The abolition by the new Government of the Department of Equality and Law Reform came as a shock to many people who had come to admire its ability and its output of work. Its designation as an appendage of the Department of Justice seemed particularly inappropriate. Yet there is reason to suspect that this change may have its own benefits. The establishment by its Minister of State, Ms Mary Wallace, of an expert working group on the provision of affordable child care, in furtherance of a commitment in Partnership 2000, provides an example. On the one hand the Department of Justice may seem a most peculiar department to oversee policy on creches, nurseries, playgroups and the like. On the other hand, it has been argued for many years that one of the key elements in reducing juvenile criminality is the provision of child care facilities.
There is plenty of evidence from the United States to show that such provision - if done in conjunction with community groups and parents - has dramatic benefits for children. Children, for instance, who have been through the Head Start programme of early education in the United States are significantly less likely to be involved later in crime or teenage pregnancy or to be unemployed. While the evidence is there, it has been largely ignored. Now, as a result of the recent changes, the very Department which has something to gain from better child care provision - Justice - has become the Department responsible for pushing forward child care policy. An assistant secretary in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ms Sylda Langford, is to chair the expert group.
Of course, the issue is far, far wider than one of reducing delinquency or teenage pregnancy. With women making up over a third of the workforce - a rising trend - the question of affordable child care is crucial. Many of these women are on low pay and are handing over so much of their money for child care that they are, in effect, working for the childminder. Ms Wallace envisages a network of community-based child care services, open from 8 am to 8 pm for which parents would pay according to their ability. She believes that they would be largely self-financing though they would require core funding from the State. From where, the question may be asked, is that core funding supposed to come?
Behind this question there is a great irony. It is that the State will, increasingly, rely for the funding of its social services on taxes paid by women. The recent report, Welfare implications of demographic trends, by Professor John FitzGerald and Mr Tony Fahey of the ESRI, made this clear. State revenues will benefit increasingly from the increasing involvement of women in the workforce, they pointed out. The double tax free allowances and tax bands for the employed husbands of women who work at home rearing the children can be seen as a cost to the tax system - but a cost which disappears when the woman goes into the workforce and pays tax herself. Thus, to the question of where the money will come from, it is fair to answer that it will come from women. This very fact strengthens the argument for State spending on child care.