The Independent Childcare Commission says parents should be paid to stay at home and look after children. Siobhan O’Connell argues this is not the solution to the childcare dilemma

I’d just finished clearing up the debris from another chaotic breakfast and another fraught school run, when I heard a news item on the radio about a new report which proposed paying me about £150 a week for doing my daily childcare routine. Rather than feeling grateful, I felt angry. Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that the hard labour of being at home with small children generally goes unrecognised by society at large and it’s about time parents got more support in the valuable job they do. But this proposal seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

In fact, the report by the Independent Childcare Commission calls for ‘generous financial support’ to be offered to parents to spend on childcare or to enable one parent to stay at home. It does not specify how much. The £150 figure was a guesstimation. Whilst agreeing with the spirit of this proposal, for me it offers an idealistic solution totally out of touch with reality. In my book no price is right for this job when hospitals are in such dire straights, schools cannot afford to keep good teachers and pensioners get such a raw deal. If we, as a society, cannot agree to pay more tax to fund our health and education services properly, how could such a plan ever see the light of day?

Apart from that, headlines like these are a distraction from the real issues facing today’s parents. As the report acknowledges, we live in a period of huge social upheaval. More women are starting their families later, couples increasingly rely on two incomes to cover their costs and we’re all mobile now, making the old family support network a thing of the past. What we should be focusing on is the art of the possible, responding to social changes and looking at what society at large is prepared to accept.

My personal experience is a case in point. I recently left the secure world of monthly salaried work after the birth of my second child. I loved my job but found I could no longer juggle shift-work, childcare and the general upkeep of our home. After ten years in a fulfilling career it was hard to do. Financially, we weren’t much worse off because nearly all my salary had been going on childcare and we were in a situation where something had to give. Two small children are an exhilarating challenge and I had gone back to work so quickly after my first child that I hardly had time to understand my new situation or adjust to the different lifestyle my baby required. Now I treasure the moments with my children and realise how short this time with them will be. My selfish fears are not for now but for the future: how will I ever fit back into the world of work, what will I have to offer, how will I keep up with computer developments, how do I work and manage the holidays?

But there are more pressing situations than mine: women who have no choice but to work full time after the birth of their first baby or those who elect to continue their career. We should not be forcing these parents to battle for the childcare they need. They are stressed at work and see too little of their children anyway. Instead, we should be pushing for much greater flexibility in the work environment in the first three years of a child’s life.

Working fathers should be given more rights. It’s not enough to give two weeks paternity leave around the birth of a baby with £100 for each week. Only when a father gets financial support to be involved in long term care of children will men understand the challenges that face women at home. Only then will they profit from the untold benefits of being with their children from a young age. The knock-on effect may be to take their newfound sensitivity to the workplace and put in place more sympathetic policies for other parents juggling work and family.

We should also hold women’s jobs open for longer than the measly 18 weeks currently on offer with maternity leave. I know it's going to be extended to 26 weeks in 2003 but even so, how can a first-time mother know what’s best for her child after such a short time? This period should be extended to a year or split between mother and father. Other EU countries have been doing this for years, so why do we lag so far behind?

The experience of childhood has changed dramatically over the last two decades. It is a fast, exciting and, at times, frightening affair. What we must address in our society is where our priorities lie. Family and community must be a safe, rewarding place to nurture our young. It should work for our children, not just meet the convenience of adults. This requires us to make tough decisions. But we must take the whole of our community with us, not alienate parts of it with cuddly headlines that call for mums to be paid to stay at home.

Read more about this in 'Time off for dads'