Shooting the weatherman

I am grateful to Ms Sylvana Brannon (The Sunday Times, October 3) for informing your readers that I am "not a child development expert, child psychologist, or a scientist." I am pretty sure that only a meagre few, if any, are not aware of this.

It is evident that despite her letter-attack, she admits that we have quite a lot in common. Like me, she does not possess any of the qualifications mentioned above; both of us have not written "for [our] personal needs"; both agree that "raising a responsible child... is a job of extremely high responsibility"; and both favour that "society [ought] to compensate a work-at-home parent".

If we have so many important points of convergence, why has she hurled such an indignant letter at me? The answer is very simple. Because she has interpreted the research I have quoted about child care centres to be an "attack on mothers".

I do not blame Ms Brannon. Ms Annick Cassar (The Sunday Times, September 26) has committed the same miscue. More grave than these two ladies, Mr Jesmond Schembri, chairman of the Technical Committee on Child Day Care, has informed us (The Sunday Times, September 26) that this committee "cannot help but note that the role of fathers... was largely overlooked" by me. It might be interesting to readers to know that the members of this committee (11 in all), except the chair, are females.

This misinterpretation can be a very convenient way to sidetrack the main subject of the discussion, which is child care centres and their effects on children and not working mothers and/or fathers' responsibility in child rearing. It is true that all the research that I have quoted relate (negative) effects to the situation of working mothers. But I deny Ms Brannon's assertion that I have chosen the studies that suit my agenda.

I do have a lot of other studies, which I have not mentioned in my article, but they all point to the same conclusion. I have only one study that deals with the effects of fathers' employment on their children. It was carried out by Professors John Ermisch and Marco Francesconi of the Institute for Social and Economic Research. They have concluded that the fathers' employment has a similar effect to that identified for part-time mothers and much smaller than for mothers' full-time work.

I have omitted this study from my contribution not because it does not suit my thesis. On the contrary, it suits "my" arguments perfectly. But I do not feel safe relying on just one study, of which the authors themselves point to some shortcomings.

But this leads me to put some weighty questions to the Technical Committee. Are you aware of the research, or similar studies I have mentioned in my article? Are you aware of research that show a negative effect on children caused by fathers' employment? Are you aware of research that concludes that child care centres are more beneficial for children than when cared for by their respective parents? Have you presented all these findings to your ministers? Are you happy with the Foreword to the Consultation Document?

Mr Schembri's article, evidently written as a reaction to my contribution, hardly tackles the issue under discussion. It informs us that a good number of child care centres are already functioning and that a regulatory framework is needed. I agree, but I have not discussed that point. It mentions a number of studies that point out that high quality child care is relevant. This seems to be obvious, although research show that from certain aspects quality makes no difference.

Mr Schembri mentions a study that speaks of "the first six years of life". Here we might also agree. But day care centres are quite different. The document speaks from six weeks and it does not give any indication about the maximum number of hours per day a toddler can stay in the centre.

However, I cannot fail to point out that Mr Schembri ended his contribution with a very positive announcement. Quoting Professor Peter Moss, he informs us that the vision of the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity goes "beyond childcare for working parents and early education and should also include supporting families and maintaining social integration." Well said and keep it up!

Ms Brannon has expressed her "hope that somebody does write an article that shows the other side of this very timely and important issue." Is it not significant that professional experts have not contributed to this discussion (at least in public)? I believe that if a responsible discussion takes place, one can arrive at some point of agreement and plot the way to ease out certain difficulties that really exist.

I insist that I have no agenda except to arrive at the best interest of the children, the family and society. May I end with an allegory: If the weather forecast predicts rain, it is of no use to shoot the weatherman because one would like to stay in the sun.