Deputy Lenihan spoke about the need for some relief or some incentive scheme to create jobs. I have been most specific in this area. I would like to see three specific measures for employment creation in the Bill. I welcome a number of the measures in the Bill and I consider them as a recognition of some of the arguments put forward since the budget was introduced. In regard to employment creation I should like to tell the House that in the United States there is a jobs tax credit scheme whereby employers get a credit on their tax liability, whether it is liability on the profits of the company, PAYE or PRSI, for every extra employee taken on. It amounts to $1,800 in the first year and $900 in the second year. I accept that the drafting of such a scheme would be complex but I suggest that next year the Finance Bill should contain a jobs tax credit scheme under which any employer will get relief in the first year amounting to £400 and in the second year £200 against any tax liabilities. That would be an incentive to employers and coupled with the enterprise allowance and business expansion schemes, would represent a three-pronged approach towards employment creation.
Another area that would be useful for employment creation would be an extension of the £10 per week corporation tax relief for extra employees in the service sector. I do not know how much that would cost but such an extension would be useful. Other countries are more open-minded about employment creation in the service sector. I take the point that manufacturing industry, agriculture and so on, are primarily wealth producers. Employment in terms of numbers can be taken up in the service sector and this £10 per week extension of the corporation tax relief would be one way of doing it.
In relation to employment creation tax reliefs, there must be some way to look for rebates on the PRSI contributions of employers. If on foot of these three forms of relief people would take on workers for a minimum of a year or two years there could be avoidance of displacement of staff, people who get sick or have babies or retire.
I should like to refer to the business expansion scheme provided for in Chapter III of the Bill. Ironically, I have in front of me a statement I released on 15 January calling for an income tax relief scheme in the budget to generate new finance for industry from individual investors. I am sorry that in paragraph 3 I suggested that the full income tax relief would be available for sums up to £25,000 per annum provided the investment would remain in the company for five years, and that eligibility of dividends and capital for tax relief would remain unaltered. Having looked at the UK scheme in relation to business I have a number of queries. First of all I welcome the Minister's initiative and it is very important that we appreciate the dual need in this area, particularly the need of small indigenous business which is starved for capital. We saw evidence of this in a report commissioned by the NESC which states that there are many companies whose capital base is weak, they are over-burdened with loans whose repayment crippled their profitability in net terms. The report stated that they need increased share capital. At the same time, we see married people whose net incomes from £25,000 is not more than £6,500. We have the dual problem of people being over-taxed on a personal basis and small companies who need finance.
This scheme goes some way towards meeting that dual need. I welcome the move to issue this benefit solely to non-quoted companies. Companies that are on the Stock Exchange, through the issue of these new ordinary shares without the preferential rights, will be given the type of risk capital that they require. The Small Businesses Committee, of which I am Chairman, have a proposal, which I hope will get due regard, to establish on the Stock Exchange a small businesses division whereby equity can be raised in that way.
I have a number of queries in relation to Chapter III. Is there any restriction on the company's capital structure? In other words, does the tax relief equity that goes into the company have to be 50 per cent of the total equity capital of the company, or is there a limit? In the parallel scheme in the UK there is a limit of 50 per cent but in the business expansion scheme there, introduced on 1983, that provision was scrapped. This scheme will apply to Irish residents only and in the UK it applies to UK residents only. What would the potential be if this was extended to EEC citizenship, considering that these people might bring money into the country which might otherwise not be brought here. Is there a potential to attract overseas investment by loosening up that provision in regard to Irish residents?
Will there be any controls on individuals who might buy these shares? An individual might want to invest in a company and he might well have a controlling share in a competing company carrying out similar trade. One can think of many types of manufacturing industries in which that would apply. Will there be some vetting procedure on individuals to analyse what their motivation is in purchasing shares in a company?
Are co-ops eligible for the whole scheme? In relation to individual taxpayers in such companies, I notice that qualifiers cannot be paid directors, partners or their spouses. If you allow employees, who in some instances might be taking more money from the company than directors, to qualify, is it not slightly unfair to exclude directors who have a legitimate vested interest in the company, as do the employees? Is there not a contradiction there? People in a company in which I am involved get payment purely by way of travelling expenses or reimbursement of certain expenses. Would that be considered here in order to determine whether a person was a paid director? Where in the Act will the terms in relation to remuneration of directors be laid down? Perhaps these points are laid out in every section of the Bill but I find it very difficult to make out the legal lingo of the Finance Bill. I hope some of these questions will be taken up and answers given to them either on this Stage or on Committee Stage.
