Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Once I have brought the matter to the Cabinet tomorrow, I will be able to update the House on my proposal on maternity leave and the interaction between that and the wage subsidy scheme. In case I did not make it clear enough earlier in the afternoon, I wish to clarify that when I said the consideration of the future of maternity leave could take time, I meant that in the context that, when the extension of maternity leave was raised with me, it was raised in the spirt of its being a way of dealing with the wage subsidy scheme issue. I am responsible for the wage subsidy scheme. I accept that women on maternity leave who are seeking to come back to work were able to make a case that they were not being treated fairly. I said at the time that this is a tax issue and that I would resolve it as a tax and wage subsidy scheme issue because I can address it quicker that way as opposed to bringing in other policy areas. That is what I am going to do.

On the Deputy's three questions, first, there were no new proposals on the over-66s issue. Deputy O'Donoghue raised this with me a moment ago. On the PUP, perhaps in the time available, Deputy Harkin might clarify what she means by a clawback. If a tax liability is generated by the PUP, I would imagine that, in nearly every case, it will be very small because the payment is €350. The Revenue Commissioners would deal with that over a matter of years with taxpayers, or a year if the additional liability merited that. That is a matter that the Revenue Commissioners decide on. They have said they will be flexible in dealing with the issue but there is no case in which the Revenue Commissioners might be influencing the level of the PUP because it is a payment that is made through our social welfare code.

On the Deputy's final question, on so-called quid pro quoarrangements concerning the European recovery fund, she will know the European Commission has stated again it might be possible that taxation in the digital sector or further corporate tax policy changes, for example, could pay for the fund.

My views on those elements of our corporate tax policy, which I will not change, are well known to the Deputy and to the House. What we will do, however, is engage with the European Commission in a constructive and positive way because the recovery fund, as put forward by the Commission, is potentially very positive for the eurozone. As a small, open member state of the eurozone, anything that strengthens long-term confidence in it is very much in our national interest. It is in that spirit that I will be engaging with the Commission in the coming weeks.

See this speech in context