforcement powers provided for in this Bill were recommended by the regulatory impact assessment and supported during public consultation. Around 60% of participants in that consultation agreed that the regulator’s powers should be strengthened. This Bill also acts on a commitment made in the national action plan for childminding, to remove the legal exemption for childminders from registration. This, in turn, allows for the opening of State subsidies to parents availing of childminders. This, it should be noted, is a significant cohort of parents. A 2023 ESRI report on extending the national childcare scheme found that childminders are the second most widely used form of paid childcare in Ireland. The research found that if all current non-relative childminders registered with Tusla, and all eligible parents claimed State subsidies, this reform would benefit 80,000 children by an average of around €100 a month. That is very significant. However, it should also be noted that a recent survey carried out by Childminding Ireland found that almost 31% of childminders and nannies surveyed did not intend to register with Tusla, while almost 19% did not know whether they would do so. This is quite a worrying aspect of the consultation and points to the need for greater engagement and consultation with the sector.

The children’s committee specifically recommended that the regulations for childminders should be proportionate, appropriate and specific to the setting and that the sector should continue to be involved in their development. The national action plan for childminding also emphasised the importance of consultation. However, Childminding Ireland has expressed serious concerns regarding the current draft regulations and the level of consultation carried out. It is calling for the Minister to engage in a real and meaningful process of engagement. Ultimately, the Minister’s guiding policy principle when implementing reforms should be supporting and respecting choice. That is why this regulation, which is welcome, must be proportionate.

It is important to bear in mind, notwithstanding the progress that has been made in group settings, that very often the assumption is that a group setting is a first choice for parents. It is not. I will talk about this in relation to parents' choices in a moment. Generally, the first choice of parents is that one or other of them is in a position, and supported, to care for their child during the first year of life. That is recognised in the programme for Government but we still have some way to go on it. It is also a very conscious and valid choice in many cases that somebody will choose a childminder to mind a child in their own home. As I say, this is a conscious choice and many parents want to have a setting that is close to a family home setting. That is why we should avoid any attempt to just transpose the regulations that apply to group settings to the childminder's home setting because they are quite different. Many parents want a more homely feel. I am not suggesting regulating this is an easy thing to do. A very delicate balance needs to be struck to maintain the real positives of a childminder's home setting and not overregulate it, while at the same time ensuring safety. I am not saying for a moment that this is an easy balance to strike but it is an important one to aim towards.

We do not want the State to be inadvertently limiting the choices of parents. Enabling choice is not just about supporting the formal childcare options; the State must also do much more on paid leave entitlements. I acknowledge that parents' leave and parents' benefit will be extended by two weeks in August, and that is a very welcome development, but that is the bare minimum required under the EU work-life balance directive. We in the Social Democrats believe that much more radical reforms are required. We know that the first 12 months of a child’s life are hugely important. That is recognised in the programme for Government. It is important that there is delivery on this recognition and commitment. We know that many parents would like the choice to care for their children in their own home but that is not an option for a great many people. In many cases, it has become an option only for those who are in very well paid jobs or are very well off, where one parent can afford to take time out from the workforce. When so many couples rely on two incomes to pay the mortgage, rent, energy bills and all of the additional costs associated with having a child, they cannot absorb the inevitable fall in household income, which parental care in the home entails, to a very large extent. Therefore, the State has to step in.

Ahead of budget 2024, the Social Democrats proposed increasing paid parents' leave to 13 weeks per parent and increasing benefit payments to the level that was recognised during the Covid period, that is, €350 per week for maternity, paternity, adoptive and parents’ benefit. This would have provided for the full first year of a child’s life, through paid parents’ leave and maternity leave. In the longer term, the State should increase the overall amount of paid and unpaid leave for parents to the European average which is currently 100 weeks per child. We have some distance to go to reach the European average. All of the evidence shows that there are significant benefits in doing so and that is why the Social Democrats have consistently called for a significant extension of paid leave.

I hope there will be further progress made in this important area in the upcoming budget later this year. After all, we know that parents should be able to do more than just survive on a week-to-week basis. The State can and should support parents, in all forms of families, by allowing them more time with their children during the critical first year of the child's life and more help should be available with the costs that all families experience while raising a family. That is the position we need to be in in order to recognise the costs involved, encourage people to have children and ensure that the cost of providing for children and spending good quality and quantity time with them is not prohibitive. That is why we need to move to the European average in terms of providing those key supports during the first couple of years of a child's life.

See this speech in context