On 23 February 2011, the Tánaiste stated "Labour will not cut child benefit because", as Labour's policy document noted, "it is the State's only recognition that Ireland remains a very expensive place to raise a child. To do so will create poverty traps, work disincentives and increase the number of children in poverty." The Tánaiste went on to break that promise, as the Government cut child benefit by €10 per month. The Government now is introducing a new tax on mothers and families, namely, the maternity tax. Women will wonder what they did to the Tánaiste or to the Government to deserve this latest attack because pregnant women will lose up to €2,500 per year to save €40 million. Women do not go on maternity leave to earn extra money and that suggestion and assertion by the Government should be withdrawn because in essence, coming on top of child benefit cuts, the property tax and cuts to family income supplement, particularly for families in receipt of carer's allowance, these are savage attacks on families and children. In some cases, this involves €450 per month for up to six months. For working women who already have made a significant contribution through PRSI and have paid substantial amounts to it, this is highly unfair because there are additional significant costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth and this particular maternity benefit always has been a cushion to protect mothers and families against such costs. The Government had choices but has made a wrong choice in this case. I ask the Tánaiste to reverse it.
Leaders' Questions
It is a tax on childbirth.
They took a tenner away from the children.
One is taxed from the cradle to the grave.
We will allow the Tánaiste to answer. Thank you very much.
The position is that as announced in the budget on 5 December 2012, as of 1 July 2013, maternity benefit will be treated as income for income tax purposes. This proposal was set out clearly on budget day and the general reaction to the measure after the budget appeared to acknowledge it was only fair that two individuals earning the same amount of income should pay the same amount of income tax, regardless of whether that income came from pay or maternity benefit. The proposal is exactly the same as was announced on budget day. It is in the news now because the Finance Bill is going through the Dáil at present.
It was a slow burner.
It is important to state that maternity leave will remain exempt from the universal social charge and from PRSI. The measure has no impact on women who are solely reliant on maternity benefit or low-paid workers who are outside the tax net. The measure brings the treatment of maternity benefits in line with other social welfare benefits, including illness benefits, pensions and unemployment benefits. A woman on maternity benefit, whose employer continues to provide a full salary during maternity benefit, will continue to receive precisely the same take-home pay as she did while working. As I indicated, the measure will not affect the position in respect of the universal social charge and PRSI, from which maternity benefits will remain exempt.
That is a very weak defence of what has occurred, because the Tánaiste was categoric in respect of the child benefit issue and how families are finding it extremely difficult to rear children given the associated costs. The Tánaiste has articulated a view that also has been articulated by the Minister for Finance. He used the phrase that it is correcting an anomaly. Pregnant women are not an anomaly and the bottom line is that €450 per month is a savage cut by any yardstick. While people are taking cuts across the board, the idea of imposing such a large amount on one particular family income is excessive. This will affect 48,000 women per year, that is, working women who also have contributed to PRSI. It is excessive to do this in one fell swoop and it should be reviewed.
Thank you.
There are alternatives in respect of raising the €40 million in revenue that has been identified by the Minister for Finance in this regard because coming on top of the cut in child benefit in particular, this represents a significant attack on the income of mothers and families in the context of the difficulties to which the Tánaiste has drawn attention in the past regarding rearing children, the costs of bringing children into the world and so on.
Thank you Deputy.
Everyone knows that women do not go on maternity leave because they want to get extra money. That assertion should be accepted. I do not accept in any shape or form the idea they somehow are benefiting more than others and it should not have been put forward as a rationale or as a defence for the measure by the Minister for Finance or by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton.
Thank you Deputy. You are over time.
I ask the Tánaiste to give serious consideration to reviewing this measure because it will have a significant impact on the incomes of quite a number of people. Moreover, it will have a highly significant impact in the case of some people. In particular, I have come across young families in receipt of family income supplement, for example, who also were in receipt of the carer's allowance. A measure undertaken in the previous budget took €100 per week from them.