I have figures available on a pro rata application here of the UK scheme to suggest that probably £3 million of investors' money would be taken up under this scheme. It may be totally unfair to do such a pro rata assessment but I feel, and the Small Businesses Committee will be recommending, that this should be extended ultimately atter we get over the teething problems of the first year of operation to allow some provision for pension funds and insurance corporations to invest. Young, small, indigenous industries are vulnerable and money should be directed towards them, possibly away from Government gilts or land speculation. Funds should be directed into the productive sector that will be creating and adding to our wealth. I hope the Minister and the Department will have discussions with the Stock Exchange with a view to having a small business section. I should like to inquire about the up-to-date position in regard to approved investment funds or unit trusts being established here as in the UK.
In relation to tax-based lending for which there is provision in section 84, I whole-heartedly welcome the change there. It is not only prudent but it will be extremely beneficial. It is a misnomer to describe section 84 lending as a concession to the banks. I do not accept that. Any concession is passed on to the clients of the bank that is borrowing the money and availing of the cheaper money, and any restriction on section 84 lending will penalise the businesses concerned and not the banks. Any argument in relation to the bank levy is outside the question of providing cheaper lending rates to certain types of businesses. With this modification, however, I still think tourism is neglected from the point of view of loans. Hoteliers and so on cannot get grants, though Bord Fáilte have a scheme, which is not extensive—the total Bord Fáilte budget is £23 million. There is not immediate scope here for helping hoteliers, who have been going through a rough time. Section 84, therefore, should be revised to include tourism and possibly the construction industry.
If we look at the inter-bank rate for the three months period ending last September and compare the Irish rate with the overseas rate, we notice that the inter-bank rate here is 12½ per cent, in the US and UK it is 9½ per cent, in Japan, 6.8 per cent, Germany, 5.8 per cent — all significantly less. This shows that we must have cheaper lending rates to help businesses, especially the small businesses which are trying to expand. This modification will help to restore our competitive position, profitability and employment.
The growth in and the demand for this type of loan speaks for itself. It is ironic that the Central Bank when making a submission to the Commission on Taxation in 1980 said that these loans were likely to be obsolete and unused with the advent of the 10 per cent corporation tax for manufacturing industry from 1 January 1981. In their most recent report they say that section 84 type loans are the most buoyant type of loans and up to mid-August 1983 over 1982 showed a 27 per cent increase. This proves that the arguments against abolishing section 84 loans are erroneous and to tamper with them is extremely dangerous. I advise the Minister to think very carefully before making any changes in that area in future.
The two sectors having difficulties at present are the construction industry and tourism. It is often perceived that when the Coalition get into office some of these sectors do not do so well. Of course, that is myth. I would like to welcome the abolition of the certificates of reasonable value because they are no longer necessary given the very tight competition in the construction industry. I also welcome the abolition of the clawback on stock relief. Many builders and builders' providers have dropped their stocks significantly because of the recession and this concession will be of major benefit to them.
Under section 27 of the 1983 Finance Act rental income is restricted to specific property developments as opposed to a more general application. I accept that this is closing a loophole but any savings to the Exchequer made in that area could be made up by an extension of section 23 which gives tax relief to companies which might build extensions to their premises. If that tax relief applied across the board to the retail and distribution sectors, what was gained by the Exchequer under the restriction in section 27 could be made up by an expansion of section 23. That would be a good day's work.
I realise the Governments difficulties with regard to tourism but the tax burden through VAT and exise duties is enormous. We have two main rates, 23 per cent and 35 per cent. If we compare our VAT rates with those of our European competitors we see that the German rate for the tourist sector is 13 per cent, the United Kingdom 15 per cent, Luxembourg 5 per cent, France 7 per cent and Holland 4 per cent. If we add the crippling price of petrol and drink here, we see that we have a very big problem. I understand that in 1983 hotels paid in excess of £80 million VAT. The retail export refund scheme is welcome as is the 5 per cent reduction in the hiring of boats and caravans, but something more radical needs to be done. While I recognise that the Exchequer desperately needs the money, what I would like to see is priority given to the service areas.
