On Tuesday, 15 September 2026, the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) concluded its examination of the bill on family support and measures to counter the birth-rate decline, which was ultimately approved, with Rete, RF and Domani – Motus Liberi abstaining.
Debate on Article 26 focused on the new “baby bonus”, a one-off payment of 1,000 euros for every child born or adopted from 1 January 2026, granted to the children of residents or holders of an ordinary residence permit. To qualify, the annual per-capita income of the household of the parent submitting the application must be below 25,000 euros net; family allowances and income from the share of the primary residence are excluded from the calculation. The Government also presented a technical amendment clarifying how the per-capita income should be calculated. Secretary of State Stefano Canti explained that these were changes requested by the ISS Benefits Office, and thus technical adjustments designed “to make the rule work more smoothly and to ensure the baby bonus is paid out effectively.” It was chiefly the size of the contribution and the income threshold that sparked political debate. Gaetano Troina (D-ML) recalled that his group had already proposed a bonus in the 2025 development law, but with much higher figures: 3,000 euros for the first child and 5,000 for each subsequent child. While welcoming the introduction of the aid, he criticised the choice of a flat 1,000 euros for everyone and, above all, the income cap: “many families, I fear, will be left out,” he said. For Troina, “it’s a shame, because there was a chance to do better.” Matteo Casali (RF) was also critical, explaining that Repubblica Futura had proposed first replacing the term “baby bonus” with “parenting contribution” and pairing the financial support with material aid, providing nappies and formula milk up to the child’s second year through an agreement between paediatric services and state offices, with collection at the ISS. RF also objected to the use of simple per-capita income instead of the ICEE (equivalent household economic indicator), which takes into account not only income but also assets. On the majority side, Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) acknowledged that the opposition’s proposals were also “worthy of consideration,” but defended the Government’s choice. He pointed out that with a threshold of 25,000 euros per capita, a family of three could reach a total household income of up to 75,000 euros, meaning the measure is not limited solely to families with very low incomes. The bonus, he added, should not be viewed in isolation but as part of the broader reform package, which also addresses employment, the balance between work and childcare, and financial allowances, including those for unemployed mothers and students. Zanotti also left the door open to future changes: once the measure’s practical application has been observed, it could potentially be updated. Secretary of State Stefano Canti reiterated this possibility, explaining that the Government had reviewed the amendments submitted in Committee in search of a formula able to bridge the different positions. “We will see how the rule is applied in practice, and reserve the right to make further changes later,” Canti said. At the end of the debate, the Government’s amendment was approved, and Article 26 as a whole subsequently passed.
Debate on Article 27 concerned new financial support for single pregnant women and single-parent households, who will be entitled, upon request, to a monthly contribution of 50 euros, exempt from tax and social security contributions. Here too, the Government introduced a technical amendment. Secretary of State Stefano Canti explained that the changes were suggested by the ISS Benefits Office “to allow for a better and easier disbursement of these contributions,” while the Government’s previously submitted version of the amendment was withdrawn. In the debate, Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) defended the measure, stressing that it aims to help families who, having only one parent, may more easily find themselves in financial difficulty. He acknowledged that the amount is modest — “it’s 50 euros a month, paid once a year” — but argued that the measure shows that “no one has been left behind.” Zanotti nonetheless put forward a concrete proposal: rather than paying the contribution through ordinary channels, he suggested crediting it directly onto the SMAC Card, given that the maximum annual amount is 600 euros. In his view, this solution could also streamline procedures. Proceedings were suspended to technically assess how to incorporate the change and, upon resuming, the Government directly amended its own proposal. The new paragraph 2-bis thus establishes that the contribution will be managed by the ISS Office for Economic Benefits and Pensions and paid out through a credit to the beneficiary’s SMAC Card. It was therefore the floor debate itself that produced a concrete change to the disbursement mechanism: the 50-euro monthly bonus, paid annually, remains unchanged, but the means by which the funds reach beneficiaries has changed. At the end of the debate, the amendment as reformulated was approved, and Article 27 as a whole subsequently passed.
