Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's commitment to consider the impact of the 100-day requirement if there are negative consequences. I stand in support of Senator Reilly in opposing the section. She has made a very good case about having a commencement order in order to allow a report on the impact of the section to be prepared, and if that happened I would not necessarily oppose the section. Perhaps we could look to other countries and consider how they handle this type of issue.

I will speak very briefly to the Dutch system of benefits related to children. It has two payments, one of which is child benefit and one of which is kindgebonden, an extra benefit for low-income families. Their model involves co-parenting. As an aside, we should examine our use of language, as we speak of "primary" and "secondary" carers, which gives the impression of a hierarchy. The Dutch social insurance system, SVB, considers court rulings, parenting plans and written agreements between parents that states how child benefit is to be divided. If it is not clear where a child lives, the SVB divides the amount in half. The kindgebonden is referred to as a child budget, and it is similar to what we are considering now. The Dutch ask the parents to consider how they are dividing the sum involved, keeping in mind that the person with the lower income would usually get higher child benefit.

There are other models for us to consider. I understand what the Minister is trying to achieve and I take him at his word about the 100-day ruling. My difficulty is in how we could put a system in place with such a provision without consideration of the potential impact. Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order but it sought a ministerial commencement order, and it would have been a compromise that I could support. That is why I stand in support of the Senator opposing the section.