Long-awaited measures, but insufficient consultation and aid that risks remaining out of reach for many families. Speaking in the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) on the draft bill, Gaetano Troina (D-ML) took particular aim at the proposed income brackets and revisited proposals rejected in Committee, ranging from babysitting and nursery vouchers to protections for the self-employed and freelance professionals. His full remarks follow.
«This is a measure that has been extremely eagerly awaited by our citizens. It stems from a project that began more than a year and a half ago, following a motion approved by the Finance Committee during discussion of the so-called development bill, when we were told that this was not the right text for proposals in favour of families and that a dedicated measure would be drawn up instead. This is finally that dedicated project, and expectations were genuinely very high — above all the hope of launching an in-depth dialogue that would lead to concrete, effective solutions for the everyday problems faced by our fellow citizens. Instead, I must note with regret that this dialogue, especially in the phase preceding the filing of the bill, did not substantially take place. This saddens me deeply, because on an issue of this scale there was an opportunity to carry out genuinely collective work, given that we all recognise that Sammarinese families are going through a period of profound crisis. That is precisely why, when I hear philosophising or historical recollections in this Chamber today, it troubles me: in my view, this is not the moment to lose ourselves in theories or reminiscences, but the moment to act with full awareness of the real difficulties facing our families. We live in a country where fewer children are born every year; the current trend — and I thank Dr Farinelli for providing us with updated data — shows a further decline compared with last year’s average. There are certainly various reasons behind young couples’ decision not to have children, but one of the main ones is linked to costs and to the utter inadequacy of the support and assistance the State guarantees to those who decide to bring a child into the world. Today, for a couple of working parents, it is simply impossible to bear the costs and manage the family’s organisation without help from grandparents or genuine support from the State, especially given the current school hours: if both parents work from 8:30 am to 6:30 pm, how are they supposed to manage children who finish school in the mid-afternoon if they cannot even go and pick them up? In Committee, our political force submitted a series of proposals that we considered thoroughly concrete and sensible. First of all, we had asked to allow pensioners to act as caregivers, giving up the specific allowance but without having to forfeit their pension. We had proposed incentives for businesses that introduced smart working and accessibility measures for pregnant employees; paid leave to help settle children into nursery and pre-school; the introduction of dedicated vouchers for babysitting, nurseries and home care assistance; free perinatal psychological support and the possibility of formalising a post-partum home care service, creating round-the-clock support networks. Above all, we insisted on introducing specific protections for self-employed workers and freelance professionals, who in this area are currently treated as if they were second-class parents compared with employees. Faced with these proposals, in my view, the responses we received in Committee were truly disconcerting: regarding pensioner caregivers, we were told that if they wanted to take on that role they would have to give up their pension and make do with just 1,200 euros a month — but I ask you, what can anyone do today with such a sum? Regarding leave for parents, we were told that employers’ associations would not agree; regarding ISS [Social Security Institute] services, we were told that this was not the right law because it concerns internal organisation, to be left to management’s discretion; and regarding self-employed workers, the answer, once again, was that this was not the right forum. But I ask: if not within a law on maternity, birth rates and family support, where should these issues be addressed? We continue to bring forward proposals and to offer our full availability for dialogue, but our appeals unfortunately go unheard. I do want to give credit to Secretary Canti, however, for at least trying to arrange meetings, albeit belatedly, unlike some of his Government colleagues. One final observation concerns the amendments we are about to discuss: in my view, many of the income brackets identified are barely applicable and, pending the ICEE [equivalent economic situation indicator] becoming fully operational, very few families will actually be able to access the benefits envisaged, because the thresholds are set too low. It really is a shame to pass off these measures as solutions if, in practice, no one will be able to access them».
