Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. I cannot agree with Senator Kett that this issue should not have been raised again so soon after the previous discussion on it because I have learned something today. For instance, the Minister told us that the problem is not solved by pumping more money into this if the supply and demand situation is such that the price goes up. I also learned that child benefit is the most equitable way of giving support to parents. These are interesting debates but I cannot agree with the Minister for the same reason put forward by Senator Kett in his criticism of Senator O'Meara's statement on the situation in 1997. The demand that exists today did not exist in 1997. In less than a decade the social structure of the country has changed, a change to which we have not yet adapted. I welcome the debate because an effort is being made.

One means of adapting is by providing universal child care. In France, where working mothers have been the norm for generations, we can get a taste of how we could adapt. Any French person looking at Ireland would find it incredible that such a situation would be allowed to exist. Public schooling starts there at the age of two years and the first four years take place in what they call the maternelle. This is more of a kindergarten than a real school as we know it but regardless of whether they attend a maternelle or a school for older children, the youngsters are first delivered to a garderie. This is a childminding service that looks after children before and after school hours and also takes them to and from the school. As such, a parent can leave his or her child at the garderie on his or her way to work and collect the child on the way back in every commune. This could be as much as 12 hours later. It is a universal, low-cost service.

The challenge is putting this into operation in Ireland without supply and demand creating other problems, but it remains an example of how we should adapt now that working mothers have become the norm since 1997. Putting in place such a system would certainly be expensive but this is not a reason for refusing to bite the bullet. We have adopted one aspect of a new society while trying to escape from its inevitable consequences. The result is untold misery for parents and we can only guess what consequences there will be for their children in the future.

We need, therefore, a national child care system. More is required besides this, such as making it easier for mothers to reject the new norm if they so wish. Money is the key. Most working mothers of young children do not work by choice but have no other economic option, as we heard previously from Senator Terry. It should not be beyond the wit of our ingenious banks to devise a special parents' mortgages scheme. This would allow house owners a special holiday period of up to ten years, for example, in which their mortgage payments would be drastically reduced if one of the parents was not working. The repayments would be rebalanced so that the house owner would pay more later, as I am not suggesting that the banks should do this out of charity. If the banks charged less in the case of a working mother who stopped working to look after her young children, the State could row in with a special tax allowance that would reduce her outgoings even further. Between the banks and the State, the financial position of young families could be transformed overnight.

Such an arrangement would not suit everyone, as not everybody is in the position of paying a mortgage. However, it would provide an option to many people who currently have no choice as to whether they go to work or stay at home to look after their young children. I urge that we look closely at creating this choice as a creative way of responding to the new situation we have created in our society. There was not a need for this seven or eight years ago but there is a need now. We must be innovative in our thinking and I propose this as an option for consideration. It would require a joint effort by the banks and the State and it would be good business rather than charity.

Before I became a Senator I was approached with the problem that when children are growing up is the time when young parents need money, yet the mortgage is at its highest then despite being spread over many years. They do not need the same amount of money when they enter their 50s and 60s but must not make the same mortgage repayments. The ideal way of addressing this is to rebalance the repayments, particularly if child care is taken into account. I urge the Government to consider this. May I share my time with Senator Norris?