I wish to thank the Chair for permitting me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I will be raising an individual case but the issue probably affects thousands of cohabiting couples in this State.
The case concerns a young woman who had been working for ten years and paying tax and PRSI. When she lost her job she qualified for unemployment benefit in the normal way. Eventually her unemployment benefit ran out and she went on to unemployment assistance about a year ago. As Deputies will know, unemployment assistance is means-tested. First, the woman's entitlement was reduced because one day per week she worked in a local pub, which she declared and for which she paid the J rate of social insurance. She has no dispute with that deduction.
The woman's grievance concerns a further deduction of £52 per week from her remaining £59 per week. That deduction was in respect of — as was stated in a letter from the Department of Social Welfare —"benefit and privilege from common law husband's net weekly earnings after allowing for travelling expenses." In other words, the young woman is regarded as a dependent by the Department of Social Welfare and is paid £7 per week by that Department for herself and her three and a half year old child because of the income of her common law husband. That might be understandable if the woman's common law husband could claim income tax relief for her as a dependent, but he cannot.
The couple have been living together for seven years, they have a three and a half year old child and are jointly purchasing their house. They cannot get married because the man was married before and this State does not permit divorce and remarriage. The State's money-collecting arm, however, the Revenue Commissioners, recognise them as single people and under our tax law will not allow the income tax relief normally enjoyed by married couples. When it comes to paying out money, however, the State, through the Department of Social Welfare, considers them as if they were a married couple.
There is clearly an anomaly here. The woman has exhausted the Department of Social Welfare appeals procedure and has asked me to take the matter up in the Dáil. I know there are many couples who are in perfectly stable family relationships, unable to get married because of our perverse attitude to divorce and losing out financially because one arm of the State considers them to be married and the other arm considers them to be single. I appeal for consistency in this matter. Either the Department of Social Welfare should recognise relationships such as this or the Minister for Finance, and the Revenue Commissioners, should regard them in the same way as the Department of Social Welfare, that they are effectively married, and should allow them to claim the normal married tax allowance.
If it is not possible for the Minister for Social Welfare to ensure that this young women is paid the level of unemployment assistance to which she would be entitled if she was considered a single person then it is incumbent on the Government, perhaps in the context of the Finance Bill before the Dáil, to remedy the tax anomaly and permit cohabiting couples such as this one to benefit from the normal tax allowance available to married couples.
