Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As we are discussing sections 5 and 6 together, whatever we say about section 5 is equally applicable to section 6, which deals with adoptive leave. I am opposed to these sections. Let us consider what has happened to maternity benefit in less than 12 months. In last year's budget, the Minister for Finance decided, for the first time in history, that maternity benefit was to be taxed at the marginal rate. In most cases people who pay tax on their maternity benefits are taxed at 41% because people enter the marginal rate very early under the Irish tax system. This Bill proposes that the rates of maternity benefit be standardised. The measure is not being presented as a cut. Standardisation means that some people who earn less than €230 per week will be brought up to that rate and those above it will be brought down. The difficulty is that approximately 96% of recipients are over the new standardised rates. In effect, it is a cut. The cumulated amount taken from the pocket of an expectant mother paying tax at the 41% rate averages approximately €3,500 between this cut and the taxation provisions.

For all the reasons set out by other speakers, this is a very retrograde step. Ironically, it comes less than one week after a body which the Government consulted, the advisory group on the early years strategy, proposed that the length of maternity benefit be doubled from six months to 12 months. We are now going in the opposite direction by reducing the benefits paid over six months. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs said she would fight to have the advisory group's proposal implemented. Judging by what she has already allowed to happen to maternity benefit, excuse me if I am not bursting with confidence about her ability and prospects for success in that regard.

There is no chance the Minister, Deputy Burton, will withdraw this section but I think Deputy Creighton's amendment is very reasonable. It is particularly unfair that women who are already pregnant will bear the brunt of this. If the amendment was to be accepted - I think at little or no cost to the Exchequer - these women could at least be exempted from the impact of this change. I have been approached by pregnant women who will be suffering from the impact of this cut. It is like applying a tax increase or a social welfare reduction retrospectively. It is very unfair and, while I am totally opposed to the section, the least the Minister can do is accept Deputy Creighton's amendment. I speak more in hope than expectation but it is a very reasonable proposal.

See this speech in context