Madam, - John Waters clearly did not read the National Women's Council of Ireland report "An Accessible Childcare Model" before writing his column of September 26th. Had he done so, he would have learned that the NWCI supports the choice of women and men who stay at home to care for their children. The NWCI also supports women and men who work full time to choose the most appropriate childcare for the needs of their children.
The subsidisation model we are proposing addresses the challenge we face as a society: to strike a balance between accommodation of, and respect for, childcare conducted within the home while ensuring affordable childcare services are accessible to the children of all parents requiring it outside the home.
The NWCI does not propose that women are pushed into the "real" economy - nor have we suggested, nor would we suggest, that parenting is not a worthwhile contribution. On the contrary, we have already called for a value to be placed on care work in the home through our research, "A women's model for social welfare reform" (2003) which found that the social welfare system reinforces women's economic dependence on men and does not facilitate parenting or caring. This summer, more than 12,000 men and women from around the country joined the NWCI in calling for a reform to the social welfare system in favour of women.
John Waters's statement that "state-funded childcare equals the final destruction of family integrity and autonomy" is overly dramatic, reductionist and without basis. Mr Waters alludes to an unaccredited US "study" that suggests behavioural problems are linked to full-time daycare. There is an abundance of research which shows, on the contrary, that supporting children's development in their early years can help prevent the emergence of the social and educational inequalities which will become evident as children progress through school and into work (Currie and Thomas, 1995; Cleveland and Krashinsky, 1998).
The proposed NWCI model suggests the facilitation of parental choice around work/life balance, and the very design and development of the model has centred on the benefits that all children can derive from participating in quality early education and childcare services. The NWCI clearly recognises that childcare is about "children" and any proposed model of childcare must ensure that the core of all services enable children's development in an effective and supportive manner.
Furthermore, the NWCI model highlights the incidence of child poverty in this country - Ireland has the second highest rate of relative child poverty of 20 EU countries (UNICEF, 2005) - and its impact on child development. This suggests a need for a multi-faceted approach to reduce poverty among the most vulnerable groups in Irish society. The Combat Poverty Agency has argued that in addition to income support, the provision of affordable, accessible, good quality services for children is essential to reach the policy goal of lifting all children from poverty. This would also assist lone parents (the majority of whom are women), 42.3 per cent of whom live with a consistently high risk of relative poverty, to avail of work and training, and seek better life chances for themselves and their children.
Finally, it is not the role of the NWCI to make value judgments on people's individual choices, born of necessity or preference. "An Accessible Childcare Model" proposes choice and the right to choose, whether to work outside the home or in the home. Sadly, the NWCI recognises that the reality for many women in Ireland is that they clearly do not have this choice and must remain in the home because of a lack of available, quality, and affordable childcare. - Yours, etc,
Dr JOANNA McMINN, Director NWCI, Dublin 2.