Mary Henry (Independent)

She is absolutely right — the child care situation here is appalling. It is more difficult for people to bring up their children in this country than anywhere else. When one considers that we have always placed such emphasis on the child within the family, it is extraordinary that we should be in this deplorable situation. I salute Senator White's courage in raising this matter. I hope the Minister of State and other members of the Government will listen to what she has said. I also hope she will have support for the seminar she is organising. I will certainly try to attend it. It is good to see one of the Government Senators proposing such an initiative.

It is extraordinary the way we go on, as though we are doing something great for parents. We are doing this for the benefit of society as a whole, which is for our benefit also. It is not just parents who will benefit from such changes, but children also. That means that in future we will have citizens in this society who are brought up as well as possible.

Other Senators have outlined why parental leave should be paid and I am sorry it is not. In the majority of cases, only well-off people will be able to take advantage of such leave. We may, in fact, be depriving children of parental support who are in serious need of it. I regret that is happening. I welcome the fact, however, that more extensive leave is at least being offered.

We act as though people will be off work for years as a result of parental leave. The average family size here, at just over two children, is now about the same as the European average. So, in general, we are talking about a mother or father who will be taking time off to deal with two children.

I realise there are problems with regard to small businesses. However, it is not the majority of people who will have problems, and we are doing this for society as a whole not merely for the individuals involved. In terms of the generation being brought up at the moment, we are increasingly told that were it not for the 45,000 immigrants who come into this country every year, we would not have enough people for the workforce. Current family size means we are at about replacement level. If we do not cherish these children in the way the Proclamation urged us to do, we will have to rely even more on immigrants. Mr. Peter Sutherland, speaking in Davos last week, said Europe needed far more immigrants than were coming. I presume he would include Ireland as part of the group that needs immigrants.

We do not do a great deal to help people who are having children. As I said, and as Senator White has so eloquently said, we have grave problems regarding child care. Since I became a Senator, I have heard there would be crèche facilities. I recall the former Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and myself heading into the new millennium block and believing that there would be a crèche there at some stage. We will have a swimming pool before we have a crèche.

Another circular went around the other day asking for our views on where we would build a crèche or whether we would use a crèche. I certainly will not be using a crèche. There is a very large number of staff in particular who would like a crèche, but our commitment within the walls of this institution is so thin that we have not even managed to get around to putting in services for our own staff and Members.

There are estimates all the time of how much it costs to bring up a child. At the moment we give one-parent families €148.80 for the parent and €19.30 for each dependant child under the age of 18 or 22 if the child is in full-time education. I wonder how on earth anyone could possibly manage, no matter what subsidies they get by way of rent allowances, medical cards and so forth. It must be remembered that all these payments are means tested. I declare an interest here because I am the president of One Family, formerly Cherish. The main aim of such an organisation is to try to get people, if they did not finish school, to go back into schooling; if they finished school, to try to get some training; and if they have training to get out into the workforce as soon as they possibly can because otherwise they will be in poverty for the rest of their lives. There are splendid surveys done at the moment as to the percentage of the population consistently at risk of poverty, and 33% of one-parent families are consistently at risk of poverty compared to 9% of the population. Only 10% of the population are in one-parent families. These are mainly headed by women but some are headed by fathers. It is sad that 33% said they cannot afford new clothes — they must buy second-hand clothes, and that does not mean they want expensive new fashion garments; 31% experienced debt from ordinary living expenses; and 24% stated they went without heating at some stage in the year.

I mention this because I was pretty put out, to put it mildly, by Dr. Ed Walsh, former president of Limerick University, coming forward with his own sociological ideas as to the cause of one-parent families. He seemed to have the opinion that State supports act as an incentive. Would that people planned that far ahead when having a family. Unfortunately, this is not so. Dr. Walsh might find out more by addressing the unfortunate problem of teenage alcohol consumption. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency will confirm that alcohol is frequently involved in someone becoming pregnant rather than that she has planned to get the one-parent allowance. The morning-after pill is not easily available. The family planning clinics have started to open on Saturday and Sunday mornings to dispense it but it could easily be given over the counter. I understand the Irish Pharmaceutical Union wants to become involved in more dispensing. This is one area it might examine. I could not agree with Dr. Walsh's premise that State supports encourage people to start families on their own. Being in a one-parent family is a very tough job, as most people in one-parent families would confirm. They must meet housing costs. It is very difficult to get accommodation in the private sector and there is not much public sector accommodation available.

It is extraordinary that Dr. Walsh should refer to studies in the United States of America. I never thought I would see the day when we in Ireland would be urged to take our child rearing policies from the United States of America, which probably has more problems with juveniles than any country in Europe. In the United States of America at the moment teachers can insist that children are put on Ritalin before they go to school, that children go to school medicated if teachers feel they are too disruptive in class. Senator Kett is nodding. I am quite sure, given his background, that he would not like to see such a development here. It is quite astonishing that children who are difficult to deal with at school are medicated. Mercifully, we still have teachers here who are in a position to deal with them. Taking child rearing policies from the United States of America is something we should resist. Wisconsin Works is often pointed out as an example of where the number of lone families taking benefit has decreased. It has, but where are they getting money given that there is no evidence that more of them are in employment? I do not know what is happening. However, we know there are serious problems with children being left unsupervised during the day when their parents must leave them at an age when it is quite unsuitable to leave them alone or where they leave them with people who are unsuitable to act as child minders.

Many Senators have mentioned the role of fathers. I was very interested in an article written in The Irish Times recently by Professor Tom O'Dowd, professor of general practice in Trinity College. He wrote about the role of the father in one-parent families, how little the father may have to do with the life of the child and how he is deprived of his role as father. We need to be careful not to exclude fathers because fathers are extraordinarily important in family life. In a family which is, perhaps, not very stable, the father's presence, even for some of the time, may be even more important.

Matters have improved from the time when, if there was any evidence of cohabitation, payment to the young woman was disallowed. Now the father can make an appearance on the scene and it is considered normal that he should want to have some association and some involvement in the upbringing of his child. I am a great believer in stability if at all possible when children are being brought up. If a couple do not want to be in a more formal relationship such as marriage, it is important that fathers are at least encouraged to take a good interest in their children and this is seen as good not only for the child but also for them. I suggest that the Minister should read Professor O'Dowd's words. In his article Professor O'Dowd wrote that one of his patients was a man who while in prison became literate, sat several examinations and eventually became a great reader of history. Professor O'Dowd wrote that if he could become so involved and so interested in really important aspects of European history, perhaps he could also become more involved in fatherhood and in making a contribution to the life of his child.

He said he felt this man had much to offer. I suggest we try to realise that whatever supports we give to parents of small children are to our benefit and the benefit of the parent and the child but the greatest benefit is to society in general. If we do not foster the upbringing of these children, who will run the services when we are old and pay the taxes to support the State?