asked the Minister for Finance (a) the amount of the tax-free allowance on interest on savings; (b) the year in which this figure was first fixed.

Presumably the question refers to the exemption of interest on deposits with the Post Office Savings Bank, the trustee savings banks and certain commercial banks which is provided for under section 344 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, as amended. The first £70 of such interest, or, in effect, £140 in the case of a married couple, is exempt. This limit was fixed by section 8 of the Finance Act, 1967.

Was there corresponding legislation—whether repealed or consolidated, I do not know—at an earlier date than 1967 which also included the figure of £70?

There was.

When did the figure of £70 first crop up in this context?

The exemption was introduced in 1956; it was then £25.

So it has been £70 since 1956?

Seventy pounds since 1967. It was £25 when introduced in 1956.

For the last 12 years it has been £70. Has the Minister any idea of the relative value of £70 in 1967 money today?

There is nothing in the question about the relative value of money, Deputy.

I have one more question when the Minister has answered that.

If the Deputy will adhere to the subject matter of the question I will permit him.

The question asked the Minister on what date—I did not mention the figure of £70 but the Minister has revealed it—the figure of £70 was fixed? He has told the House in 1967. I am putting to him in the best way I know the very obvious reflection that it is time it was increased by reason of the fall in the value of the pound note.

That is not a question; it is a statement. This is not the time for making speeches.

Sir, I am asking an ordinary question but you keep sniping at me from the wings. How can I put this question to the Minister unless I do so in the way in which I am endeavouring?

Will I put the question for the Deputy? Would the Minister not agree that an increase in the allowance is long overdue? Is that not what the Deputy is asking?

The answer is that the overall operations of the tax code and the effectiveness of measures to encourage savings are kept under constant review. I do not think that an increase in the allowance would be appropriate at present but the matter will be kept under consideration.

But does not the State engage expensive advertising agencies to promote savings campaigns on its behalf? Would not the money so spent be more effectively spent in progressively increasing this allowance because the State does conduct savings campaigns?

The level of small savings, which is presumably what the Deputy has in mind, has been quite satisfactory on the whole.

But it could be better. Would I be right in thinking that the figure in England is also £70?

I am not sure about that—I think the Deputy is right—but I am not absolutely sure.

Usual paddywhack, but we can be perfectly sure that if England increases the figure then some urgent consideration will be given it here.

I would not be too sure of that, Deputy.