Childcare Crisis on Constitutional Rights

SS LAW AND BUSINESS

Supporting parents with young children may be more than simply a question of fair policy on the part of the state, but rather an issue of upholding constitutional obligations. Basking in what some may call the return of the boom era, the government’s 2018 budget aims to solve what is, arguably, one of the biggest social issues in the country-- that of affordable childcare. Whereas other countries enjoy heavily subsidised childcare, the costs in Ireland are some of the highest in Europe, with Dublin parents paying on average €600 per month. Parents of children between the ages of 24 weeks and 36 months can currently avail of the €20 weekly universal childcare payment. However under the Early Childhood Care and Education Scheme, only those on net incomes of €22,700 or less can qualify for the full subsidy of €200 per week. Under the 2018 budget, this cut-off will rise to €26,000 in an effort to “poverty proof ” the scheme. Next year, when the changes are put into force, 7,500 children will qualify for the scheme for the first time, while an additional 40,000 will receive better subsidies from the government. This represents an attempt at a much-needed solution to the issue of expensive childcare. This issue, though seemingly benign, in actuality has huge social ramifications for women’s rights and for the poverty line which cannot be ignored. The escalating childcare costs have serious ramifications for the rights of women today - the high expense of childcare means that for many parents, it is simply not a financially viable option. Hence, the solution seems to be that one parent will stay at home whilst the other goes out to works, and because of the gender stereotypes embedded in our society, the stay-at-home role usually falls to the mother. The extremely high costs of having children, and the government’s unwillingness to assist financially, is effectively depriving women of choice. They cannot “have it all” - they must choose between having children and having a career. It may be argued that such an onerous decision breaches their constitutional rights. In Article 41.1.1 of the Constitution, the state binds itself to protecting the family as it is the “natural primary and fundamental unit group of society”. However, by not adequately supporting parents by providing affordable childcare, the state is effectively disincentivising couples from having children, thereby breaching its constitutional promise. In fact, one may argue that the government is more interested in fulfilling their promise to “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home” in Article 41.2. This provision is based around the archaic notion that women should not be working, or rather that they should only be working in the home. The government is inadvertently reinforcing detrimental gender roles by not providing parents with adequate support. The childcare crisis does not just affect caregivers but also affects children themselves. If the government fails to adequately fund parents in financial difficulties then those burdens are imposed on children - children are the ones who feel the impact of not having enough food at home, not having sufficient school supplies and not receiving adequate care. According to Barnardos, 1 in 7 children in Ireland are lost in poverty, homelessness and neglect. It is the government’s responsibility to combat this crisis. In Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution, the state guarantees that it will respect, vindicate and defend the personal rights of every citizen, and this provision includes children. And surely children are most dependent on the state’s care, due to their inherent vulnerability and need for protection. It is not simply a question of waiting until children reach adulthood so they can work, contribute to society and fund their lives. The long-term psychological consequences of poverty in childhood are well-known, and a failure to give children proper educational support will leave them with lifelong disadvantages in terms of literacy and numeracy. If the state does not support children now, then in 20 years’ time, they will be faced with a much more problematic issue. Such support can be most effectively given by subsidising childcare and primary education. Whilst the improvements to the budget demonstrate a positive attitude, in reality it’s only a drop in the well with regards to the bigger issue. The government bears a sizeable responsibility to help make affordable childcare a reality for parents. This obligation is based on its role in combating social issues such as poverty and inequality, but it also has its roots in economics. Today’s generation of children will be tomorrow’s generation of workers. If the state expects an educated and efficient workforce for the future then it is imperative they make the financial investment now. If they want to reap the rewards in 20 years, they must sow the seeds today. The simplest and most effective way this can be achieved