Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has made reference to principles on a number of occasions, but perhaps there are other principles we need to consider. The Minister is talking, in the main, about the tax code and that is his job as Minister for Finance. However, by including this provision in the Bill, he is creating a hierarchy in parenting. He is creating a so-called primary carer or primary parent, which implies the existence of a lesser parent. That is what is happening with this measure and that is how many people I have met view it. This is not just about a financial arrangement. There are certain principles that should underpin this measure. The first is the principle and practice of shared parenting as a feature of modern life. The second is the principle that the tax credit can be transferred to the non-principal carer and, if appropriate, crystallised through a shared parenting agreement. I am not saying this should be done on an ad hoc basis and agree that reform is needed in this area. However, what the Minister is doing is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He mentioned fraud. This provision was presented in the Budget statement as an anti-fraud measure and the Minister has repeated that assertion by referring to Revenue investigations in the west. I have no doubt that there was fraud because there is fraud in every area of the social welfare and taxation systems. However, just because there are people who will try to defraud the system does not mean that we should shut down the system.

The tax credit is awarded to reflect the additional costs involved in caring for a child or children in a shared parenting arrangement; therefore, the credit should follow the child or children. I am most uncomfortable with the provision and, in particular, the 100 day rule. I take the point the Minister made about the Revenue Commissioners and agree that they do an exceptional job. The honesty of the citizen in the self-assessment system is a given, but in an instance where Revenue decides to audit individuals or carry out an investigation, is it the case that parents will submit a calendar to prove when their child was with them? Will they be expected to have a record in the event that there is an audit?

During the debate on Second Stage yesterday I suggested we would see a raft of maintenance orders and agreements being renegotiated. Fathers who are paying maintenance will argue that they are no longer receiving the tax credit and cannot afford the agreed maintenance payments. Who will suffer at the end of the day? To use the Government's term, the primary parent who, in many instances, is the mother will suffer because she will end up receiving a lower maintenance payment. There are additional costs involved in separations, which was why the tax credit was introduced in the first place. I agree with Senator Jillian van Turnhout that the analogy of a person working in County Donegal and returning to Dublin at weekends is not relevant. Separated parents are trying to create two homes for their children. They are trying to create a home environment for their children and all responsible parents, married or separated, try to do this.

I was struck by what Senator Aideen Hayden said and know that many Government representatives are opposed to this measure. All the Seanad is trying to do in opposing the section is send a clear message on the issue. We are only making a recommendation because we cannot change a Finance Bill. We are recommending that the Government rethink this measure. I accept that the Minister relented somewhat by allowing the credit to be transferred between parents if one parent could not avail of it, but why not allow it to be shared? Why not operate on the basis of trust and the assumption that the citizen is honest? By all means, review cases, but this change to the tax code will result in many unintended consequences. The Minister has been very clear in his statement that this is a tax measure, but the social consequences of any new tax measure must be taken into account. It is not simply about balancing the books but also about the effect of a measure on those to whom it applies.

I ask the Minister, even at this very late stage, to examine the submissions he received from one-parent family groups and others, some of which have not received a response from the Department. We will trenchantly oppose this change and I ask those Senators opposite who are concerned to stand up on this issue. I urge them to make the recommendation that the change being proposed is not acceptable and must be reconsidered. Perhaps the Minister might meet us halfway and commit to not initiating the change until it has been fully reviewed and any possible alternative to it examined. I urge him not to make this change on 1 January when the Revenue Commissioners are probably going to write to all of those parents in receipt of child benefit, having taken this as proof that they are the primary parent.

In 99% of cases, it will be the mother. It does not recognise shared-parenting responsibilities, however. In many instances, unfortunately, separations are not amicable. Senator van Turnhout pointed out rightly that children can be used as pawns in separation cases. This is going to exacerbate the existing problems in this area. At this late stage, the Minister should hold off on making this change and consult further on it.