I want to support Deputy Rabbitte. Section 15 is about penalising the sick who are on disability benefit, those unfortunate enough to be unemployed, those who have suffered industrial injuries and those who are on pay-related benefit, by taxing them. Coming from this Coalition Government this is nothing short of outrageous and totally unacceptable to those in benefit who have paid 7.75 per cent under the social insurance code.
The reason this amendment must win out here today is because these people have already been horrendously victimised in the Social Welfare Bill. If the Government were implementing the recommendations of the report on social welfare and payments were at the level recommended in 1985 it would be another matter. In 1985 it was argued that the minimum basic payment should be between £50 and £60 a week. By today's standards that would be between £62 and £72 a week. Even though there is an increase of 6 per cent this year, unemployment benefit, disability benefit, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowances are still only at £53 a week, at least £10 behind the figure recommended in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare.
What is the logic behind penalising yet again those who are unfortunate enough to be ill, injured or unemployed? Why should unemployment benefit drawn by a person who is unlucky enough to be unemployed be treated as income when all it does is to put bread and butter on the table of the family man or woman who has been unfortunate enough to lose his or her job? Is the Minister to penalise such people if ever they should get employment after that second six-month period so that they will be deemed to have earned during the period of their unemployment?
It is important to note that as a proportion of the overall budget the social welfare budget has been declining, expenditure on social welfare as a percentage of the gross domestic product has also been declining and the Exchequer contribution, as distinct from the social insurance contribution to social welfare, has been declining.
Every politician who has his finger on the pulse of the electorate knows, for example, that old age pensioners, both men and women, who have worked all their lives and who are in receipt of a small contributory old age pension from CIE, Dublin Corporation or the ESB are outraged that they are to be caught in the tax net. How can the Minister expect us to stand over this section of the Bill given the scandals that are hitting the headlines every day of the week involving people with vast incomes who are not paying their fair share?
As regards the famous annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I wish to remind the House that if there is to be equity and if the meagre social insurance payments of those in receipt of disability benefit and the unemployed are to be deemed as income, then the full force of the law must be used against those employers who according to the report owe the State £137 million in pay-related social insurance contributions. When are we going to hear that employers will be sent to jail and the tax code will be implemented fairly?
In his report the Comptroller and Auditor General deals specifically with the self-assessment system, which was considered to be a progressive change in taxation policy and was introduced after hundreds of thousands of men and women took part in a major demonstration to call for tax reform. The Comptroller and Auditor General commented on the inability of the Revenue Commissioners to collect the vast sums of money outstanding and stated that they had informed him that their audit visits, under all programmes, only impacted on 9 per cent of the taxpayer base in 1990. He went on to say that less than 1 per cent of cases had been subjected to a full self-assessment audit.
There are people in this society who are making huge sums of money. The Minister's colleagues in Fianna Fáil sometimes argue that there is approximately £1 billion, on which tax should have been paid, in offshore accounts in the Isle of Man, Jersey, etc., and that the Minister is thinking of ways to entice that money back to this country. When the Minister proves to this House, to the average PAYE worker and to the unfortunate recipients of disability benefit and unemployment assistance that he intends to go after those elements in our society who have milked the system, we might be in a position to consider his suggestion that social insurance payments should be deemed as income for tax purposes. It is only when we see company directors, landlords and the long list of tax evaders whose names are published annually being sent to jail and not given a slight slap on the hand, that we will be convinced that the Minister is determined to achieve equity in the taxation code. I wholeheartedly support Deputy Rabbitte's amendment.