Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Both Deputies Michael McGrath and Boyd Barrett have articulated why this should not go ahead and I am very supportive of their views. This is a wrong tax measure. It is a tax on single fathers. It is mean spirited, in my view. There are other options available to the Minister. It is estimated that 15,400 single fathers are availing of the tax credit. The design of the original tax credit was flawed, of that there is no doubt. I cannot justify it and I know Deputy Michael McGrath has suggested that it is not justifiable. There is a spirit here to work with the Minister in trying to design a tax credit that is fair on single fathers and fair on their children.

The Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem here through his own amendment regarding the secondary claimant and the 100 days aggregate condition. We could argue about whether 100 days is excessive, but the Minister has acknowledged that the father - it is primarily fathers being targeted here - who cares for his child or children for an aggregate of 100 days should be able to claim this tax credit, if the primary carer forgoes it. There is already a distinction being made as to who should and should not claim the credit and we could build on that during Report Stage, if the Minister was open to that. As Deputy Boyd Barrett has said, the provision sends out the wrong signals. I welcome the Minister's move on the secondary claimant but I believe we must go a little further. While it would not be to my satisfaction, at least it would be going in the right direction. I would encourage the Minister to be open to considering this matter again on Report Stage. The sum of €2,490 is a lot of money for many single fathers to lose if this takes immediate effect. I encourage the Minister to reconsider. That said, I wish to address one or two issues raised by the Minister's own amendment.

I suggest that the best way of trying to move this forward in a non-confrontational manner is to put in a commencement order. Lots of items in Finance Bills can be the subject of commencement orders. The housing section we dealt with earlier replaces the environmental tax credit which never took effect because it was the subject of a commencement order. We should put in a commencement order for this provision, study it to determine the effect it will have on the parents concerned and try to come up with a better way of reshaping the original tax credit while also ensuring that fathers who care and provide for their children are not unduly burdened as a result of this Bill.

In terms of the specifics of the amendment, subsection 462B.(1)(a)(iii) provides that a child who is 18 years of age or over will be deemed a qualifying child if he or she is receiving "full-time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment". The section also deals with those who are in training for two years, but I wish to focus on the subsection dealing with school and college. A child over 18 years is a qualifying child so a primary claimant can claim the tax credit on behalf of a daughter or son who is 19 or 20 years old, for example, and who is attending UCD, Trinity College or DIT or other educational establishment on a full-time basis. However, that is subject to the provision that the qualifying child is resident with the claimant for the "whole or greater part of the year". Therefore, the mother must prove that the child resides with her for the greater part of the year of assessment. Furthermore, subsection (8) states that for the purposes of this section, "a child shall be treated as resident with an individual for any day where the child so resides for the greater part of that day". I come from Donegal and it takes me four hours to travel to Leinster House. When people from Donegal go to college, they do not jump on a bus for Dublin and get dropped off at UCD or Trinity College. They rent apartments and reside in those apartments for five out of every seven days. Their mothers or fathers are their carers and the people who maintain them but they are residing in Dublin for five out of seven days for nine months of the year. Under this section, as it stands, there is no way that a mother or father can prove that the child resides with them for the greater part of the year if that child is in college and living away from home. The Minister's residency stipulation refers to where the child resides "for the greater part of that day". This amendment will actually make every claim for the tax credit by the primary carer of a student who is living away from home invalid. We have spoken already about the fact that the Minister is really hurting fathers who will not get the credit any more but the primary carer will not get it either if the child is in full-time third level education and living away from home. Under the definition provided, neither parent could prove that the child is resident with them for the greater part of the year.