The four amendments in my name are all about minerals so I have no objection to discussing them together.
Committee on Finance. - Finance Bill, 1959—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 9:—
Before section 78 to insert the following new section:—
Section 6 (1) of the Finance Act, 1946, is hereby amended by the addition after the word "minerals" where it first occurs, of the words "or an open pit or open cast excavation made for the purpose of getting any of the minerals specified in the Schedule to the Finance (Profits of Certain Mines) (Temporary Relief from Taxation) Act, 1956".—(Gerard Sweetman.)
We might as well discuss them all together.
Before we deal with the Bill itself I want to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Minister, at short notice, changed the time at which we were to take the Finance Bill in order to suit my convenience. It is evidence that when we do have a reasonable discussion on Bills we can get co-operation on both sides.
Last night I had started dealing with the first amendment which I put down and, as we are going to take all four together, just for the record I might confirm that all deal with mining though, in fact, they cover separate points. The Finance Act of 1946, in Section 6, provided methods by which the development costs of a mine—what might arise in the early years—could be spread over and set against the profits of the mine over later periods. I think we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that the provisions of Section 6 should be utilised to the fullest to make certain that as much as possible of our minerals are as fully developed as possible.
When the Finance Act of 1946 was being enacted it was clear that what was visualised then—and I do not deny this in any way—was an underground mine, a mine by reason of a shaft being driven into the ground. I do not think that here in Ireland at that time we had become as fully aware as we did later of the possibilities of open-cast mining which was carried on in England, particularly in the years immediately after the war and, indeed, during the war itself. We were not at all as au fait with the possibilities of open-cast mining at that time as we became subsequently, and as we are now.
Therefore, the effect of the definition in the Finance Act of 1946 of the word "mine", as being an underground excavation made for the purpose of getting minerals, means that the benefits of the spread-over provided by that section are confined solely to the case in which you make a hole in the side of a mountain and then proceed to disembowel the mountain. On the other hand, as the Finance Act of 1946 is now enacted and as it now governs the position, if you make a hole in the top of the mountain and go downwards, excavating as you go, you are not covered by the spread-over provisions of the 1946 Act. Equally, if you work into the side of a mountain, and remove your over-burden as you go, you are not entitled to the mine development allowance.
I agree that underground excavation is a dearer type of excavation for our minerals than open-cast, open-pit mining, but that only effects the actual mining itself. The amount of development work may be even far more heavy in open-cast mining. One could visualise, for example, that if it were decided to get at the minerals in a particular mountain from the bottom and you drove a shaft right in, you would not have anything like the development work necessary on roads that you would have if you decided that the best way of getting the minerals was to go up to the top of the mountain, proceed to clear off the whole top, and work down from there. Quite apart from the development that there would be in road-building, it is quite inevitable that in such work there would be mountain river bridges to be erected and you would want, for that sort of work, heavier expenditure on plant and equipment than you would need for the actual underground excavation as such.
There is also the question in open-cast mining that you have to pay compensation to surface owners for damage to the surface of their land. As the law now stands none of the ependiture on road building, on bridge building, on the additional plant and equipment that would be necessary, and the compensation to surface owners, can be allowed as a write-off against future production, and this is all treated entirely as a capital expenditure.
Frankly, in the circumstances, I think that is not right and, even apart from the question of whether it is right or not, it certainly operates as a disincentive towards getting the minerals that are required. I know the Revenue Commissioners as the statutory body have very strong views in relation to capital expenditure and the removal of over-burdenment. I am glad to say that recently in my professional capacity I had a small part in succeeding in persuading the Supreme Court to hold against them, but I know that decision is not in any way going to prejudice their statutory mind. I do feel, however, that there is a very clear distinction between the type of sand and gravel quarrying, with which they are rather inclined to allow themselves to be influenced too much in relation to the general problems of mining, and that, therefore, it seems to me we should make an entirely different approach when we have minerals defined, in the way that they have been defined by the Oireachtas in the Finance (Profits of Certain Mines) (Temporary Relief from Taxation) Act, 1956.
