They are expensive and they just do not have the money to pay solicitors and accountants to see to that. They may have to pay stamp duty on the annuity document. They may have quite a prolonged, frustrating correspondence and negotiation with the Revenue Commissioners to have it accepted and registered. The Revenue Commissioners raise all sorts of questions — I would not say difficulties but they raise questions — as to proof that the money has been paid; they ask for affidavits to verify that it has been paid and so on. All of that costs money and trouble. We must remember we are talking here of people on very low incomes.
There is a principle involved in all of this. Let us accept the principle. If the Minister is saying they can rectify the position by the back door, by entering into annuity deeds, why not rectify the position up-front, recognise that such circumstances exist, say: we do not want to put these people through the mill of a whole legal gobbledegook, a fictional arrangement to provide for something we know is right, that should be provided for by law in the normal way. When they establish that a permanent liaison exists, the same income tax regime should apply to them as would apply if they were married. For all practical purposes in their relationships such people live together for very many years, are devoted to each other, the relationship is permanent and they have children. It is exactly the same as a family arrangement or unit and should be regarded as such. There is nothing unconstitutional about it any more than there is in recognising the rights of non-marital children. That is one aspect of it.
When the male partner of a non-marital liaison dies the female partner remaining is in a particularly indivious position. Had she been his wife she would have been entitled to a widowed person's allowance of £2,550. She has no such entitlement because, technically speaking, she is not the widow. Then we are faced with the strange position that the widow's allowance would go to the original "wife"— in parenthesis — whom the man might not have seen for 20 or even 30 years and who is then very likely living with somebody else in a different non-marital liaison. Where is the logic of saying that the former wife should have the benefit of the widowed person's allowance rather than the woman that man has been living with for, say, 25 years, who may have brought up a family of three, four or five children?
These are the kinds of illogicalities we are allowing prevail within our tax system when we fail to recognise circumstances staring us in the face, that we know are widespread in this country. Rather we go through this pretence, this cod, of convincing ourselves, saying: Ah, no, this woman he has not laid eyes on for 20 years is his wife; she is the person who is entitled to receive the widowed person's allowance; we pretend that she is the person with such entitlement, as though they were married in the normal way and everything was normal as in an ideal relationship. Why do we deal with it by messing about with annuity deeds, fixing up the position and not recognising the reality but rather dealing with it all by way of pretence?
There are other adverse effects, not just in respect of the widow's allowance or the income tax allowance that a spouse would normally receive. It applies also to mortgage interest relief. For example, a widow would be entitled to mortgage interest relief of £2,320 whereas the partner in a non-marital liaison left widowed for all practical purposes would receive no mortgage interest relief whatsoever. Likewise in the case of age allowance, a married couple would receive £400 which would not apply in the case of non-marital relationships.
Those are the anomalies prevailing. We must recognise that we are now in the nineties in Ireland. We accept that marital breakdown occurs; we accept that judicial separation decrees are given; we accept that separation agreements are entered into. These tax consequences flow from a recognition of these circumstances. It is no good pretending that they do not exist. It is sad, unfortunate, one would wish it did not happen, but it is all too widespread. The numbers of cases are increasing in which judicial separation orders are made. The effect of such orders is a complete break between husband and wife when they become completely separate people. As I said yesterday it is exactly the same as a divorce for every single purpose except as to their right to remarry. It has tax implications. Let us recognise them and deal with the position as it obtains.
There are details to be worked out in any endeavour to abolish this discrimination. I am not specifically legislating by way of this amendment. I am simply suggesting an enabling provision to allow the Minister make regulations to sort out the details. It would constitute a tremendous saving and give relief to so many thousands of couples up and down the country in this position. I had one such person in my office a few weeks ago, a bus conductor with Bus Áth Cliath. He has a fair salary from that position, nothing to write home about. He was married before, has been separated from his former wife for many a long year. He is living with this woman, they have children, and find themselves in a hopeless financial position. His taxation is crippling them. In order to alleviate their position I have to set about the whole rigmarole with regard to annuity deeds which I am endeavouring to undertake for him, and which is complex. The Revenue Commissioners are not as accommodating as they might be on this issue and they are slow enough.
We must remember that, even when an annuity deed has been negotiated and signed and they endeavour to obtain the refund to which they are then entitled, they must wait a whole year before the processing of the application for the refund is completed. In other words, for the whole of the relevant year they have to suffer and get by. I would remind the Minister that they do suffer hardship in not having sufficient food on the table, sufficient clothing, sufficient school books for their children. I am talking about one salary earner, the wages of a bus conductor with Bus Áth Cliath — that is all the income coming into that household. He is taxed as a single man although his family unit consists of himself, the woman concerned and three young children. They are suffering financially. All right, come the middle of the year, I suppose he will receive his refund but he must wait a long time for it.
The Revenue Commissioners want proof that the annuity money was paid week on week or month on month, whatever. They do not even accept a statement to that effect. That is the case even though these people living as a family unit. For example, the couple were given a local authority house. In additon, affidavits were required of both the woman and the man, and that is expensive. Then one must correspond with and get clearance from the Revenue Commissioners. I can tell the Minister that, as a result of his staff cutbacks, a reply from the Revenue Commissoners will not be forthcoming within the week or the month either. It is a long, slow haul. By the time one finds the right Department, one's correspondence having passed from this to that section, from this to that PAYE unit, from one premises to the other, it becomes a cumbersome, lengthy process. I have experience of it.
I have processed one or two of these applications and, believe me, it is quite a headache. If one were to charge, as do most solicitors and accountants, the full scale fees, it would be quite a pricey, expensive operation, not the kind that a bus conductor employed by Bus Áth Cliath could readily afford. He is discriminated against and suffers in a way the wealthy person does not. What I am asking for here is fair, reasonable and equitable. It is also unanswerable. The Minister in his heart knows that it is unanswerable and that logic requires what is being sought in the amendment. I look forward with interest to hearing how he is going to approach the answer.