Thank you very much Deputy.
This measure is anti-women. It singles out women in a particular set of circumstances, that is, women who are pregnant and it is something the Government should reconsider.
This is not a cut at all.
It is if one is in receipt of it.
A woman who goes out on maternity leave will have the same take home pay the week she goes out on maternity leave as the week she was at work so there is no cut in the take home income of any women going on maternity benefit.
It is €2,500.
How can the Government make savings if there is no cut?
What is being done here is where an employer continues to pay a woman who goes on maternity leave, the maternity benefit portion is being treated as income in the same way as all other income and is being treated the same way as illness benefit or any other social welfare benefit.
It is being taxed.
Income is treated the same.
The effect is that the take home income-----
It will reduce the amount of take home pay.
The effect is there is no reduction in income because the take home pay of a woman the week before she goes out on maternity benefit where she is paid by her employer and her income during the weeks she is out on maternity benefit will remain the same and it will be the same when she returns from maternity leave.
There is no saving so.
There is no reduction in income.
There is a reduction in the value of the benefit and the Tánaiste knows that.
Where is the saving?
There is a clear significant reduction in the income derived from the benefit.
Deputy Martin is twisting the situation to make a political point.
Stop playing games. Stop being disingenuous.
A cut is a cut.
As and from Monday, letters from the Revenue Commissioners will land in 1.6 million households across the State demanding payment of a tax on their family home. This tax takes no account of ability to pay, those in negative equity, those who paid massive stamp duty or the 180,000 families currently in mortgage distress. Let us acknowledge it is a tax championed and proposed by Fianna Fáil, which is now being implemented by Fine Gael and the Labour Party; a tax with no waivers; a tax for which the exemptions are a joke. The family home tax Bill is draconian legislation and it takes no account of the impact of this additional bill on families where people are at work or out of work, on the elderly and on the economy at large. The Government is actively pursuing a policy that will drive people into debt and some into poverty.
I would like the Tánaiste to set out for us the approach that will be taken in the event of non-payment or non-compliance with this tax on the family home. Can he confirm to the Dáil that the Revenue Commissioners, with the backing of Government, will move to deduct this family tax from people's social welfare payments, wages, bank accounts and credit union accounts?
The Revenue Commissioners will commence next week to send out communications to householders informing them of the estimate that they have put on the property tax which will be required to be paid. What will then happen is each householder will have the opportunity of making a return to the Revenue and declaring what he or she understands the value of his or her property to be for the purposes of the property tax. The Revenue Commissioners will pursue an information campaign beginning next week informing householders about the steps they can take to make that declaration and the steps they can take where letters have been issued either in error or in duplicate form because, up to relatively recently, there was not a full database of properties owned in the State. What we are dealing with over the next number of weeks is a period where householders can contact the Revenue Commissioners. If the estimate is considered to be inaccurate or wrong, they can make a declaration as to what is the value of their property and I encourage everybody who gets a communication from the Revenue Commissioners to make that contact with them where they believe that the information sent to them is in any way inaccurate, overstated or wrongly stated.
This is a tax measure, which is required to be collected. The Revenue Commissioners is the authority which collects tax in the country and as with all taxes for which it is responsible it will use the methods available to them to ensure the tax is paid. I am sure Sinn Féin, along with every other party in the House, will encourage everybody to be tax compliant.
Hear, hear.
Like the party did in the North.
The Labour Party encouraged people to vote for it because there was not going to be a property tax.
I asked the Tánaiste specifically about the measures that will be pursued in the event of people not paying the tax. On the issue of tax compliance and the sniggers from his backbenchers and some of his Front Bench-----
That is not a snigger; that is responsibility.
