asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that in a case where an applicant for a non-contributory old age pension has a husband who is working, even on a casual basis, she is assessed in her claim on the gross earnings of her husband except for what is allowed under PRSI; if he is aware that income tax and other deductions are not taken into account; and if he will make a statement on the matter with a view to having this anomaly removed.

In assessing means for old age pension purposes in the case of a married couple, the total means of the couple are established and the applicant is assessed with half the joint means. Under the legislation, account must be taken of any income in cash which is likely to be received during the succeeding year. In the case of earnings from employment, gross income is assessed but all expenses actually and necessarily incurred in earning the income are allowed as a deduction. PRSI contributions are regarded as an expense arising from employment and are allowed as a deduction. Income tax, however, is not regarded as such.

The method of assessment is in accordance with the statutory provisions, and it is not considered that any change is warranted in the legislation which would have the effect of providing tax relief through the social assistance system. In any event, in the case of old age pensioners, entitlement to pension is not in general affected by the fact that gross income rather than after tax income is assessed as means. The exemption limits for income tax purposes are such that persons whose incomes exceed these limits and who are, consequently, liable for tax would generally not qualify for pensions, even if the after tax income rather than the gross income were taken into account in assessing means.

Having regard to the veiled apology in the Minister's reply, would he now agree with me that it is about time that the law was changed and that income tax deductions be taken into account as far as income is concerned in the case of applicants who are old age pensioners and non-contributory old age pensioners? Would he not think it fair, proper and just, to say the least, that allowances be made for moneys paid in income tax?

If there were additional resources available to me to give some supplementary payments to old age pensioners, I would not be inclined to apply them in the way the Deputy suggests. The greater the income tax deduction, the greater the income of the applicant for the pension; the greater the income of the applicant for the pension, the less need there is for a non-contributory pension. I would not see it as a fair way of distributing any extra resources which might become available to do what the Deputy suggests. I would not do it in that way.

12.