Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

The previous Minister for Finance heralded the introduction of tax individualisation as a great leap forward in his fiscal revolution but he failed to take account of the social implications of his decision. There is a history of failing to deal with women equitably in the taxation code. I have only to mention a former Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance who referred to women complaining about their treatment at the hands of the tax system as well-heeled and articulate. Not a lot has changed in the Government's attitude to the role of women in society or their treatment as economic instruments.

Tax individualisation has resulted in a large number of women entering the work force but the growth of service sector jobs with low pay and anti-social hours has also had implications for society. Many communities have seen the return of latch-key kids as a result of households which need to earn more than one income and a taxation system which tells couples they will be better treated if both partners work. Individualisation would make sense if we also integrated the tax and social welfare systems or if tax credits were refundable where discrepancies arose. That would allow a balancing mechanism for people who are treated differently. At the end of the day, the effect of making a distinction between those who work at home in an important social context and full blown economic actors is that we make different value judgments as a society.

The way individualisation was introduced by the then Minister, Mr. McCreevy, the resources provided to the policy and the gap that has since been allowed to increase has meant the problem cannot be resolved in one attempt. I favour the approach taken by Deputy Bruton of ameliorating the effects of the policy, at least in the short-term. However, I would like to go further because there is an onus on us to put in place a timetable for granting equality to those who perform an important social role and a consequent economic function for the State in terms of caring for children and family members. The ways by which those who are not part of the taxation system offer their labour on a day-to-day basis constitutes an alternative economy which goes unrecognised in the Bill before us. Given the Finance Bill is one of the more important matters of legislation this House has to pass in a given year, this non-recognition represents a tremendous failure. Thousands of people are being dealt with in an inequitable manner because they are not visible in a traditional economic sense and the system would prefer they did not exist. We have a responsibility to acknowledge that they play an important role and to introduce taxation and social welfare systems which properly recognise them.

This is clearly an issue that mainly affects women, although it also affects men who chose to act as full-time carers or who would like that option if the taxation and social welfare systems were more equitable. The consequence of not acting will be the distribution of expenditure from the Department of Finance to other Departments in order to deal with social repercussions such as disadvantages in health and education. A measure of social justice is needed in our taxation code, along with an admission that a measure which was originally seen as a bold stroke has largely failed society. With regard to bringing women into the work force, those concerned have not benefitted because the accompanying supports, such as additional training, recognition of previous work experience and protective measures for families, have not been put in place. I fully support the aim of Deputy Bruton's amendment and hope that whoever is responsible for next year's budget will start the process of reversing the taxation system so that it properly recognises the role of full-time home carers.

See this speech in context