In other words, whether it is changing sheets or waiting on tables. I would like to give priority in the area of accommodation and meals. I would hold the line on exise duties and the sale of goods.
I want to deal now with the small businesses. There are two problems with VAT: the first is VAT at the point of entry and the other is the very irritating and annoying amount of paperwork and administration the self-employed and employers have to do in running their businesses and working as agents on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners and the Government. Last year total VAT receipts were in excess of £1.6 billion and to abolish VAT at point of entry in 1984 would cost £190 million. I realise that that is a fairly substantial amount of money and that it would be unrealistic to expect that major modifications would be carried out, but I request that the guarantee aspect of VAT at the point of entry scheme be reviewed. I am told by people who are importing raw materials and other essential goods that if there was a first warning system and payment was made on the given date in the two monthly period, it would be much better than having a continuous drain on their overdraft accommodation. Some small businesses are not able to get the overdraft accommodation they need. The case I heard about may be an isolated case, but in my view one case is one case too many. I hope that that measure, coupled with the central office for bank drafts, will represent some easing of VAT at the point of entry without greatly affecting the Government's collection of £190 million.
If there was light at the end of the tunnel and if the IDA had approved certain plant and equipment which was being imported, there should be an exemption for that plant and machinery at the point of entry. I have been told that this is unworkable but I am convinced the IDA would operate this scheme because they have already investigated the firm and given a grant. The IDA should be asked to take up this matter with the customs and exise people, and then we would have a more selective application of VAT at the point of entry.
In relation to the unpaid paperwork which employers find so irritating, I suggest we grant a £500 credit. On the old turnover tax credit was available to employers and all people registered for VAT. A sum of £500 might be considered too high but in reply to a Parliamentary Question I learned that of the 97,000 people registered for VAT 54,000 would benefit, in other words, the net VAT paid by them to the Exchequer is in excess of £500, but 43,000 people would not benefit. These people are at the lower end of the scale and therefore that would probably be a bad application of this suggestion.
I put forward this suggestion because it was already in operation by way of the turnover tax but I would be happy to hear any alteration of it. There should be some recognition of the unpaid work done by employers not only by making VAT returns but by collecting PRSI and PAYE tax. It has been suggested that quarterly or half yearly returns should be made instead of two-monthly returns but I do not think that this would be a solution. There should be some recognition of this problem. What I suggest would cost £30 million and I suppose if I had that sum for small businesses I would not put it all in that area. Something should be done about it, even as a token gesture.
There are six rates of VAT ranging from zero to 35 per cent. There are three rates too many. The system is not only cumbersome and complex but highly confusing. In the long-term reform of the VAT code I should like to see three rates, the predominant rate being zero and another rate for goods and services. If we had a rate for goods and services people would know exactly where they stood. If all goods and services were included in the net, the system would meet with general approval and its simplicity would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
I have had an increasing number of complaints recently about delays in VAT refunds. I know one small company set up by four lads who were made redundant and they have been waiting for VAT refunds since last July. This may seem a small matter but it is very important for a small company with a very tight cash flow. I would hope that everything would be done to ensure that delays would not occur in the payment of VAT refunds.
Agriculture is vital in a constituency such as mine. There are 5,000 farmers in Wexford who have 10 per cent of total agricultural borrowings and most of our jobs are dependent on the input and output side of agriculture. I wish to refer to three points, stock relief provisions, the 30 per cent restriction on capital allowances and the income levy. In relation to stock relief, I very much welcome the Minister's statement when the Finance Bill was published that it is intended on Committee Stage to publish detailed amendments for stock relief for agriculture. It is also intended to retain the old system of stock relief and there will be a new provision to deal with the transfer of farms from spouses to children by way of inheritance and so on. There are a number of changes I should like to see. The ten-year base for clawbacks should at least be amended to seven years. I understand that the land leasing plan being drawn up by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Connaughton, is near fruition and that the average recommended period of a lease will be seven years. It would be a very welcome step if the ten-year base were reduced to seven years. I could ask for a five-year base because that would meet with some of the animal cycles — the pig, sheep and cattle cycles — but seven years would be a fair period to start with. I do not know what it would cost but I would very much welcome such a step.
