Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

After nine years we have an enormous number of schools classified as disadvantaged. One must remember what disadvantage in education is ultimately about. Let us leave the teachers out of it and think of the children who attend a disadvantaged school, asking ourselves how many will secure good, well paid jobs and how many will go on to university. Particularly if they are boys, the answer is that many will drop out into dead-end jobs, a great waste of our people's potential.

The Bill, contrary to the Minister's promises on budget day to introduce fairness, equity and a level playing pitch for all taxpayers, shows that it is business as usual for the Government. It would make a great deal of economic sense to wean the construction industry off unnecessary tax breaks, something the three reports show. However, so far the Minister has not found the courage to do so. I acknowledge the forces in the construction industry. Big developers are very powerful economically and have significant assets. Any flattening regarding the construction industry must be implemented on a graduated basis because we do not want a construction industry bubble that bursts and hurts the little people in economic terms.

Section 13 deals with the allowance for child minders. During the passage of last year's Finance Bill, I recommended this kind of flexibility and I am happy that the Minister has adopted this proposal. However, the measure could be improved. I spoke on this during the debate on last year's Finance Bill to highlight the many women in the black economy who mind one to three children. They are not insured for pension or PRSI purposes and when they reach 65 or 66 years, are entirely dependent on their husbands to qualify for an old-age pension. It is important that either this Bill or the Social Welfare Bill brings those women in from the cold. Measures exist to enable them to regulate their situation and to be registered as child minders. The measures introduced by the Minister are simple and attractive but he needs to ensure the provision of a PRSI element to bring those women out of the black economy.

I referred earlier to the sliding relief for the super-rich with regard to paying some minimum tax. The amount is €250,000 and there is a sliding scale of relief for people on an income of between €250,000 and €500,000 but the limit is €10,000 for the lady minding up to three children in her own home, not a penny more nor a penny less. A person earning €10,500 is out. Why does the Minister not provide a sliding scale? There is a good argument to be made for avoiding a precipitative capping of reliefs both in social welfare and in taxation. However, why is the Minister's proposal so hard on the woman minding a couple of children or one child by decreeing that everything stops at €10,000? I ask the Minister to consider a sliding scale of relief which would not be difficult to arrange and which would not cause the sky to fall in. This would make for a more flexible and more attractive uptake on the package.

I wish to raise the question of Gama. The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, disclosed to me by way of a reply to a parliamentary question last year that Gama was obtaining hundreds of exemptions from PRSI certificates. It has been confirmed to me by the Revenue Commissioners that as a consequence, the company flew under the radar of the Revenue Commissioners. They did not know that the Gama workers were employed on a remittance basis. Once the company received the exemption from PRSI for their workers, they were then assigned to the remittance basis for taxation purposes.

I do not know who worked out the Gama scheme but I suspect it was somebody very clever in a legal or accounting office somewhere in this town. I do not regard it as fair for the same legal and accounting offices to whinge that the Minister is having a look at the remittance basis. There have been scandals such as Gama and over-aggressive tax planning. If business advisers such as tax advisers, accountants and lawyers, choose to exploit our system, then I support the Minister's attempts to ensure that we are not taken to the cleaners and that low-paid workers such as the Gama workers are not abused.

I welcome the Minister's proposals for the film industry. I refer to the principle of carrying out cost-benefit analysis reviews, pulling taxation into the light of day to see how it survives. The debates on the film industry which took place in the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service disclosed that the film industry is very valuable to this country. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins was the person who really created it as we know it now.

See this speech in context