It is sad that I have to drag the Minister back to discuss the subject matter of question No. 15 on today's Order Paper. I raise this matter because I feel as a taxpayer, and in the interests of other taxpayers, I am entitled to query the Minister in relation to a promise he made here last week. Last Thursday the Minister said he would have in the House before the Christmas Recess the necessary legislation to deal with the £9.60 per week scheme. However, yesterday the Taoiseach informed the Leader of our party that the Government were not in a position to have the legislation debated before Christmas. Like many others I believe that the wives of Ireland are not married to husbands who are so mean that they do not give them sufficient money to run the home. The decision of the Government to leave wives with the option of claiming £9.60 per week from their husband's tax allowance and paying it to them in the form of a weekly or monthly allowance is an invasion of the privacy of Irish homes. Earlier today I asked the Minister to tell the House the cost of implementing this scheme and I suggested a figure of £160 per person per year but the Minister denied that. However, in recent weeks the Minister admitted in the course of interviews that it will cost the State approximately £24 million to administer it. He also informed me that it would not be necessary to employ any extra people to implement the scheme.
Adjournment Debate. - Wives' Tax Allowance.
The Minister, in reply to me today, said it would not be necessary to employ extra people to implement the scheme.
I did not say any such thing.
If the Minister disagrees with me I advise him to check the record of the debate at Question Time.
I advise the Deputy to check the record.
I should like to point out that this scheme is totally discriminatory against those who do not wish to take part in it. If a wife decides not to take up the option her husband will have to contribute towards the implementation of the scheme. The Minister should tell the House if he proposes to grant an additional allowance to those couples who do not wish to partake in the scheme. When I asked that question earlier I did not get any answer but it is possible that the Minister has his own reason for not doing so.
He does not know.
I should like to compliment the Minister, and the Department, for outlining the position in this evening's newspapers. It is possible that the decision to do so arose out of my supplementary questions today. Tonight's Evening Press carries a headline, “Husbands Not Hit In Wives' Tax Deal”, and if that is the case I do not know where the Minister will get the money from. The Sunday newspapers carry advertisements outlining those who qualify for the £9.60 per week. I should like to know if the Minister is of the opinion that the wives of small farmers are entitled to receive that money. Does the Minister feel that the wives of unemployed men are entitled to receive the £9.60? Has the Minister considered unmarried mothers, deserted wives or disabled people? Many others should have been included by the Minister if he was to fulfil the election promises.
When will the Minister be in a position to bring the necessary legislation before the House? It is an insult to the integrity of husbands and wives that the Minister has decided to distribute a portion of the income of the wage earner. I wonder why the Minister did not make an allowance for the husband who stays at home while the wife goes out to work.
The Deputy should read the advertisement. The answer to that question is contained in it.
I would appreciate if the Minister remained silent.
The Deputy should read his brief before he comes in to the House.
The Minister should outline the position in relation to those who do not wish to take part in the scheme. An additional tax allowance should be given to such people to allow for the administrative cost of this scheme; otherwise the scheme is discriminatory. I wonder why the Minister did not answer that question today. I am not saying he was being evasive but it is possible that he did not expect such a question.
The Minister did not know.
I agree with what Deputy Fitzgerald has said behind me, that the Minister did not know——
He is changing the terms of the scheme every day.
The simple reason is that when we first heard about the scheme we were told it would be paid only to people who were paying tax. Then the next week we had another version. We have had other versions weekly since the Dáil resumed. I suppose there will be another version before it comes to the House.
I ask the Minister to study the position now to ascertain whether he will make available to the husbands of wives who do not participate in the scheme an amount of money — I suggested a figure today of £160 per year as being the cost of administering the scheme; the Minister denied that but was not in a position to say how much it would cost to administer the scheme per applicant — and I ask him this evening to tell the House, if he has the figures, how much the cost will be per person to administer the scheme. I honestly believe that the figure I suggested of £160 per applicant as representing the cost of administering the scheme was very conservative. I wonder what it cost to advertise the scheme in all the national newspapers on Sunday last. No doubt that will have to be included in the cost.
Other Deputies raised today the position of people who might be late in applying, who might wish to participate in the scheme after April next or enter on the day and make an application on the day. Will they be paid retrospectively or what will be their position? I honestly believe, as do a lot of other people in this country, that the Minister and his Government are not in a position to say how they will operate the scheme because they do not know; they do not honestly know where they can get the necessary finance with which to operate it. The Minister should let the people know that they have been conned. I honestly believe and have found — as did other candidates during the last general election — that the promises, as made by the Deputy's party regarding the £9.60 were made to all and sundry. Every woman who stayed at home was practically guaranteed that she would receive £9.60, and it was not that she would receive it from 6 April 1982 but that she would receive it within a month. It is no wonder the Minister throws back his head and sighs because it is he who must now carry the can for the non-implementation of the £9.60 weekly.
For the heady days of May, June and July.
