The level of public and media interest stimulated by the Report of the Partnership 2000 Expert Working Group on Childcare underlines how the issue has pushed it way up the political agenda. For decades, parents, trade unions and others have sought a policy of affordable childcare for working parents. In the past year they have been joined by IBEC, which has made the case for urgent reform. All of this gives a new impetus and a political momentum to the campaign for a better childcare policy.
While that impetus is likely to bring real change in the State's poor childcare record, it is important that our priority remains the care of children, rather than the convenience of others. IBEC makes it clear that it is motivated by the need to keep mothers in the workforce and to attract back to the workforce mothers who left in order to rear their children. This has to do with the needs of industry; indeed, it is the job of IBEC to pursue these needs. But what do parents want? Do they want to spend as much time as possible with their children or as much time as possible at work or what balance between the two do they wish to strike?
The recommendations in the working party's report - tax allowances for parents and tax breaks for employers - will facilitate people working and paying for childcare while at work. There is, however, relatively little emphasis on enabling people to balance their commitments, through the promotion of job sharing, greater protections for part-time workers and so on. The tax allowances will be welcomed by hard-pressed parents working to pay mortgages and childminders. But they are by no means lavish; they range in net value from £10 to £20 per child per week for receipted childcare expenses.
The question arises: why cannot these tax allowances be given to parents in general, regardless of whether they incur childcare costs? Would this not put more choice into the hands of parents? Any new measures which might make it easier for parents to stay at home might not suit industry - but it is essential that the whole childcare debate is not dominated by the needs of industry.
It may also be said of the tax relief proposals that they will be of little benefit to people on low incomes. For such people, substantial increases in Child Benefit would be far more beneficial, whether they stay at home or go out to work. This has, in effect, been ruled out in the report on grounds of cost. The fact remains that this approach, too, would greatly increase the choices open to those receiving the benefit and would be of great value of all parents.
The report gives a nod, but nothing more, towards the provision of childcare by the State. Yet substantial funding to local authorities to provide childcare directly would greatly reduce the burden on parents paying commercial providers - whose numbers may fall sharply in any event if the Government accepts the recommendation that all of them, even those minding only one child, should have to register with the authorities.
The issues raised by the report are complex. The Minister, Mr O'Donoghue, is right to refer it to an interdepartmental committee. That committee is to report in six months and its report will emerge in the run-up to the next Budget. It is a safe bet that something will be done. What this will be depends on the political debate which takes place on the issue of childcare between now and Budget Day.