Vol. 470 No. 8
119 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Social Welfare the interaction which takes place between his Department and the Department of Finance to ensure equity and consistency in view of the fact that a cohabiting couple cannot claim a married allowance, whereas at the same time the partner in such a relationship cannot claim from the Department of Social Welfare because of the means of the main earner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20135/96]
In general, the tax system treats cohabiting couples as two single people, while the social welfare system regards them as a couple. The current social welfare arrangements reflect the Supreme Court judgement in the Hyland case in May 1989. Mr. Hyland challenged provisions in the social welfare code which gave him, as a married man, a lower rate of unemployment assistance than he would have received if he was cohabiting. The Supreme Court ruled that these provisions were unconstitutional, in view of the State's pledge in the Constitution to guard with special care the institution of marriage and to protect it against attack. Following the Supreme Court judgment, the Government introduced legislation to extend the relevant provisions to cohabiting couples, so that all couples now receive the same treatment under the social welfare code.
However, the different treatment of married and cohabiting couples in the tax and social welfare systems causes problems for those affected by it. This question was examined in some detail by the expert working group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems. The group considered that, in the light of the constitutional protection for the family, it would not be possible to treat cohabiting couples as single people for social welfare purposes, unless the same treatment was extended to married couples as well. The group rejected such an approach for a number of reasons; it would be costly, ill-targeted, involving considerable redistribution between different types of households, and could have undesirable social effects.
The alternative approach would be to change the tax treatment of cohabiting couples. The expert group noted that, if this were done on the basis of a broad definition of cohabitation, it could pose problems of control, and it would be necessary to lay down strict conditions to define "cohabiting couples". The group recommended that consideration be given to the possibility of allowing for the joint taxation of cohabiting couples, in cases where such a couple have a child mainly resident with them, who is maintained wholly or mainly by the couple concerned. The findings of the group are being examined by the relevant Ministers, with a view to putting forward specific proposals for a structured implementation of the report.
120 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total cost to his Department of producing and posting the package of documents entitled Improving Your Security, which was posted to pensioners throughout the State under the joint names of himself and the Minister for Justice on paper containing the logos of the Garda Síochána and his Department; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that pensioners have received two copies of this package in some instances with different reference numbers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20156/96]
On foot of a recommendation of the task force for the elderly which I set up earlier this year, my Department, in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána, issued a mailshot to over 320,000 households throughout the country. The purpose of this was to provide practical advice on security measures, information on how savings may affect pensions and generally to allay fears among elderly people. The total cost to my Department in respect of production, printing and postage was £136,600.
I am aware of one particular case where a person received two copies of this information pack. This arose because the individual concerned was in the process of transferring from one pension type to another and the details were temporarily held on two files. It is possible that a small number of people in similar circumstances may have received a second copy of the information pack.