No doubt the Minister has his own opinion with regard to the £9.60 but I feel he should explain to the people, as an honest man — and he has portrayed himself as such and no doubt is an honest man——
I thank the Deputy very much.
He was being used by his backroom boys.
We are a nation of honest men.
I would ask the man who is now the Minister's personal adviser, who no doubt had a large part to play in the formation of this plan, to tell him where he intends getting the £9.60, to tell him as well how he can make available to people who do not participate in the scheme the necessary extra cash or tax credit which would be sufficient to cover the administration of their application had they decided to participate in the scheme.
I hope the Minister will be able to answer my question. I would not have dragged him into the House this evening because we could all have found much better things to do after the close of business but, as we will not have an opportunity between now and possibly budget day——
The women will drag him out of the House.
Does the Deputy not want his constituents to get the £9.60?
Deputy Gay Mitchell can look after his own constituents; he need not worry, I will look after my own little corner. But I have no doubt that Deputy Mitchell, like all other Deputies on that side of the House will have women in their clinics looking for the £9.60——
He told a great number of women who will never see it.
——being told, in nice, curt replies from the Department of Finance that they do not qualify in view of their husbands' means.
Do not worry, the Deputy will blame the other Mitchell.
At that stage we will see whether Deputy Gay Mitchell is as vocal as he is this evening.
I said I proposed giving five minutes of my time to Deputy Flynn. I ask the Minister to tell me and the people of this country what he proposes to do in regard to the £9.60 scheme, admit that it was a con trick of the finest order.
This infamous advertisement that appeared in some of the newspapers of late is unprecedented in State advertising, in so far as it pre-empts budgetary change in taxation structures. The truth is that, under the Consumer Information Act, 1978, and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, the Revenue Commissioners, or their mentors, the Department, could be charged with misleading advertising. That is covered specifically in both those Acts. The truth of the matter is that the very heading of this advertisement states that there will be a payment of £9.60 to certain people. That is misleading and not true. This is a credit transfer and that in itself has been stated by the Minister for Finance. I have no doubt but that the Government could end up in court before the week is out. This advertisement is couched in the type of terminology not familiar to the ordinary citizen of this State, and for good a reason — to confuse them utterly. It is also confusing to established accountants and people involved in monetary business in this country because it refers them to no Act of Parliament of this country at this time and consequently is misleading on that front also.
As far as I am concerned, when it is all boiled down, there will be no net increase of family incomes because of the provisions of this so-called legislation to come forward. Therefore whether one has £10,000 or £8,000 a year coming in, one will be no better off after the deductions have been made from the husband to give to the wife. And when people realise that they will give their answers to this blatant misjudgment as far as the Coalition are concerned. As far as I am concerned it is selective, divisive and suggests, in paragraph 7, that the husband will be notified in due course that his income is being reduced by £9.60 a week to be given to his wife. In other words, they are suggesting to the wives to apply for it behind their husbands' backs. If that is not discriminatory I do not know what is. It constitutes blatant discrimination on the part of the Minister for Finance. He places a value on the status of some women in their homes but, on the women who will not get the £9.60 — who are the majority in this country — he places no value at all.
In a recent television interview the Minister for Finance suggested, and sniggered at the suggestion, that certain people would not get the benefit because, he said, they had not paid into it. He would not list those who would not qualify because certainly they will be more numerous than those who will qualify. The Minister's Department estimate that it will cost £17 million next year to implement the provisions of this lunatic policy, and that it will cost £24 million in subsequent years. I suggest to the good Minister for Finance if he could find a few other deserving areas in which he could spend this money, it would be better than giving it out by way of administration, taking £9.60 from a husband's income to transfer it to his wife, and that is all that is involved. It is an unnecessary intrusion into family arrangements. It has no basis in honesty and does not recognise the role of women in the home. He has no knowledge of the traditions of family life. Of course, he is not long married but in a little while he will have better knowledge in that area.
I happen to have a family like most people.
The Minister will be given his answer in due course from the very housewives he has attempted to con. Remember this advertisement will be framed and offered to the canvassers of the Coalition parties in due course at the next by-election. They will be given their answer in simple terms because there is no family who will benefit from this provision.
First, I should like to say in response to the very amusing contribution from the other side of the House that the details of this £9.60 scheme were put before the people in the last general election and the people voted for it in substantial numbers. That fact was recognised in no less than an editorial in The Irish Press which said the Government had a mandate to introduce the scheme since the scheme had commanded widespread support throughout the country. It surprises me now that the Deputies who take their inspiration from no less a journal than The Irish Press find themselves in open disagreement with that noted journal in relation to its opinion of the £9.60.
The Minister without interruption.
I regard this scheme as one of the most important innovations in our tax system and I would remind the Deputies opposite that for the first time wives are seeing their work recognised directly by the State.
Some of them.
In the past the work of the wife in the home was recognised indirectly. Either the husband got the tax allowance or additional dole money or additional disability benefit simply because he had a wife. She never got any money. He got the money. Alternatively, she got money in respect of her children but she never got money in her own right on the basis of the State and the community recognising the contribution made by her in the home not only to her family but to the community at large.
