Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We had a lengthy discussion about this amendment on Committee Stage, and this entire section which this amendment deletes. I brought forward other amendments which were more nuanced. I understand the Minister of State's arguments regarding the Commission on Taxation. When we rely on the Commission on Taxation it is important we recognise the very good job it did of trawling through all the different taxation measures. However, it was limited in its scope. There was insufficient engagement with civic society. When the Commission on Taxation recommended that the one-parent tax credit should be given to only one carer there was no consultation with the families or the organisations that represent them. Economists examined the figures and based the recommendation on those assessments.

The SIPTU representative in the Commission on Taxation refused to endorse the commission's viewpoint because it struck the wrong balance. This is a good example of where one can strike the wrong balance. On a fairness level, for two parents to receive a tax credit for one child does not seem to make sense. Cohabiting married couples do not receive the tax credit, so that definitely makes no sense. However, we need to dig deeper and examine how it was introduced, how it has evolved and the impact of removing it. We must judge that impact today. For more than 15,000 carers, primarily fathers, the impact would be a loss of over €220 per month. They will pay €220 per month more tax on the implementation of this measure, approximately €2,500 per year. We must examine the impact that will have on the individual and the child he or she supports.

This is about deleting the section because there are certain things one can and cannot do. I had an amendment down that we examine this as a commencement order. Earlier I discussed the home renovation incentive scheme, which has passed Report Stage. It replaces the environmental incentive introduced in 2009 under the Finance Act 2010. It was subject to a commencement order, which was never given because issues surrounded it. That has happened time and again. We have the issue of the charities scandal. Four years on we still do not have the charities regulator because it is subject to a commencement order. This area should be subject to a commencement order. While it is not a huge group of people, some people will be affected by this.

On Committee Stage the Minister said the principle he wants to see here is one payment to one individual, but he is open to examining the structure of that. It is very clear from Report Stage that, from what I can see in the amendments, the Opposition benches have not provided solutions to the challenge the Minister put to us. There is a reason for that. We left Committee Stage of the Finance Bill on Wednesday night and had to have our Report Stage amendments in by 11 a.m. the following day. It was impossible to rise to the challenge the Minister set us.

There is a need for engagement with the sector and to explore the openness suggested by the Minister on Committee Stage. The State will not save a huge amount of money on this in the context of the Finance Bill but it could put significant pressure on individuals. Deputy Broughan mentioned the Government amendment, which will address and satisfy a number of individuals. I can only guess that the number of people who will be able to avail of this amendment will be limited. While the amendment will go to address some of the damage this section will cause these secondary carers, it is unfair. The Minister has accepted the principle in legislation that secondary carers can be supported through tax credits in the Finance Bill if they care for their children in excess of 100 days and if the primary carers have no tax liability.

In the tax code the two carers are not assessed based on joint incomes. They are two individual units. Now we are saying the secondary carer is entitled to a tax credit if he or she satisfies two conditions, one that he or she cares for the children for more than 100 days and the other that the primary carer does not avail of the tax credit. The term "secondary carer" is a horrible term because any father is a carer. Other carers who provide care for their children in excess of 100 days, and it could be 150 days, will not receive the tax credit because an individual who is unrelated to them from a tax point of view, is working and has a tax liability. It is discriminatory on that basis.

While I do not object to that amendment because it will benefit a number of people, for the amount of money the State will save there may be a better way of doing it. There have been concerns from the Opposition benches on how this tax credit was used in the past. No voice within this Chamber will argue that we should keep the tax benefit as it is. Equally, a sizeable number of voices in government as well as opposition are concerned that ending the tax credit in its entirety for the second carers, even with the exemption in cases where the primary carer has no income and the secondary carer cares in excess of 100 days, does not go far enough.

A commencement order would be the right way to do it. Let us have some contact with the groups. Let us explore the challenge the Minister has put to us. Can we examine ways of shaping and strengthening this? Later, I will deal with amendments to the Betting (Amendment) Bill. This Bill was to bring in €20 million, and three years later we are still awaiting it. That was not going to affect any individual to the extent that this will affect people.

These individuals will be down by €215 per month. We need to take a step back and look at this again. If there is an unwillingness to amend this in the Seanad, in terms of a commencement order, there is no other option for us but to object to the entire section.

See this speech in context