Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I spoke on Second Stage to advise that I have great difficulty with section 7 and the principles underlying it. Considering the recommendation before us and speaking to the 100-day provision, it seems to be an arbitrary figure that is unworkable. To preface what I say, the majority of primary carers are mothers and all the organisations working with lone parents, including Treoir, Barnardos, One Family or OPEN, have argued that this will disproportionately have an impact on fathers. The measure is excessive, unnecessary and unworkable. The 100-day requirement will reinforce a negative stereotype about single fathers, implying that they must be cajoled into participating in a child's life in order to avail of a tax credit. We can imagine how that could play out. In the early days of breaking up or even later, this could be used destructively by either party; one may argue to children that the other party only wants to see them in order to get to the 100 days and be eligible for the tax credit.

Senator Power mentioned the issue of newly born babies who are breast-feeding and how the 100-day rule can be met in that regard. Even as children get to teenage years their attitudes can be quite fluid. At one point they want to be with one parent but they may want to go to another parent at other times. This happens in settled families and with separations. It is down to interests or where the children are in their life. This is an idea that the State must interfere in this way and stipulate that children must stay with a parent in order for a tax credit to be availed of. Children may be staying with a father not because he really wants to see them or be part of their life but because he must get the tax credit. The issue is boiled down to a tax credit.

I know the amendment has good intentions but there must be a better way to consider requirements. We know life can change and there may be court orders or custody arrangements with particular families. Is the State interfering and stipulating 100 days as a minimum? The life of families changes all the time, as one parent may get a job that involves long-distance travelling, so it may not be financially viable for a parent to have the children every weekend. Nevertheless, people may want to play a significant role in a child's life.

I would prefer if we did not have to proceed with the measure but I accept it is going ahead. There must be a much better way of doing it. It is inappropriate for the State to interfere in this way in a family's life. Although such action may be appropriate in speaking about child welfare and protection, how would we monitor or police an issue like this? What is the basis of proof? Does somebody have to disprove that a person spent 100 days with children or is the opposite true? What calculation will be accepted? Will the mother have to sign a form every time the father takes the children, as with a delivery note? How will the provision be monitored? This is sending a particular message and I do not see how this can be worked in a pragmatic fashion.

Will the Minister include a commencement order that would allow time to fully study the impact of the measure and redraft it if necessary? I have a difficulty with the idea, from a child's perspective, that access to either parent would be based on a taxation measure. We could consider a system where the primary carer could agree to share or pass over the credit. The 100-day requirement is unworkable but if we try to work it, I wonder how many administrative hours will be wasted in trying to police it, especially if one parent claims they have met the 100-day provision but the other argues that it has not been met. If there is proof for 90 days, is there a margin of error? I have a major difficulty in how we could achieve this but the biggest difficulty is that seen from a child's perspective of when he or she sees a parent. It can be played upon by either party.

Any of us with friends who have gone through a separation knows that it is not a logical stage in one's life. Going through a separation is not a time when one can sit down matter of factly and calmly discuss issues. Often children are used as pawns in these processes and we should do nothing that adds to that.