asked the Minister for Finance the basis on which it was stated in a public advertisement that only a small number of taxpayers earned in excess of £2,500 net income.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Income Limit.
89.
Mr. Kenny
Presumably the advertisement to which the Deputy refers is that published in the daily newspapers on 7th June, 1973, explaining the new provisions for obtaining a refund of the proposed increase in social welfare children's allowances through the income tax system in the case of individuals whose income in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts exceeds £2,500 a year. The advertisement did not state that only a small number of taxpayers earned in excess of £2,500 net income. It did, however, indicate that while all families with qualified children will receive the increased social welfare children's allowances a small group of high-income people will not benefit from the proposed increase. This statement is based on estimates which at this juncture are necessarily tentative and which suggest that only about 5 per cent of the total number of taxpayers will be affected by the new refund provisions.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the advertisement in question was of a party political propagandist nature rather than of an informative nature? Does he think it was proper to use public funds——
That is a separate question.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees with me. Does he think it is proper to use public funds——
That does not arise from the question on the Order Paper.
Mr. Kenny
I do not think——
The Parliamentary Secretary should not answer questions which are ruled out of order.
Is my question out of order?
It does not arise out of the question on the Order Paper.
The question refers to an advertisement which appeared in the public Press. I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, in his official capacity, about the nature of the advertisement.
If the Deputy wishes to get that information he will have to put down a separate question.
I think my question is a perfectly legitimate supplementary arising out of the nature of the question by Deputy Tunney, and I am simply asking the Parliamentary Secretary if it is his considered view that a propagandistic advertisement of this nature should properly have been paid for out of Departmental funds.