I will give one example of the way a farmer can be hit by stock relief. Let us take the case of a farmer who has 100 acres and owes £80,000. I know many people who owe in excess of £1,000 per acre in County Wexford. If the ACC or other lending institution say they want a cash settlement or some solution to the problem the farmer may have to embark on a destocking programme and also sell some acreage. He may have been claiming year after year income tax relief based on his increased stock value and an expansion of the herd and now, through no fault of his own, he has the tax man demanding a clawback. That is the type of pincer movement which could happen without the provisions of this Bill. I welcome them and I hope for a slight modification from ten years to seven years on the base dates. We will look for a reduction to five years next year. I also welcome the provisions in relation to transfers.
Section 26 of the 1980 Finance Act imposes a 30 per cent restriction on capital allowances for farmers who invest in capital developments. The most a farmer can claim in terms of depreciation on that outlay is 30 per cent and this is very unfair. If a wholesaler buys a forklift truck he can obtain 100 per cent depreciation. A manufacturer can obtain 100 per cent depreciation on plant and machinery but Paddy the farmer cannot get it. Tractor sales in 1978 and 1979 were in excess of 7,000 per annum but the figure is now down to about 2,000. Not only is there a recession in agriculture but worn out machinery and second-hand equipment is being used and this cannot continue indefinitely.
I will give a practical example. Most farmers who are productive and highly efficient need to make three cuts of silage and must have the best equipment in order to have the right dry matter percentage. They must cut at exactly the right time and cannot afford costly breakdowns. Obviously it is better that they should use new equipment. If a farmer were able to write off 100 per cent depreciation in one year he would have a real incentive and it would boost the agribusiness sector. There is merit in this argument. I know the total abolition would cost £2 million but even if it were increased to 50 per cent the Government would recoup in two ways. The fact that the farmer cannot recoup after the first year means that he no longer has to refer to 30 per cent, and if he does well in succeeding years the Government will gain. There is 23 per cent VAT on machinery generally and there would be immediate tax generation to the Government. This suggestion is cost effective, practical and realistic. Perhaps next year or on Committee Stage the wisdom of my arguments will prevail and something will be done.
There is one small problem with the machinery trade and that is the two-thirds/one-third rule for VAT, that is, the sale of goods versus servicing and the 50 per cent relief that is available. If a machinery dealer buys a secondhand tractor, reconditions the engine, puts new tyres on it, does it up completely and then tries to sell the machine. That is counted as sale of goods and therefore there is no VAT exemption. I would ask that the sale of reconditioned machinery should be re-examined so that people would only have to pay the service rate of VAT. The difference is 5 per cent as against 23 per cent which would be very substantial for many of these people who are really struggling.
The third point is the whole question of the income levies. We have a combination of levies. We have the health levy, the youth employment levy and the tax levy. I welcome the £96 a week exemption. There is a problem for farmers, that is, the difference between their gross and net income. I have argued this consistently and at times to my cost when I talk to the ICMSA. The only fair and equitable way to tax farmers is on their ability to pay on their net disposable income. Other farming groups want a land tax or other types of taxation, but I think this is the only fair way. That is the principle we have in our farming tax code. With the abolition of the PLV that is the way the system operates.
With the levies the problem is that the farmer is taxed on his gross income. I have been told by the IFA that they will undertake a very positive and constructive campaign to collect the arrears of the levies if there is some movement towards taxing them on their net income. This is very easy to assess where farmers have accounts and keep them for income tax purposes. I hope that when the collection moves from the health boards to the Revenue Commissioners this problem can be dealt with. I would take up the IFA on their offer of a positive campaign for the collection of arrears. This would mean we could move on and get in money which is most important at the end of the day.
A widow of 82 years and a single man of 78 years came to my clinic and brought their forms. Originally they were given red forms to fill up by the South Eastern Health Board in relation to the health levy. They were told to make an estimate of their income, which they duly did. It was £2,500 or £3,500 on their 25 or 30 acres. They were assessed accordingly and sent a bill. A week later they were told their assessments were being reconsidered because the health board thought they were not quite correct. These elderly people were then asked to fill in details of their income, how much they got for livestock, how much they spent on fertilisers, how much they got in milk cheques, and so on. They are bewildered. If their income was £500 more, we are talking about £5. These elderly people all say they will pay whatever they owe, but the question is one of accuracy.
I am not against these people paying but they are being asked to fill up forms about which they have not got a clue. They will not go to an accountant because their acreage is very small. Some way should be found to simplify this. They should be told they are under the £96 a week and they should not be sent these forms. Somebody with a bit of sensitivity in the health board offices should be told to do this and it would be a humane way of dealing with the problem.