This Government put before the people in the last general election for the first time in the history of the State a proposal recognising the contribution made by these women and that proposal was massively endorsed by the people. Notwithstanding the criticisms and notwithstanding the carping by Deputies opposite we shall implement it.
The Minister without interruptions, please.
Deputy Ellis had the audacity to describe as an insult the payment of money to wives at home, giving them what the husband had previously been claiming on their behalf and, perhaps using to no benefit of theirs. He was speaking obviously on behalf of his party. Is that what he thinks of almost one half of his constituents? Does he regard it as an insult that the community should recognise the contribution being made by women at home? I do not regard it as an insult, and I and the Government intend to proceed with the scheme. We have the support of all the parties supporting the Government and when a general election comes, whenever that may be, I am perfectly certain the people will recognise this scheme as a major initiative and will give the Government who introduced it the endorsement it will undoubtedly deserve.
Deputy Ellis pretended that there are situations in homes where women are never left without the money they need. I quoted yesterday when a debate took place on almost exactly the same terms from a letter I received the day before from a wife who claims in that letter that her husband has an income of £15,000 a year, that he pays some of the groceries, the milk and, I think, the bread and possibly for his own clothes and an odd item for her but never gives her a single penny to assist towards the maintenance of the home. I am not saying that type of case is common, but there are such cases, and Deputies opposite know in their hearts and souls that there are such cases. We know the £9.60 will not solve the problem but it is at least a token step towards assisting women in that unfortunate situation who, because of the bad state of many marriages, have no money to call their own. I do not believe a scheme designed to meet that genuine social problem should be described, as it has been by the Deputies opposite, as an insult. I believe the Deputy who referred to the scheme in those terms will regret the use of tha language in respect of the scheme.
I come now to the question of the timing of the legislation. The Taoiseach made it clear that the legislation concerning this payment of £9.60 will be published before the Dáil goes into the Christmas recess. He said he did not include this particular item in the list of items that had to be taken before the Christmas recess which he had given to the Leader of the Opposition but he made it clear——
On a point of order.
There is no point of order.
——that if times were available and the other legislation were enacted before the Christmas recess this legislation would be introduced. He made it clear that all that was necessary from the point of view of the Revenue Commissioners in regard to the administration of the scheme was that the legislation should be published so that the Revenue Commissioners would know in precise detail in regard to each individual marginal case how the scheme would operate. Deputy Flynn tried to question the propriety of the Government in advertising the scheme. Did he want this scheme designed to benefit wives to be concealed from them? Did he not want those who might apply be denied the information which would enable them to apply? The scheme will come into operation on 5 April next. Obviously Deputy Flynn does not want it to come into operation, since he suggests there should have been no advertising of the scheme.
The publication of the scheme was necessary because it will take time to process the scheme. If we were to wait until after the Budget and invite people to apply in the middle of February there would be no time to process the applications. There would then be many wives who would be entitled to benefit under the scheme who would not benefit because the administrative difficulties would not have been overcome. The people who are entitled to this money will get it because we have advertised the scheme in good time and we are asking those eligible to apply now so that there will be adequate time in which to process all their applications.
To return now to the question posed by Deputy Ellis, which is supposed to be the basis of this debate, although Deputies opposite, presumably with your consent, Sir, wandered far away from the terms of the question itself, the question as to whether or not women will have a choice. Of course they will have a choice. If a woman does not want to apply there is no reason why she should apply. If her husband is a taxpayer paying his full tax liability the fact that the wife does not apply will not put the family in any worse financial situation because he will be able to pay £9.60 a week less tax as a result of her decision not to take the money. There is absolutely no element of compulsion on anyone to apply if she does not want to apply.
Deputy Ellis, although he and his colleagues sought to criticise at great length the fact that there was an advertisement in the public press, did not take the elementary precaution obviously of reading the advertisement they were so eloquent in condemning. Deputy Ellis asked would a husband at home looking after the household, whose wife was out of work, be able to apply. Deputy Ellis professed to be ignorant about this situation. I would refer Deputy Ellis to the footnote, and I quote: "In cases where the wife is the breadwinner and the husband works fulltime in the family home the husband may avail of the one half of the tax". I suggest Deputy Ellis reads the advertisement and refrains from coming in here to raise this question again.
Deputy Ellis tried to pretend I was being evasive when I denied the allegation made by him that this scheme would cost £160 for each applicant. Such a suggestion is quite ludicrous. The position is that we are not yet able to give a precise costing of the administration of the scheme for the very good reason that we are now in negotiation with staff representatives of the Revenue Commissioners to find agreement with them on an amicable basis as to how many additional staff will be needed for the administration of the scheme and, until such agreement has been reached, it will not be possible for us to put a cost on the total administrative expenses involved.
Tell the truth.
That information will be available as soon as negotiations are completed.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 November 1981.