Article 28 addresses nursery school fees and school meal costs, expanding the concessions already provided for under the 2022 law. The Government’s amendments corrected several formal aspects and, notably, introduced the possibility of revising income brackets by delegated decree, including on the basis of ICEE criteria, taking up a request from the opposition. It was precisely the income thresholds and the ICEE that became the focus of the debate. Gaetano Troina (D-ML) considered some brackets too low, and thus difficult to access, and insisted on the need to make the ICEE tool fully operational. Maria Luisa Berti (AR) countered that there are indeed families, especially single-parent households, who fall within the lower brackets, and stressed that an 85% reduction represents concrete help with heavy expenses such as nursery and school meals. Secretary of State Andrea Belluzzi then clarified that “the ICEE, as a regulatory tool, is in force and functioning in its experimental phase,” with the service desk already operating at the Tax Office and initial applications already underway for family allowances and the right to education. Matteo Casali (RF) recalled that his group had proposed a three-year moratorium on nursery fees and criticised the fact that the brackets are still built on income rather than directly on the ICEE, also objecting to leaving the Government merely the option — rather than the obligation — to revise them. Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) defended the gradual approach of the measure instead, observing that very large reductions must necessarily be reserved for the most difficult economic situations; he also clarified that once the ICEE is fully operational, the system can be fine-tuned. Aida Maria Adele Selva (PDCS) urged colleagues not to lose sight of the measure’s central purpose: “This is concrete help for families in difficulty,” aimed in particular at the most vulnerable situations. Nicola Renzi (RF) argued instead that the measures remain too limited and relaunched Repubblica Futura’s proposal to eliminate nursery fees altogether, explaining that the goal should be to support not only those in absolute poverty but also families whose purchasing power is being progressively eroded. Emanuele Santi (Rete) claimed credit for the opposition’s contribution in restoring the reference to the ICEE within the article, but also warned of the tool’s possible limitations in capturing assets and income that are less easily verifiable, and argued that financial incentives are in any case insufficient unless accompanied by a deeper analysis of the causes behind the declining birth rate. In response, Canti noted that the measure extends an existing benefit to families with a single child and clarified the reference to debts predating 1 January 2023: the aim is to help those who, before the concessions were introduced, had accumulated arrears for nursery or school meal fees, now applying the same reductions to those outstanding debts as well.
Article 30 extends to self-employed workers the option of receiving sickness benefits to care for their children, putting them on equal footing with employees in this respect. During the first 14 years of a child’s life, in the event of a certified illness lasting more than two days or hospitalisation, one parent may take leave from work while receiving sickness benefits with 100% coverage. Self-employed workers must have no outstanding contribution arrears, while the benefit can be used by either parent, alternately. The measure enjoyed broad cross-party support. Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) called it an important step towards balancing work and family life, preventing parents from having to use up holiday and leave entitlements to care for sick children, and welcomed the inclusion of the self-employed. Aida Maria Adele Selva (PDCS) particularly stressed the value of the time made available to families, stating that “parents, regardless of the type of work they do, face the same problems and must also have the same rights.” Secretary of State Matteo Ciacci also described it as one of the most significant measures in the law, since it addresses a concrete difficulty repeatedly raised by parents. From the opposition, Matteo Casali (RF) expressed satisfaction but believed the 14-year age limit could have been raised, at least in cases of hospitalisation; Gaetano Troina (D-ML) called it a “commendable” step, above all because it finally extends this option to self-employed workers as well. Emanuele Santi (Rete) was also in favour, describing the measure as “an important advance in workers’ rights,” while maintaining an overall negative assessment of the law’s approach. Sara Conti (RF) supported the measure but also objected to the 14-year cap, arguing that it should have been extended at least to the age of majority. Andrea Ugolini (PDCS) explained that the age limit had indeed been debated in Committee: the compromise of 14 years stemmed from the need to concentrate resources on the age brackets where illness and hospitalisation are most frequent and where children have less autonomy, while leaving open the possibility of amending the rule in future. In closing, Secretary Canti confirmed that the age limit could be revised once the practical application of the measure and the age groups making the most use of it have been assessed.
Article 32 strengthens pension benefits for working mothers, affecting both early and deferred retirement. Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) described it as an “important reinforcement” of existing protections, highlighting in particular the recognition given to mothers who have raised children with severe disabilities and the option of transferring the benefits to the other parent in the event of the mother’s death. Aida Maria Adele Selva (PDCS) recalled that the need to strengthen these protections had already emerged during the 2022 pension reform, but that conditions at the time had not allowed for further progress, whereas today’s change, in her view, represents concrete attention “to the role of women and, above all, the role of mothers.” Denise Bronzetti (AR) claimed credit for her group’s proposal of the article and stressed the need to recognise, also from a pension standpoint, the sacrifices made during working life to raise children, expressing hope that a future pension review could further expand this principle and give greater weight to family care situations and caregivers.
