From Helen Lincoln.
THE recent decision to provide free nursery places for all three–four-year-olds (on a 20 hours per week, 38 weeks per year basis) has been received by many families I know as a welcome financial help, an essential contribution or simply the just and fair situation in a modern society.

I have been saddened, therefore, to read comments in this newspaper made by politicians and columnists alike denigrating the new scheme on the basis that it will merely enable mothers to get their hair done or indulge in ‘daytime pleasures’ (whatever those may be). Many mothers and fathers are both working long hours to meet the increasing financial burdens we all face. Where both parents are working full time that obviously precludes their children from taking up a place (should they be lucky enough to obtain one) at one of the free, state school, term-time-only nurseries unless they have further assistance with childcare during the holidays.

In the absence of such additional assistance, another option for such parents is one of the fantastic private day nurseries available in Jersey. However, this is hugely expensive and it is only right and proper that such parents should receive an equal contribution to the cost of their children’s private day nursery place.

For those children with a parent or carer at home who do not receive a coveted place at the state nursery, the options open to their parents under the current system are either to stump up the cash for a private place or keep them at home – no option at all for the majority.

And as a stay-at-home mother, let me dispel the ill-held belief that us lucky few will take advantage of the new scheme to enable us to off-load our children at the taxpayers’ expense so that we may play the odd game of tennis. Even if we are lucky enough to be able to meet the fees for a private nursery, when my daughter goes to nursery I will still be at home caring for her younger brother, with notions of regular exercise, a beauty regime and indeed a social life put far to the back of my mind.

Only those men (and a lot of women too) without children seem to think full-time motherhood is somehow not working. In any event, it is often a lonely and exhausting role and one which requires us also to give up the income, the independence, the intellectual stimulation and the freedom to engage in any lunch-hour or after-work activities enjoyed when carrying out our former (paid) jobs. So why should we be made to feel guilty about seeking out some occasional exercise or having a hair cut when permitted a rare few hours off duty?

It is evident that Deputy de Faye rates neither pursuit as an essential in his own free time but it is very offensive to me that he voted against the free nursery places for all three–four-year- olds because some mothers may, to quote the Deputy, ‘benefit from a free babysitting service so that they can continue not to go to work but to continue their extensive social lives and get in a couple of games of tennis . . . get . . . hair done and so on and so forth’.

My personal view is that any sort of state- funded financial aid should be means-tested, but I am not ignorant to the fact that in a small Island the administration of such a task would likely cost too much to be beneficial. It also raises the question of where to draw the line; one of those tough decisions our politicians seem to find all too difficult to address.

Finally, whatever your view on the points made above, surely what cannot be disputed is the benefit these free places will bring to the children who are able to take advantage of them and, consequently, to our society generally.
1 Haute Vue,
Rue du Carrefour,
Trinity.