Katherine Zappone (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State and I especially welcome his opening comments on the expectation that the economy will return to full year growth. I also acknowledge Senator Darragh O'Brien's comment on the ESRI's troubling analysis. Is growth dependent on increasing the inequality gap? The Government needs to pay attention to that.

This afternoon I will focus my analysis of the Bill on the wider taxation code and the primary issue, the achievement of equivalence of treatment for civil partners with that of spouses in a civil marriage in the taxation code. Can the Minister of State confirm that the Government is committed to achieving the equivalence of treatment? If so, I argue that much more work is required on our taxation code for it to happen and for the Government to demonstrate its commitment.

I will start with the Bill. I welcome a number of its provisions that seek to achieve the parity of treatment for civil partners with that of spouses within a civil marriage. The Minister of State referred to a couple of those in his speech and I am grateful for that. I am particularly grateful for his willingness to re-examine the tax relief for maintenance payment arrangements where civil partners live separately. As he indicated, there have been a couple of changes in the Bill and that is terrific. Sections 134(1)(g) and (h) have taken on board those changes and there has been a movement towards parity on those issues and I appreciate that.

I acknowledge that there have been other changes in the Bill and the State will now recognise the children of civil partners and the non-biological children of civil partners in some taxation matters. For example, section 134(1)(a) and (e) have included children of a civil partner of an individual and I thank the Minister of State for these changes.

I also wish to note that the Bill does not include tax relief on maintenance payments for children of civil partners. As everyone will know, when a marriage breaks down the payment of maintenance for children, from one spouse to the other, attracts tax relief for the payer. Last July I recommended that tax relief be included on maintenance payments for children of civil partners when we debated the finance (No. 3) Bill 2011. I was told then that relief could not be given because under the civil partnership Act 2010 a maintenance order cannot be made against a civil partner who is not the biological parent for the support of a dependant child. I was also told that tax law follows the general law and that is why the change could not be made. That dictum makes perfectly logical sense but I do not understand three things. Why are some sections of the taxation code changed to recognise the children while others are not? What is the rationale for not placing an obligation on a civil partner to make maintenance payments to support a dependant child? Are we thinking about the children here? Perhaps the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, might consider my first question. I also ask the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to consider my second question.

I will return to the primary issue and that is the achievement of equivalence of treatment for civil partners with that of spouses in a civil marriage in taxation matters. The Bill offers some changes but one can argue that there has been a patchwork quilt approach to changing our tax laws to achieve it. I can tell the Minister of State that a lot of patches are missing. It would have been considerably less complex if the State had taken the decision to open the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples rather than establish the second class institution of partnership. We have civil partnership but there is a lot more work to be done to achieve equivalence in the tax laws and I shall mention a couple of examples. First, the definition of relative and family are used throughout the tax code. These words take their ordinary meaning except when they are supplemented for the purposes of the tax code. The ordinary meaning of these words usually turns on blood relationship or marriage. Therefore, relatives and family of civil partners require an express reference in the tax code and a number of sections fail to do it or do it adequately. For example, consanguinity relief has been extended to include transfers made to an individual's civil partner, the civil partner of a parent or the civil partner of a lineal descendent but fails to include all of the equivalent degrees of relationship that apply in marriage. It does not refer to the civil partner of a grandparent, the brother or a sister of a civil partner of a parent.

The current Bill has similar omissions and I will give an example. I referred to section 134(1)(d) that seeks to include civil partners in the principal private residence relief but only includes them as parents of the individual and fails to include parents or relatives of a civil partner of the individual when parents or relatives of a spouse are included. In another example, in section 134(1) the payment of an annuity to a widow or widower is extended to a surviving civil partner but a tax credit available to a widowed parent has not been extended to a surviving civilly partnered parent. Gentlemen and my fellow women colleagues can see that it gets a bit complex and technical.

There were recommendations accepted and noted in the Minister of State's speech such as tax relief on civil partner maintenance payments. As they were accepted I would have thought that other sections of the Taxes Consolidation Act might have been amended in the Bill too. Other sections of the Act, that relate to tax relief on dissolution, are sections on capital gains tax for the transfer of assets on dissolution, capital acquisitions tax and stamp duty on transfers and the deferral of tax on share options.

Prior to the introduction of civil unions in the UK in 2004, the Labour Government there conducted an audit of every Bill to ensure civil partners were included where necessary. If parity of treatment is the stated goal of this Government, then I call for a similar exercise to be conducted here. I have a legal opinion from a tax expert which I am happy to make available to the Department to assist in this process. I have highlighted several gaps in the legislation on the advice I have received. However, will civil partnership ever be fully equivalent to civil marriage in the tax code if omission after omission persists in successive Finance Bills? Will the Minister look at my concerns from the Government's perspective and consider amending the Bill on the basis of a comprehensive audit?