The issue is a vast number of people simply cannot afford this tax, not that they are wishing not to be tax compliant. The Tánaiste should not try to lay this on the Revenue Commissioners. The legislation rushed through this House by the Labour Party and Fine Gael will allow this family tax to be taken from social welfare payments, wages and people's bank and credit union accounts. It is clear from the Government benches that some of its members are in the Land of Nod or in a parallel universe. How on earth can the Tánaiste justify a situation where the Government through the Revenue Commissioners will put its hand into the pockets of people who are struggling and will deduct this tax from a social welfare payment such as jobseeker's allowance or an old age pension or from people's wages, which have been cut or, worse still, will reach its hand into people's bank and credit union accounts? How does he defend that? He should not give us the line on tax compliance and smart alec rhetoric. People do not have the money. Does he grasp that? How does he defend a system whereby people who are struggling will have the hand of Government put into their pockets? If ever there was a case of heavy handed tactics by a government and the State against citizens and Big Brother government, this certainly is it. The Tánaiste should forget about the Revenue Commissioners; he is in charge. He should defend those measures for us.
What does one do in the North if one does not pay the property tax?
This is a much smaller tax than the property tax Sinn Féin has no difficulty with north of the Border. Sinn Féin's-----
Never mind Sinn Féin. What about the citizens?
Please allow the Tánaiste speak without interruption.
They have smaller services.
Do as I say, not as I do.
It seems to be okay for Deputy McDonald to get up and lash around any political------
Look at the-----
Will Deputy Ferris please afford the Tánaiste the opportunity to reply?
It is fine. Sinn Féin has always been ambiguous about free speech. Deputy McDonald seems to think that it is okay for her to make any political charge but when one replies in kind, there seems to be a problem with that.
I have asked two questions about the Government's legislation.
I will answer the question if the Deputy gives me the opportunity.
Will the Tánaiste defend them?
I am happy to answer the question but the Deputy should listen to the answer. The new property tax is nowhere near as high as the property tax that Sinn Féin has no difficulty in defending north of the Border. Sinn Féin's hypocrisy has no boundaries, either in terms of debate or territory. As far as the collection of the property tax is concerned, there are well established mechanisms in place for the collection of tax. This is a responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners, which will do a campaign, beginning next Monday, of informing householders of what is the estimated valuation of properties and what will be householders' tax liability. There will be a period within which householders may engage with the Revenue Commissioners about the valuation. If somebody believes the Revenue Commissioners have got the figure wrong, he or she can make a declaration to the Revenue Commissioners about the value of the property in question and this will be the value on which the property will be assessed. There will, therefore, be a period in which householders will be able to engage with the Revenue Commissioners on the issue.
Perhaps Sinn Féin will address the following issue. I note a campaign is under way urging people not to pay or co-operate with this tax. We have yet to hear whether Sinn Féin supports this campaign or whether, like other parties in the House-----
My question was whether the Tánaiste is defending the deduction of this tax from social welfare payments.
-----it will encourage householders to be compliant with the tax.
Is it okay to take the tax from people's bank accounts?
Deputy McDonald, please.
That was my question.
The Deputy demands silence when she is speaking and she should show the same courtesy when someone is replying to her.
The method of collecting taxes and the powers available to the Revenue Commissioners in cases where a tax is not paid are well known.
These are new powers.
The question is whether Sinn Féin supports them.
Last week, at the national conference of the Institute of Guidance Counsellors, new figures emerged indicating that guidance counsellor hours in second level schools had been cut by 25%. The figures, which were provided by the Minister for Education and Skills, were an upward revision of estimates made previously by guidance counsellors. The Minister failed to address a more revealing statistic, however, showing that cuts introduced last September have resulted in a 51% reduction in counselling services for essential one-to-one work at a time when, according to many school principals, demand for counselling services has reached crisis level.
The Tánaiste will be aware that guidance counselling is critical for second level students as they make important decisions to cope with a broad range of personal difficulties. School is a good place to nip in the bud the distress that may be experienced subsequently at significant social and fiscal cost to the State. The bottom line is that students are suffering as a result of these short-sighted cuts. An astonishing one in ten children is presenting with some form of depression or serious mental health problem.
