asked the Minister for Finance if stay-at-home wives will be allowed to opt out of the £9.60 per week scheme and leave the full tax credit to their husbands.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wives' Tax Allowance.
15.
Yes. It is a matter for the stay-at-home wife to decide whether she wishes to receive the payment. If she decides that she would prefer that her husband should receive the married personal tax credit rather than that she herself should receive the £9.60 payment, she does not have to take any steps. She merely refrains from completing the personal tax credit payment form appended to the recent advertisement.
Could the Minister tell us if he will be making provision in the Finance Bill with regard to the £9.60 for an extra tax allowance to be made to families where that applies? We are led to believe it will take approximately £160 to process each application. Where applications have to be processed will the Minister make provision for that amount to be allowed to the husband as a tax credit?
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about when he mentions £160. Is he talking about administrative costs?
Yes.
There is no question that administrative costs in respect of individual applications will amount to that figure. That is pure fantasy.
Would the Minister clarify the point of the application date? If a person does not apply before 16 December will her eligibility be considered? I appreciate there may be some delay at that stage, but will she be allowed to apply?
That is a legitimate question, but a separate one, and is not part of the question raised by Deputy Ellis. Therefore it is not possible to reply to it without notice. I can assure the Deputy——
Surely the Minister can answer that.
——that I will reply to that question if it is put down in the normal way.
Arising from the Minister's earlier reply, did I understand him to say no cost would be involved?
The Deputy must not have been listening, probably because of the noise from his side of the House. I understood from Deputy Ellis that each application would cost £160 to process and I rejected that as fantastic.
What is the Minister's estimate?
Is the Minister saying it will be costless?
Of course not. No scheme is costless.
The Minister said it would be costless. In view of that fact, why did he authorise the Revenue Commissioners last week to break the Government embargo and recruit extra staff to implement the £9.60 scheme?
The Deputy is again straying into areas not strictly relevant to his question. The position is that I have authorised the Revenue Commissioners to enter into discussions with the relevant tax unions with a view to reaching agreement on whatever extra staff is needed. I can assure the House the applications will not cost £160 each in administrative expenses.
How much?
An insignificant amount relative to the great benefit which will be given to the housewives by a scheme which they supported in substantial numbers during the last election.
Apart from the Minister's embellishment, he rejected the estimate made by Deputy Ellis, presumably because he has a more accurate estimate. Would he tell the House what it is?
It would be premature to give any estimate until the discussions have taken place between the Revenue Commissioners and the relevant unions to decide what additional staff are needed. Until a decision has been reached on that point it would be premature to give any figure, but it would not be anything like £160.
How does the Minister know?
It stands to reason.
Is the Minister saying he does not know what the figure will be, but he rejects the estimate given by Deputy Ellis?
I am sure Deputy Colley would also reject Deputy Ellis's estimate if he gave the matter a moment's thought. Surely the Deputy is not serious when he says it will cost £160 to deal with one piece of paper? It would be premature for me to give an official estimate until the discussions I have authorised have been completed. That stands to reason.
Does the Minister agree that it will cost so much to process each application and the people who do not avail of this scheme will be paying for those who are availing of it?
The administrative costs will be relatively insignificant, but it is not possible to give a precise figure of administrative costs until the discussions between the Revenue Commissioners and the tax unions have been completed. When they are, if Deputies put down a question on administrative costs I will be happy to supply that information.
However insignificant it may be, it will cost something. If a family do not make an application, will they be allowed the appropriate tax free allowance?
This would be introducing a new concept into our tax system whereby administrative costs of a particular scheme are the basis for exemptions from tax generally. No previous tax has had any such provision and I would not envisage including it here either. The Opposition should stop cavilling about this scheme. They should realise this scheme has widespread public support and the Opposition are doing themselves no good by this carping attitude.
(Interruptions.)
16.
asked the Minister for Finance if the £9.60 per week for women in the home will be paid to the following categories: widows, old age pensioners, the unemployed, blind pensioners, unmarried mothers, deserted wives and the disabled.
17.
asked the Minister for Finance how the £9.60 per week will be paid to old age pensioners; and how the tax claw back will be operated in the case of the husband.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Question Nos. 16 and 17 together.
Information regarding the persons who qualify for the weekly payment of £9.60 is set out in the press advertisements now appearing. The payment applies only in the case of married couples living together. The wife working full-time in the family home whose income is not in excess of £1,040 and whose husband is liable for tax will qualify for the weekly payment. Where the total family taxable income is between £2,000 and £4,000 the weekly payment will also be paid to the stay-at-home wife. The treatment of social welfare payments in relation to eligibility for the £9.60 payment is still under consideration.