In the closing stage, floor was given to explanations of vote. Gaetano Troina (D-ML) announced his group’s abstention, acknowledging that the bill contains positive measures and thanking the Secretariat for its work, but judging the overall approach insufficiently bold given the scale of the problem. “There is some good in it, and we have acknowledged that, but from our point of view it is not enough,” he said. For D-ML, the decline in births cannot be tackled with financial contributions alone, but requires a system capable of responding to families’ needs regarding housing, cost of living, employment, work-life balance, schools and services, including possible support for babysitters and a different organisation of school hours. Troina also urged the Government to focus on implementation: the law assigns new responsibilities to various public offices, which must be put in a position to manage them quickly and effectively. Michela Pelliccioni (independent) announced her support for the bill, but described it “not as a finishing point, but as an absolute starting point.” For Pelliccioni too, financial aid alone is not enough; action is needed on housing, flexible work arrangements, remote working and the balance between family and employment. She also drew attention to the new protections for pregnant women, particularly the ban on dismissal or non-renewal of fixed-term contracts: measures she supports, but which, she warned, must be balanced against the needs of businesses, to avoid the opposite effect of reducing job opportunities for women of childbearing age. Matteo Casali (RF) spoke of “partial satisfaction” and announced Repubblica Futura’s abstention: he acknowledged some positive measures, starting with the caregiver provision, but accused the Government of pursuing a policy “that chases events rather than anticipating them,” pointing to the long timeline of the bill and the numerous amendments submitted even at the last moment. According to RF, incentives and subsidies are not enough without a comprehensive strategy addressing purchasing power, employment, housing, education and healthcare. Casali placed particular emphasis on the housing emergency, also lamenting a limited ability to use data to direct aid towards those who genuinely need it. Paolo Crescentini (PSD), by contrast, rejected accusations of delay, arguing that “politics arrives on time when it recognises a problem and chooses to tackle it.” He thanked Secretary Canti for the dialogue carried out with social partners, business associations and political forces, and described the law as a good starting point, citing the baby bonus, strengthened parental leave, the caregiver provision and measures to reconcile family and work. He acknowledged that the decline in births has deep roots and reflects changes in society that have been unfolding for years, but argued that the bill nonetheless offers families “a breath of fresh air.” Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) called it “an excellent response” and “an important step forward,” pointing to the full range of measures introduced: financial support, strengthened parental leave, doubled paternity leave, time off for medical appointments for children, sickness benefits to care for them, greater protection against dismissal and non-renewal linked to maternity, and pension benefits. He acknowledged that other issues remain open, starting with housing and incomes, but announced Libera’s favourable vote. Giovanna Cecchetti (independent) voted in favour, describing the bill as “a good, if not excellent, foundation to build on”: she highlighted in particular family allowances, adjustment for inflation, nursery fees and school meals, while stressing the need to monitor and further develop these measures over time. Maria Luisa Berti (AR) announced Alleanza Riformista’s favourable vote and placed particular emphasis on the introduction of the caregiver figure, which she considers one of the law’s most significant innovations in supporting families caring for people with disabilities or elderly relatives. Berti too acknowledged that the law does not solve every problem and called for parallel work on the cultural front to address the decline in births. Emanuele Santi (Rete) acknowledged several steps forward in terms of rights and protections, citing the family caregiver provision, part-time work, remote working, pregnancy benefits, support for student mothers, paternity leave, family allowances, nursery fees and sick leave for children. His overall assessment nonetheless remained critical: Rete considers the law “superficial in its analysis of the real crisis,” because it relies mainly on incentives without addressing what it sees as the deeper causes of the birth-rate decline. He therefore relaunched Rete’s proposals on vacant properties, reducing the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts from 24 to 12 months, and automatic wage indexation to inflation. Manuel Ciavatta (PDCS) described the bill as “an excellent law,” the result of dialogue between the majority, the opposition, trade unions and business associations. He stressed that the measure provides more tools both financially and in terms of time available for parenting, balancing work and family, and caring for vulnerable people. Ciavatta also thanked women from both the majority and the opposition for their contribution on issues of motherhood and care, and confirmed PDCS’s favourable vote.
With the debate on the family law concluded, proceedings returned to item 7 for the ratification of decrees. The Council examined Delegated Decree no. 115 of 10 August 2026 — Amendments to Law no. 118 of 28 June 2010, “Law on the entry and residence of foreign nationals in the Republic,” and subsequent amendments. The decree addresses the rules governing residency in San Marino and seeks above all to clarify certain points that had been causing practical problems. Secretary Luca Beccari explained that the decree clarifies the rules on tax-related atypical residency: the substitute tax, with a minimum of 10,000 euros, also applies to those obtaining residency through family reunification, while dependent children of the main applicant are exempt from payment. It also removes, for certain temporary permit holders, the requirement to periodically leave and re-enter San Marino, a procedure that had created particular difficulties for home care workers. Secretary Rossano Fabbri outlined the changes for those obtaining residency for entrepreneurial reasons: the reference to sectors identified through Ateco codes and the specific requirement linked to the age of 40 have been removed, with the aim of making the rules simpler to apply. The opposition, however, criticised the way the process was being handled. Nicola Renzi (RF) objected to the fact that a decree originally more limited in scope had been expanded through numerous amendments, and asked when a comprehensive reform of residency rules would finally arrive. Fabio Righi (D-ML) went so far as to call it a “mini-reform” carried out without genuine consultation, criticising in particular the new approach to economic residency: according to D-ML, San Marino should first decide which businesses and investments it wants to attract, and only then use residency as an incentive to achieve that goal.
Proceedings were suspended at 1:30 p.m. and will resume today at 5 p.m. for the election of the Captains Regent.
