Question No. 4. I am sure I speak for all the Members of the House when I say that we regret the circumstances under which the Deputy who has tabled the question is not present. We send him our best wishes.

I am glad that you have reminded us all of that fact and we wish Deputy Cluskey well.

4.

asked the Minister for Finance the plans, if any, there are to give the tenants of private rented flats and houses a tax allowance against their PAYE receipts for certified rent paid in a manner not dissimilar to that currently enjoyed by mortgage holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Income tax relief is already available for rent paid by persons aged 55 years or over in respect of private tenancies up to a maximum of £750 in the case of a single person or £1,500 in the case of a married man assessed to tax in respect of his own and his wife's combined income. I have no plans to introduce a scheme of relief along the lines suggested by the Deputy.

Can the Minister tell us whether an estimate has been prepared in his Department as to the cost of extending the scheme? Would he not agree that it is both anomalous and regressive that council tenants who have opted for the purchase scheme can offset their new payments against their tax while their neighbours who are living under the same circumstances cannot offset their rents against their tax?

It is a concession. About 2,500 taxpayers claimed relief under the present scheme but the potential number of claimants is probably much higher. The cost to the Exchequer at present is £1 million. In regard to the possible cost of extending it right across the board we are told that 200,000 taxpayers are in rented accommodation and if the average cost per person in terms of tax foregone remains at its present level of £400 per annum, despite the increase in the limits, the cost of the proposal could be over £80 million a year.

Have the Minister's Department gone to the trouble of setting a notional figure and multiplying it by the 200,000 net payers? Have they gone a little further in examining the other part of my question and do they not agree that it is anomalous and regressive to allow people in similar circumstances by virtue of their ability to own property to enjoy cash benefits and to tell other people that because they have no such resources and are simply tenants they cannot get tax benefits? Does he agree that it is anomalous and regressive to exclude rent tenants?

I introduced the scheme myself in 1982 for those over 65 and it has been reduced since then to the age of 55 years. As I said in my reply, I have no plans at the moment to introduce any further reliefs in this regard.