The Tánaiste is aware that teenagers are especially reluctant to ask for help. For this reason, it matters more than ever that signs are detected early. Many of today's stress related problems were unknown to the older generation because they are linked to modern, fast-paced lifestyles. Body image, cyberbullying and severe peer pressure have all contributed to teenagers being at greater risk of depression, sometimes with disastrous and desperate consequences, including young people taking their life. Last week, I spoke to a school principal in Dublin who has attended two funerals of teenagers who have taken their lives.
Will the Tánaiste give a commitment to ring-fence funding for students? It is bad enough that they are saddled with a huge national debt and will leave school at a time when unemployment is at crisis levels. While I accept that budgets are tight, surely the happiness and well-being of our young people depends on the Government taking action rather than paying lip service to this issue?
In light of concerns expressed last year, the Department of Education and Skills requested that the National Council for Guidance Education, NCGE, carry out a review of schools' provision for guidance. The NCGE surveyed schools in March 2012 before the budget measure was introduced and the following October after its introduction. While its final report will be published in the coming months, initial findings were presented to the Department in preparation for the conference to which the Deputy referred. These findings suggest that schools continue to prioritise guidance programmes. The report also states there has been increased group work and class based activity at senior cycle, which is in keeping with best practice in guidance. Such best practice suggests that one-to-one guidance counselling is best conducted after such group work.
While there have been some reductions in the number of guidance hours available to schools, they are certainly not of the order claimed by some. Schools continue to provide and prioritise guidance. In terms of hours, the National Council for Guidance Education survey suggests there has been a reduction of approximately 25% in allocated hours for guidance. The reduction depends largely on school size and is as follows. In second level schools with fewer than 400 students, the reduction is, on average, four hours per week. These schools would typically have had a part-time guidance counsellor under the old allocation system. In second level schools with between 400 and 700 students, the reduction is, on average, five hours per week. These schools would typically have had one full-time guidance counsellor under the old allocation system. In large schools with more than 700 students, the reduction is, on average, 11.5 hours per week. These schools would typically have had more than one guidance counsellor under the old allocation system.
With respect, the Tánaiste misses my point. At issue is the provision of one-to-one counselling, not group counselling. For example, when a student presents who is gay or experiencing a problem of a personal nature at home, he or she does not want to discuss the matter in group counselling and will require one-to-one counselling. What is the point of supplying schools with documents on health initiatives, bullying programmes and so forth if sufficient resources are not available to implement them?
My facts and figures are always correct and I speak to people who work on the coalface dealing with the problem. I have spoken to seven or eight school principals in Dublin and Waterford who believe the position has reached a critical point. Students presenting with serious problems are increasingly unable to discuss them with someone. In some other European countries, a social worker is employed in every school specifically to deal with problems associated with teenagers growing up. As a consequence, teenage depression, mental health issues and, ultimately, the problem of young people deciding to leave this planet by taking their lives, have been comprehensively addressed.
While I do not wish to criticise the Tánaiste, it is of little use paying lip-service to this problem. I urge the Tánaiste to speak to school principals and parents because they will tell him that counselling in schools is in crisis. They need one-to-one counselling as opposed to group counselling.
Admirable work is done in schools. Work is done all the time at one-to-one level between individual teachers and students in cases where a teacher is either told of a particular problem or senses there is a problem and decides to act. The work done by school principals and guidance counsellors is far-reaching.
This is an issue to which the Minister for Education and Skills has given particular emphasis. He recently published guidelines on cyberbullying and a strategy and policy on well-being in schools which addresses the very issues Deputy Halligan raises.
As part of the reform of the junior certificate cycle, the issue of well being in schools is being integrated into it. This issue cannot be set aside or treated as a separate segment of school activity. It is a part of the overall work that is done in schools by teachers and principals working with pupils. A revised policy framework has been put in place by the Minister for Education and Skills.