The legislation giving effect to the scheme, which will set out the various details of its operation, will shortly be introduced in the House.
In his reply the Minister referred us to the newspaper advertisements. Perhaps we should be reading the newspapers and not asking questions here. According to his answer to question No. 15, the Minister does not seem to know the cost of processing or whether one can apply at a date later than 16 December, but I want to ask about widows. Is the Minister saying categorically that widows are excluded? I raised the question of the widows because—
The Deputy is not allowed to make a speech. He should ask a brief question.
This is a family income supplement and is stated to be such in the advertisements to which the Minister referred. The widow is a single parent, a wife full time in the home. Will this allowance apply to a widow in that situation, because there is a benefit here of £27 million?
The widow will not qualify for the £9.60 allowance, but in accordance with the Government's programme she will qualify for a double tax credit. In other words, a widow will receive a tax credit equivalent to that which she and her husband, if he were alive, would receive. This is a major advance on the previous treatment of widows in our tax and welfare system.
Would the Minister agree that the improved tax allowances will be of very little benefit to the majority of widows because the only way they could benefit would be if the tax credit was turned into a direct payment? Will the Minister be frank and tell the House that the vast majority of women cannot benefit in any way under the scheme? In addition to the straight transfer, the Minister is giving a direct benefit of £25 million but he is not giving any of that benefit to widows in that position.
For the purpose of supplementaries the Deputy should ask a brief and relevant question.
In so far as they are tax payers, they will benefit greatly under the new provisions in regard to the double tax allowance which will be available to them. In so far as they are not tax payers but are receiving assistance under the social welfare code, they will be cared for by the Government under the social welfare provisions.
The Minister has referred to the advertisements in the public press and has been asked a question about the costs involved in implementing the scheme. I should like to know if he has taken into account — perhaps Deputy Ellis did — the cost of those advertisements when giving the House the figure of £160? Has the Minister included the cost of those advertisements when he replied that an application would not cost £160? He has not told us how much an application will cost and I should like to know if the costs I referred to have been considered.
I have already dealt at great length with the question of costs and I indicated that it would not be possible to give that information until certain discussions were complete. Deputy Ellis did not refer to the cost of advertisements or, indeed, to the costs at all in his original question, but his supplementary questions did. I attempted to answer them to the best of my ability although they were not strictly relevant to the question posed originally.
In order to clarify the matter, will the Minister confirm that any social welfare benefits are not regarded as taxable income and, therefore, the recipients of such benefits could never qualify for any improvement in tax free allowances?
That is correct. The improvements are not in the tax allowances because, as the Deputy is aware, we are doing away with personal tax allowances and the provision will be in the form of tax credits. However, the substance of what the Deputy has said is correct.
Is the Minister in a position to tell the House the number of widows who are in the taxable bracket? Many widows who own small farms got the impression from Fine Gael canvassers during the election campaign that they would get the £9.60. Will the Minister tell the House the number of widows who are in the taxable bracket and the number who will not be considered under the scheme?
No, that is a separate question. I do not have the information about the number of widows in the tax code, but I will be happy to obtain it for the Deputy. The Deputy made a reference to canvassers and so on in the general election and I should like to make it clear—
On a point of order, I should like to ask the Ceann Comhairle for an explanation of why he disallowed some questions of mine dealing with the interrelationship between the Whitegate Oil Refinery and the fact that I am not allowed examine Dublin Port and Docks Board's files?
The Deputy cannot have a discussion on that now. He has been told that if he wishes to discuss this matter he can do so in my office. The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
The Minister has not answered the second part of Question No. 17.
I am not responsible for ministerial replies.
Why am I not given a reply to my question?
On a point of order, I should like to give notice to the Chair that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the Minister for Finance, I propose to raise the subject matter of Question No. 15 on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
May I raise my question on the Adjournment?
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
That is not satisfactory.
I cannot be more satisfactory than that.
If I cannot get satisfaction in this House there is no hope for democracy.
I am surprised at the Deputy whom I have found to be most courteous. When I give him a reply it is not intended in any way to discriminate against him. I hope he believes that.
I want to be told in public the position about multi-national oil companies.
The Deputy is at liberty to discuss the matter with me in my office.
I do not want to discuss this in private. I want the public to know what has happened about Dublin Bay's future.