In Question No. 13 on to-day's Order Paper I raised the question of the position of county hospital nurses in Portlaoise. The problem is, of course, a general one and I raised it conscious of the fact that the Minister for Health himself, and he has responsibility to this House for the pay, conditions and general regulations relating to nurses, would not stand over the grievance dealt with in this question.
It appears that some time ago the organisation representing county nurses, both lay and religious, entered into an agreement with the Minister in relation to their terms and conditions of pay. Up to that time nurses in county hospitals were paid a basic salary, not very much, which was intended to provide for them something over and above their board, lodging, uniform and other matters of that kind.
Let us assume that the basic salary was £x: they were then entitled to free board and lodging, uniform and certain other emoluments. As a result of the agreement entered into with the Minister, board, lodging, uniform and the other emoluments were valued for the first time. Let us assume they were valued at £y. Nurses were then paid a gross salary of £x plus £y, but the £y was naturally never paid to them and was retained, as it always had been, by the local authorities and nurses continued to receive merely their basic salary.
So far as the ordinary nurses were concerned, they felt that things were very much the same. They still got their basic salary; they still got their board and lodging and they still got their uniform. However, things were not the same because this year an income-tax assessment has been raised on every one of them, both lay and religious, on the gross salary calculated in agreement with the Minister. Accordingly, they were assessed for tax and were taxed in respect of income which they never received.
I said, in effect, in the question which I put down to the Minister that this liability for tax was completely unexpected by them. The Minister said that it was discussed with the staff organisation. I am sure that is so, but so far as the ordinary nurses are concerned I repeat that not one of them contemplated for one minute that the change in the basis of their pay would mean that they would be made liable for tax on the value of the emoluments which they have always received. The position now is—I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister in the hope that he will see the justice of what I am saying—that a young probationer nurse in, say, the county hospital of Portlaoise or in any of the other county hospitals who is paid say—I do not know the scales— something around £150 per year or £3 per week, and sends some of it home, is left with about £2 per week for whatever pleasures a young nurse may look forward to. I know of one case where a young nurse does that. In the case of that particular probationer nurse there is now a tax assessment on her which she cannot possibly meet. The injustice, of course, arises in a more marked degree in the case of the older nurses who are paid a slightly higher basic salary. They have been assessed for tax this year for a lump sum of round about £25 or £30 which they cannot pay.
I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the whole matter. It is obvious that whatever slight improvement has come to the nurses in regard to their conditions and pay is being neutralised by the imposition of this tax on them. I am quite certain that the local authorities throughout the country would co-operate with the Minister if he suggested that this tax liability should be borne by each of the local authorities. I was hopeful that the Minister for Finance might be able to deal with this matter as a legislative proposal in the new Finance Bill. I know that is not a matter over which the Minister for Health can exercise any responsibility. It is a matter however, that I am sure the Minister is aware of, and the fact is that it is important. This liability for tax does not arise because of any clear section in the Income-Tax Act. It arises because of a tax case decision some years ago. The decision in that tax case did not appear, certainly before it was made, to cover the intention of the Income-Tax Act of 1918, but it is now case law and, as it applies to these nurses, it is causing quite considerable hardship.
I would urge the Minister to reconsider the whole matter in conjunction with the local authorities involved. If he would do so, I am quite certain that some reasonable scheme could be adopted whereby these unfortunate girls would not be asked to meet quite a large liability in tax at the end of the year. They have no fund out of which to provide for it. The imposition of the tax works a very considerable hardship on them.