I welcome the extension of the stamp duty exemption for land transfers to young farmers for another year. This is valuable. It should be closely monitored. ACOT should be geared to provide as many courses as possible for young people.
I wish to turn now to personal income tax reform. Many people have paid lip service to it and talked a lot of hot air about it. So far we have three basic proposals. The Commission on Taxation suggested that there should be one single rate of tax. The second proposal is basically what Nigel Lawson has done in the UK, that is, to move towards abolishing all reliefs and have a single rate of tax. I understand that if we take in £4,500 million in income tax we give back £500 million in relief. This seems a convoluted way to look after sectional interests. The third system I have seen proposed is to abolish the allowances altogether and replace them with credits.
There is general agreement that at present there is an undue amount of confusion for the taxpayer and costly administration for the collector. The sheer complexity of it is burdensome and irritating to everybody. There is no doubt that the black economy, which is a cancer in all legitimate workplaces, is undercutting legitimate employment. Therefore there is a need for reform to deal with that problem. No matter what way we rejig the system there is no escape from the fundamental fact that the tax burdens are there because of public expenditure and because of our borrowing. Whatever way we rejig it the burden will be intolerable and very substantial. Before we talk about reform we have to have a general acceptance of the fact that whatever way we go there will be hardship. If by tax reform people mean tax relief or paying less tax, tax reform is a misnomer. The Minister should do all he can to dispel that myth or he will become the prisoner of expectations created about tax reform.
We must remember the overall balance between direct and indirect taxation. I understand that in 1983 VAT and excise duties came to 35.3 per cent and income tax came to 26.1 per cent of total tax revenue to the Exchequer. There has been a substantial shift in latter years towards indirect taxation. The correct way to go is to restore personal choice to people. If you depress people's take-home pay that is not fair, and it does not give them the opportunity they would otherwise have.
I would like to see a total combination of PRSI and PAYE in the long-term. If one deduction were made which covered tax and PRSI that would solve a multiplicity of problems on the collection side and on the payment side. It would also reduce the cost of administration to the employers. I know we have the lowest PRSI rate in Europe but I also know that a combination of PRSI and PAYE gives us the highest tax on income in Europe. We need reform in this area. The present perception is that when a man comes in on a Monday morning, PRSI is a tax on taking him on. The PRSI system is the greatest incentive possible for people who are prepared to do nixers in the evenings rather than taking up regular employment. If both taxes were combined, the situation would be greatly simplified.
The other proposal I have is the abolition of all allowances. The direction in which to move is to provide for a basic rate of tax. Any such proposal would cause many people to scream but the system would then be so simple as to be almost unbelievable. It would work on the basis that people would be taxed on their income up to a certain cut-off point, say £3,000 or £4,000. The rate would start at 10 per cent of total income and then work up to the higher rates. Such a system would have the advantage of people knowing where they stood before filling up any tax form. It would not mean necessarily that people would have to pay less tax because tax levels in the economy will be decided regardless of tax reform. The Commission on Taxation in their first report have fallen down on not having costed their proposals. We do not know if their single band tax and their expenditure tax proposals would add up to the £4,000 million that accrue from income tax. Therefore, my proposal of a single rate of tax on full income and the abolition of all allowances, thereby allowing for the maximum disposable income, is the best approach. Any sectoral interest, whether insurance groups or others, who would strenuously oppose any such change, would soon overcome their grievances. The same would apply in respect of objections to the abolition of concessions on mortgages. If people must live their lives in ways that are geared to avoiding tax, there is something wrong. No system should result in any such interference in people's personal lives. That is why I submit that the restriction of personal choice and freedom of choice based on consumer spending power is the way to move. These, then, are my few and inadequate words on the subject of tax reform but it is well that some of the humbug in respect of this issue be explored.
