Before condemning the measure Charlie McCreevy has taken to reduce the net tax benefit to the non-working spouse, I feel it would be beneficial to look at the history of how women at home have been treated by the State. Until April 1980, the only recognition given to the woman at home was through a tax-free allowance given to her husband, the net value of which was between £250 and £600 per annum, depending on the income of her husband.

In the 1980 budget, resulting from the outcome of the Murphy case, the State gave further recognition to the wife at home by enabling her husband to double his personal tax-free allowance and tax bands (income splitting), which at that time appeared to be a major step forward.

However, having calculated the net benefits which accrued from this measure, it became clear that higher income couples gained considerably more than the lower income group, while some families (e.g. the unemployed and very low earners) gained nothing.

This blunt instrument was used by George Colley (then finance minister) in the 1980 budget. It cost the taxpayers £72 million and the first table below outlines the distribution of this expenditure.

The remaining £4.5 million benefited married couples who were both working, where one partner earned considerably more than the other. It is difficult to comprehend why the trade union movement, which at that stage was rallying the troops on the streets to demand a fairer tax system, stood by and allowed this redistribution of wealth from poor to rich.

The same tax regime applied from 1980 to the present, until Wednesday's Budget. I'm not saying I fully agree with the manner in which Charlie McCreevy introduced the proposed change to the treatment of married couples in the tax system, but he deserves to be congratulated for attempting to deal with an extremely complex issue and highlighting the anomalous and iniquitous system that pertains at present. Before we go completely hysterical on this issue, I feel we should take a cold, hard look at some of the facts about the proposed changes, as outlined in the second table below.

As the figures indicate, there is actually a net gain of £26 per annum to a single-income couple earning £12,500 and a fairly marginal loss for the £15,000-income couple. Unless we tackle the inequality in the present treatment of married couples, it is difficult to imagine how any real and fair tax reform can take place.

The Minister talked about moving in the direction of individual treatment for all taxpayers. I feel this is a sound proposal, provided he treats those employed in caring for children as worthy of being paid a minimum allowance in their own right.

I would urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this proposal, otherwise we will further discourage couples from having children. In families where both spouses decide to work, and incur a legitimate expense in having their children minded, then I can see no reason why this expense cannot be taken into account in computing their tax liability.

This would provide couples and individuals, married or single, with a choice as to whether to stay at home or develop a career. I feel the issue here is not whether people are married or single, but the responsibility they carry in rearing children. If a childcare tax allowance was introduced, it would professionalise the whole childcare domain and help reduce the black economy.

Incidently, the issues raised here have been spelt out ad nauseum by a lobby group, Challenge, since 1980 to politicians, public servants, economists, the National Women's Council, the Women's Political Association, etc. The silence was deafening! It's ironic that the small change the Minister has proposed in the Budget should cause such an outcry from people purporting to be concerned with the vulnerable in our society.

If they are so concerned, then why did they not allow their voices to be heard in looking for some financial recompense for women at home whose husbands are earning too little to benefit from any tax system.

Anne O'Reilly founded a pressure group, Challenge, which campaigned against the Colley budget