asked the Minister for Finance the number of people who applied to the Revenue Commissioners for the tax transfer of £9.60 which was brought in by the previous Government.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tax Transfer Applications.
4.
asked the Minister for Finance the number of applicant families who would have gained a family income supplement through the tax credit transfer payment of £9.60.
(Clare): I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
The total number of applications received was 49,492. This figure includes applications which, for various reasons, would not have qualified for the payment. It is tentatively estimated that the number of applications which would have qualified for the payment would be less than 40,000.
For budgetary purposes, the cost of the part of the scheme relating to family income supplement was estimated at £4 million which would have provided for about 20,000 applicants.
Given the campaign against this scheme waged from the day it was announced and given that it was a new and complex idea, would the Minister not agree that the figure of 49,000 represents a real and genuine interest by women in this scheme? If so, could he inform us if he or the Government have any plans to initiate a scheme whereby women working at home will be given legal rights to part of the family income?
(Clare): I am not aware of any plans.
Since the Government have no plans to give women working at home any rights to part of the family income, perhaps the Minister could tell us how the 60 additional staff taken on by the Department of Finance to administer this scheme are now employed.
(Clare): That is a separate question.
If the Government have decided not to go ahead with this scheme, for the administration of which a great many extra staff were employed, surely we should know what they are employed at if they are not to be involved in redistributing family incomes.
(Clare): I will let the Deputy know how they are employed.
How soon?
(Clare): Immediately, if possible.
Is the Minister aware that there is an embargo on new posts and that the Government have agreed, as did the previous Government, that only one vacancy in three shall be filled? Given that he has unnecessarily abandoned this scheme, how can the retention of these staff members be squared with his Government's statements in regard to controlling numbers in the public sector?
(Clare): I am aware of the effect of restrictions on the recruitment of staff. I meet it every day and it was not initiated by this Government.
It was a good thing, too.
(Clare): I am well aware that it is causing serious trouble where staff are needed in other areas.
(Interruptions.)
We ourselves did not know what the trouble was.
(Interruptions.)
A little order, please.
Arising out of of what has been said——
(Interruptions.)
Order, Please.
I am sorry that there is squabling over this issue, because it is important in principle. Is the Minister aware that this type of payment would have stood as giving women a legal right in terms of contributing to the home in cases of marital breakdowns? In those instances, it would have been very important and for that reason would the Government consider some such scheme in the future? At the moment, women at home without any income are not regarded as contributing to the home.
(Clare): The Deputy has mentioned women who are the victims of broken marriages. Surely legal arrangements can be made with regard to maintenance in that instance? Where social welfare benefits are concerned, payment can be apportioned to the wife, which is another instance. The question of considering something on the lines of the proposal of the previous Government has not arisen as far as I am aware.
A final supplementary question for Deputy Hussey.
Because Question No. 5 was taken together with Question No. 4, I have a supplementary question on Question No. 5. In view of the family income supplement part of the scheme being a component part of a package to give an incentive for low paid workers to stay at work, could the Minister tell the House how the £4 million set aside in the Coalition budget for the family income supplement is being used to give an incentive to the low paid to stay at work?
(Clare): It is being used for improvements in social welfare payments in the child allowance area.
That has the opposite effect.
In view of the fact that the group to whom the Government have given the £4 million are diametrically opposed to the group for whom it was originally intended, how can the Minister believe that giving social welfare recipients £4 million which was intended for the families of the low paid at work is an incentive for people to stay at work?
(Clare): That scheme was to be implemented on a phased basis. The number applying for the £9.50——
£9.60. The £9.50 was for ewes.
(Clare):——the £9.60, rather, was phased down to £4 where there was some tax available. Surely, there is nothing wrong with making this money available to those unfortunate enough to be on social welfare benefits? It is a good cause to which to allocate the £4 million, I would have thought.
There are many low-paid workers whose incomes are less than those of people on social welfare benefit, and even substantially less. From the figures that the Minister has given, would he not agree that the effect of this would be to deprive 20,000 families of low-paid workers of an average of £4 a week each to supplement their low earnings? Does he not agree that that is a most regressive and retrogressive step to have taken? Has he any proposals to do anything to help the families of low-paid workers who are often paid less than those on social welfare? Does he just not care about these people?
(Clare): The response, with regard to applications, was very poor under the whole scheme. It did not seem to arouse much interest among the stay-at-home wives.
It was not. It was extremely good. There were 50,000 applications.
The Minister has just said that 20,000 families of low-paid workers are involved in this.
Six quotas.
Quid pro quo.
Does the Minister suggest that it is a matter of minimal importance that there are 20,000 families being deprived of £4 a week — people who are limited to £50 to £70 a week to live on? Does the Minister consider that this is unimportant? Could I ask the Minister to ask the absent Minister to turn his attention to these people who are less well-off than social welfare benefits recipients in many cases and who work to keep themselves?
(Clare): I will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister, as the Deputy has asked.