Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. The discussion has already moved on to what needs to be in place instead of just looking to enforce the orders. I have spent probably about four years drafting legislation because it is such a difficult area. A good chunk of that time was spent building the assessment calculation tool and, obviously, maths is not my forte. It took us a long time to build what goes into that. What if maintenance is paid to other families? There are many inputs in terms of the liable parent and the assessment of percentage of their income, outgoings, other liable children and stuff like that.

It is based on the New Zealand model with additions. The Women's Caucus has agreed to take that on as its first piece of legislative work as a cross-party group which I hope will give it strength. It is just getting it to the final stages. We have it built into the Revenue and the Revenue already has all the powers the system may need, including powers to deduct. We have also looked at elements of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, model. The bits we are finishing now relate to GDPR and using people's data if they refuse to engage. How does it stand with GDPR in terms of default assessments and using someone's data? Obviously, Revenue has all the information we need from PPS numbers to income.

We have looked at people's assets. It has been a thorough piece of work which has taken a long time. I hope it gets support. I am also conscious of wanting to have guaranteed payment which the New Zealand model does not give. I have drafted the legislation so that it is a building block and is open to add on subsequent sections. If we eventually get to the stage where the State is willing to do guaranteed payment and then recoup, this legislation is built in a way that it can be added into the system even if it is not there initially. If this legislation goes forward, I am concerned that it still might not be enough. When we drive something, we always wonder what will happen if it does not achieve what we need it to achieve.

If we follow that New Zealand model within the Revenue it will not be a stand-alone agency, but I do not think it needs to be. We could be waiting another ten or 20 years if we keep going after the standalone agency piece. However, it would then be open to add that building block in terms of guaranteed payment later. It encompasses all extra costs, including disability. It is quite complex hence it has taken me so long to get there but it is nearly done. I would like the witnesses to outline any concerns they might have about the model I am pursuing and any concerns that it will not achieve what we are discussing today under that model with the Revenue.