Finally, I should like to make some overall points as to the direction in which the Government should be moving. Our priority must be in terms of macro economics in order to ensure that we are a low-cost production economy, that we have low inflation rates and pro rata interest rates and that we mercilessly tackle our ESB, telecommunications and postal charges. I support totally everything Deputy O'Malley had to say at the weekend in relation to certain semi-State bodies. In certain areas, we should leave party politics aside, for example, when we are serving the best interests of the economy. How many times have the jobs in some semi-State bodies been considered more important than the jobs they are servicing? I have heard from many companies that their electricity charges have wiped out any preferential advantage in coming to Ireland by way of an IDA grant package. Our overall aim must be to bring about rationalisation in the cost structure of production and to reduce inflation. I support fully the utilisation of the NPC in the area of restricting pay increases. There is no doubt but that workers, regardless of the outspoken comments of their leaders, realise that a 16 per cent increase at a time when inflation is at a level of 21 per cent is much worse than a 5 per cent increase when the inflation level is 7 per cent. By and large our people realise that no one owes us a living, that we must rely for a living on our exports and on what we can sell competitively.
It is worth noting that those countries which have succeeded in reducing their inflation rates have not solved their unemployment problems. I am speaking against something I have maintained always when I say that reduced inflation rates do not necessarily mean reduced unemployment rates. I always believed that competitiveness was the bedrock of our economic policy. It has been proved that the low inflation economies do not necessarily have the highest employment rates. That is unfortunate because it defies a number of principles but it does not mean that competitiveness should be disregarded. While it may not solve the unemployment problem, it solves a lot of other problems. It restores stability to an economy and can help restore Government finances in the long term. It can bring about all sorts of benefits in terms of marginal considerations in the area of exports and so on but it will not create 25,000 jobs per year. Therefore we must be honest and ask how we can move in the direction that will best bring about that situation.
We must review fundamentally the way in which we assist companies. I am confident that the Small Businesses Committee of the Oireachtas will have succinct and specific proposals to put forward. Our State agencies must adopt a total business approach. Companies in receipt of money for fixed assets might need more money for marketing and management aids. There is a need for a businesslike approach to production.
On the question of guarantees on loans, interest subsidies and other flexibilities in the grant aid code, I will have another opportunity to put forward my views.
Even if we get the overall macro economics right, if we restore Government finances, achieve lower inflation rates and so on between now and 1987, we will not solve our biggest social problem which is the problem of unemployment. One of the ways of solving the unemployment question is to review fundamentally our attitude towards the service sector. Recently I was speaking to Milton Stewart who is the small business king in the US and who is very much involved with Mr. Jimmy Carter in setting up small businesses. The Americans have a totally different outlook from ours in so far as the services are concerned. They say that a job is a job and that is it. We tend to look to wealth creation and to the productive sector as the barometer for service sector employment. There is a powerful economic argument for that but the attitude in the US is that there is added value in providing incentives for the service sector, that there is merit in that alone and that such an approach involves huge job potential.
The various areas that I referred to earlier, the jobs tax credit, the £10 per week corporation tax extension, the PRSI payments and so on, should be the subject of a fundamental review of the service sector in the context of employment. There is not enough strength in so far as the enterprise allowance scheme is concerned. We should encourage and help the unemployed to utilise their ideas, especially in the sense of the possibility of employment creation.
I shall conclude by addressing a few remarks to the area of our natural resources and their development. As junior spokesman on matters of employment creation when Fine Gael were last in opposition, I put forward a specific proposal in regard to natural resources, that was, that the National Enterprise Agency or the NDC be used as a vehicle for revolving equity in the area of the development of our natural resources. I hope the sectoral committees, whether they relate to forestry, fisheries or any other area, will show that there are major problems in these sectors. First, there is the problem of under-capitalisation and, secondly, there are too many cute jokers in the business taking the last halfpenny from their competitors but with no instinct for added value or for employment creation. In five years the number of small retailers has been reduced from 12,000 to 6,000. If, however, we talk to the multinationals and to the Tony O'Reillys and tell them that they may sell the end product, we may then talk to the producer groups, whether they are producing potatoes or are in the area of afforestation or whatever, and try to hammer out some deal in terms of economy of scale and in terms of being able to control production from the farm gate right through to the Quinnsworth shelf. If you can control that total chain you must be able to create jobs and do it by way of revolving equity to set it up. This is what the NEA or the National Development Corporation should be at. There must be scope in this area. When one looks at market potential reports for timber sales, fishing or anything else there is a market there, so one starts there and one gets the people in the business who can deliver. I hope that some form of revolving equity can be utilised.
I feel that the Government's preoccupation with finances is correct and I feel that their priority to become a low inflation economy is correct. I hope that some of the very specific and detailed proposals I have made in relation to this Bill can be taken up on Committee Stage.
