I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, in the Table to subsection (1), to insert the following after the reference to section 141 (child):
"
Finance Act, 1971 |
||
Section 11 (blind person) |
165 |
302 |
Income Tax Act, 1967 |
||
Section 142 (dependent relative) |
95 |
173 |
"
This amendment is concerned with increasing the blind allowance and the dependent relative allowance. The blind allowance has not kept pace with increases in other allowances. Since 1974-75 the married allowance has increased ten times as much as the blind allowance. The allowance for a married person has increased by 178 per cent since 1974-75 while the allowance for a blind person has increased by only 17 per cent—one-tenth as much as the increase in the married allowance. The dependent relative allowance has increased by 18 per cent—again, by one-tenth as much as the increase in the allowance for a married person with no children. That is not right.
A dependent relative can cost as much to keep, if not more, than a wife. It does not seem right that a person supporting a dependent relative should have received an increase of only 18 per cent while a person supporting a wife has received an increase in his tax-free allowance of 178 per cent. It may cost much more to keep a dependent relative because of incidental expenses that may have to be met if the person is not in good health than to keep a spouse who is in good health; I realise I should not always use the word "wife" in this context because it may be the other way around, that the wife is supporting her husband.
The dependent relative allowance was introduced in the budget of 1956 at a rate of £60 and now in 1979 it is a mere £95. There has been an increase of only £35 in this allowance even though there has been a tremendous change in the cost of living since 1956. This is a meagre amount in a period of 23 years. It does not seem to be a very generous encouragement to people to look after a dependent relative in their own home. We hear from all sides of the House exhortations to families to look after relatives when they are unable to look after themselves. A lot of lip-service is paid to the great contribution of those who keep aged relatives at home, thus saving the Exchequer the immense amount that would have to be paid if they were committed to a county home or some other institution supported by the Exchequer. Yet when it comes to the tax code all we have been able to give to such a taxpayer is a meagre £35 increase in the tax-free allowance since 1956. That is not generous.
I believe the Minister is prepared to listen to the kind of case I am making in respect of individual allowances in the tax code. He demonstrated this very clearly in the improved allowance that he is giving in section 4 to one-parent families. That arises in substantial measure from a case made by this side of the House and which was accepted in general terms by the Minister in last year's Finance Bill about the problems of one-parent families. It was a credit to him that he was able to respond in great measure to the case made last year in this connection by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Barry, Deputy Eileen Desmond and myself. In section 4 the Minister has gone much of the way to meet the case we made and he deserves credit for that.
Therefore, it is not without a certain amount of optimism that I am making the case this year in respect of the dependent relative allowance and the blind allowance. The Minister has shown that he is able to meet a case. I can understand that he may not be able to meet this case this year because the Finance Bill has already been drawn and the sums on which it is based have been set out, but I hope that when he looks at next year's budget he will be able to do something radical about the dependent relative allowance. It certainly needs to be done when such a meagre increase has been given over the years by comparison with the increase given taxpayers in respect of supporting a spouse, as against another form of dependent relative.
The blind person's allowance was introduced in the 1971 budget at £100. It has been increased to £165—in eight years an increase of £65. It is not quite as bad as the record in relation to the dependent relative allowance but it is not very good, particularly when one realises that the number of blind people is so small that one can afford to be generous. We are talking of a tax free allowance to blind people who are working. We should make every effort to encourage people disabled in any way, in this case blind, to go out and work to support themselves, to become taxpayers, not only because of the contribution they can make to the community but also because if they are working the sense of value they get from it contributes greatly towards reducing the demoralising defects of their disability.
A tax free allowance is one of the very best ways in which one can help a disabled or blind person to achieve the most possible from their talents. Instead of giving them a dole, something for nothing, some social welfare allowance or a form of sheltered employment or something like that, you are giving them something which encourages them to go out and work on a normal basis like everybody else. You are saying: "It does not matter how much you earn; do as much as you can and you will get an extra allowance on your tax over and above what is available to anybody else." The blind person's allowance does precisely that; it encourages people to seek work. The allowance has been increased by a mere £65 since 1971 while the single person's allowance has increased from £249 to £1,115, by about £900 in the same period. That is not equitable. There should have been a proportionate increase. A proportion should have been kept between the single person's allowance and the blind person's allowance as regards increases. If the blind person's allowance had been increased by the same proportion as the single person's allowance it would now be in the region of £700 instead of £165.
The amendment I am putting forward, which is merely to increase the blind person's allowance from £165 to £302, goes only half way along the road one would be justified in going on the basis of the figures. It is not an over-generous amendment in regard to the blind. I arrived at the figure by taking 1974-75 as the base year and seeking to give the same percentage increase to the blind and the dependent relative allowance as has been given in the married couples' allowances since 1974-75. I could have got a much more generous figure if I had taken 1971 as the base year but I took 1974-75 because it was mid-term in the period of office of the previous Government and covers part of the term of office of this Government and the previous one. The record, when one is comparing it with what should be the case, is one for which both sides of the House bear responsibility and cannot be the subject of partisan discussion. There is a very strong case for giving substantial increases in the dependent relative and the blind person's allowances. These allowances tend to be forgotten in the Finance Bill because the numbers involved are not large. They do not form part of a big political constituency. None of them have influential organisations speaking for them. They are not one of the social partners and are not represented in the pay talks. If they do not agree with the Government policy—the blind and the dependent relatives—it will not mean there will be no national agreement. It will not mean people marching in the streets and that the Minister will be forced to climb down on his taxation proposals if these groups are not satisfied. It is perhaps because of their small size that successive Ministers for Finance have neglected to do anything meaningful about the blind persons and dependent relatives.
If this House has any purpose it is to represent those who are unrepresented in the type of discussions in which any Minister must take part, what is now described as a national understanding. Between now and the next Finance Bill I hope the Minister—if not on this occasion—will take a very close look at the record of his predecessors and himself in regard to blind allowances and dependent relative allowances and give a truly dramatic increase in both allowances in next year's budget.