Dáil debates
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Finance Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed)
4:00 pm
Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
I am a believer that in political life the job of a politician is to decide on what sort of society he or she wants and to build policies around that principle instead of the other way around where people say certain actions will cost too much money. Many things cost too much money but one does not know the benefits of the proposal put forward by Deputy Bruton and which used to be evident in our society. On Committee Stage I made the point that I have no objection to either married fathers or married mothers working outside the home if that is what they wish to do. That is a matter of choice. However, we should not force people into that situation where the tax system will penalise them. The most insensitive part is that we do not recognise the role of the stay-at-home parent, whether it is the man or the woman. Let us be frank about it, in most cases it is the woman.
Let us consider what has happened to society as a result of not having more parents in the home. We have rushed out to try to find more child care places. The planning laws needed to be changed. We now have a dearth of volunteers in society, caring for elderly neighbours and elderly parents. All the voluntary work that used to be done has disappeared. People are asking what has happened. If we want that sort of society that is what we will get. My theory in life is that I do not want that sort of society. I prefer the society in which I was brought up. I make no apologies for saying so. It was of great benefit to me personally to arrive home from school at 3 o'clock or 3.30 p.m. on a winter's evening and for my mother to be there. She gave me a hot meal and made certain I sat down and did my homework, and did all the normal things. She visited neighbours and was part of a community. That is good for society and is a good way of living. However, we are saying that woman has no value to the economy. Our tax system implies we want such women to do all these other things, but they are of no value to us. People adopting the ideas I am expressing can be accused of being old-fashioned, opposed to women in the workplace and all this sort of nonsense. That is all rubbish. I have no problem if somebody wants to make his or her own arrangements privately. If that is the way they want to live their lives, so be it. If they are working in the workplace they should be treated like anybody else, whether they are male or female. However, what we need to decide is the value we put on a parent staying at home particularly in the formative years when children are growing up, including the teenage years. We must decide whether we are going to recognise this in our tax system. If it costs money, so be it — we need to prioritise it and identify savings elsewhere.
This evening we will debate a Private Members' motion, which while the Government has amended it, in principle it does not disagree with. We are talking about anti-social behaviour, the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse in communities and the proliferation of knife crime, including the recent tragic death of two Polish men in Dublin. I noted that over the weekend a 16 year old girl was taken into custody for questioning in connection with the crime. All the signs are there. It is only human nature. Of course a 15 or 16 year old whose parents do not guide them will get into trouble. We are all human. The world has not changed that much. The sooner we wake up and realise this the better. We need to be prepared to say, as I am prepared to say, that we made a mistake in not recognising the value of the parent in the home in the formative years when children are around. It is far better that either the mother or father is there to look after their children than putting them in the back of a car at 6 a.m., driving 20 or 30 miles, dropping them off at a crèche, handing them over to other people to look after them, driving to work, finishing work, driving 20 or 30 miles to the crèche, picking up the children and arriving home at 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. Apparently we think this is a good way of living and do not think this will do any damage to the child. Are we codding ourselves? The sooner we realise we have made a mistake the better. The sooner we agree to accept the amendment tabled by my good colleague, Deputy Bruton, in accordance with the commitment we gave in our election programme, the better it will be for society.
No comments