Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We have had some discussion on this. The initial proposal was an absolutely wrong and disproportionate hit at single parents, mainly single fathers, who do not live full-time with their children, but who play a considerable role in looking after them and who take responsibility for them. As I pointed out to the Minister, the proposal was indicative of a conservative perspective on the family that fails to recognise families have changed. The modern family is not the sort of nuclear family of the de Valera period, which involved two parents living together with their children. We have different types of families now and this must be recognised.

Deputy O'Sullivan was right to challenge in committee the language used, which used the terms "primary" and "secondary". I should have done the same. I have been thinking about these terms and have realised these terms refer to my situation. I am a so-called "secondary" carer as I am a father who does not live full-time with his children, but who plays a full part in my children's lives. I do so to the greatest possible extent, financially, personally and every other way and I get on very well with their mother, my ex-partner. The language used in the legislation is problematic in that it creates a hierarchy in a situation where two parents happen to be separated and one of the parents has the children living with him or her full-time while the other does not.

The number of days proposed in the legislation - 100 days - requiring the carer to have the child living with him full-time could be problematic. I mentioned the issue of parents who are out of the country, but I suppose those parents who are out of the country might not get the tax relief. More realistically, what about where a parent is required to live and work in a different part of the country? That parent could be on the phone to his children every day and could be having them stay with him every weekend that is possible, but because of school and work commitments and so on, there could be long periods of time when that parent does not see his children. This does not mean he is not playing a huge role in their lives or not paying maintenance etc. The legislation fails to recognise the human reality of many modern families.

I accept the Government has acknowledged some of the anomalies in the proposals and has tried to address them, but the legislation still does not go far enough. For example, the requirement for the secondary claimant to have the children resident with him for 100 days is problematic. There will be cases where fathers or parents who play a big role in their children's lives - not a secondary role, but who do not live with the children - will be hit unfairly by what is being proposed. My amendment tries to nuance this slightly by reducing the requirement to 50 days, although I do not think this is satisfactory. I also suggest that the proposal should not hit parents where the parent manifestly plays a substantial role in the care and financial maintenance of the child.

My proposal is not perfect because, as Deputy Doherty said, we were told of the deadline for amendments, the day before the deadline. I accept that although the deadline was 11 a.m., we were allowed to submit them somewhat later, but we had a very short time to work out a complicated problem. There is recognition by those who represent single parents that there are problems with the current situation. We need to work on that, but what the Government is doing is unfair. It is neither right nor satisfactory. We were put in a position where we had no choice but to lash in whatever amendments we could at the last minute to meet the deadlines. This is not a satisfactory way to deal with the serious issue confronting families.

We must remember that at the heart of these families are children and that it is these children who will be hit as a result of this. Much of the cost will fall back on the State, in so far as maintenance payments may be reduced. This will impact on social welfare payments, rent allowance payments and various other areas. The proposal has not been thought out fully and must be re-examined.

See this speech in context