In the Schedule to that Act there are certain minerals that are described as scheduled minerals. They are barytes, felspar, serpentinous marble, quartz rock, soapstone, ores of copper, ores of gold—if there are any—ores of iron, ores of lead, ores of manganese, of molybdenum, of silver, of sulphur and of zinc. We are not therefore considering the question of minerals entirely in vacuo as to what are minerals, apart from dictionary definitions, as we were when the Act was being passed in 1946. The Minister and the House will see that I quite deliberately restricted the benefit that I wished to give to open-pit or open-cast mines to the minerals that were defined in the 1956 Act, the list of which I have now read.
It could well be that the effect of amendment 9 in my name would be materially to assist production and searching for minerals on the edge of the area Deputy Loughman represents, Silvermines, and in Wicklow and Avoca. I do not know about other specific places personally but I believe that in Allihies in Cork the situation would similarly arise. I have heard a suggestion that there are other areas in the country but the Silvermines company, of which I think Deputy Russell is chairman, and the Avoca one are two of the cases where the work of getting minerals is more publicised and it is only because of that that I mention those two cases.
I do not know whether there is, in fact, a clear case in relation to them or not. I seem to remember something in the Government papers that I saw in relation to the development of Avoca that suggested there might be some reason to believe that there are minerals at the top of the mountain as well as at the bottom of it according to the Reports of Mianraí Teoranta. I have not got those, and I am not quoting them as such.
So much, therefore, for the first amendment that I have proposed. There is, I understand—but I do not know where it is—one specific case in the country. The Minister may have the details of it. I have not, because it was dealt with professionally and the details could not be disclosed to me, nor could I disclose them if I had them, which I have not. I believe, however, there is one place where the winning of ore—if you like—has been abandoned because the mining development cost could not be covered by production. So far as the actual cost of production was concerned, it would be a practical proposition to produce ore from that mine. I do not even know which type of ore it is but I am told it is one of the ores specified in the Schedule of the 1956 Act. The job of winning the ore would be possible and would show a profit but the job of mining development at the beginning—if it could not be set up as a production cost in the manner permitted by the 1956 Act—would not be economically possible. We have not yet got sufficient figures in this House— the Minister may have them—to show the contribution mineral exploitation is making in 1959 to our balance of payments. I have no doubt that by the end of the year the contribution made in that way will be quite substantial.
I have already said I do not think there will be any difference between us in the House in our anxiety to ensure that our balance of payments problem should be relieved as far as possible by the winning of such minerals as are possessed by the State. I should like to make it clear also that the spread that is provided by the 1946 Act is one calculated to assist the best possible type of mining development. If a person has to spend a great deal of money on underground or open-cast development, as I am now suggesting, and has to rely on getting that back from future production and on profits on a long term spread over basis, we shall then get in relation to that mining the maximum employment content and the maximum value to the national economy. In such cases, you cannot have the quick in-and-out profit, the quick profit of development which might be otherwise visualised with open-cast mining. It is not the facility in relation to open-cast mining as such that I am advocating but the spread-over or the permissibility to spread over initial cost. It is that permissibility to spread cost that will mean that mines will be developed over a long-term period rather than a short-term one.
The second amendment with which I am concerned is also in relation to the same section of the 1946 Act. Section 6 provides that any reference to certain things shall be excluded. Paragraph (c) excludes reference to any expenditure on the acquisition of the site of the mine or the site of any such works or of rights in or over any such site. Clause (d), in the same way, excludes any spread over benefit being given to any expenditure on the acquisition of, or rights over, the deposits.
The effect of that unduly restricts the spread over particularly because a lot of the work is often done before the actual trading concern comes into operation. We must therefore consider the picture as it is not merely in relation to the company doing the actual mineral development but also in relation to how it started to find its deposits and to get its knowledge. We could not go on to consider that position without the deletion of these two clauses I have read out and amendment 10 is to that extent more or less necessary, consequential on amendments 11 and 12.
I am concerned in relation to amendments 11 and 12, to make certain that changes in ownership as such will not mean that the right to spread over the development costs will be lost. There is a modern mining tendency and in this connection the Minister will pardon my saying that, when the negotiations for Avoca were under way, I had the necessity of looking pretty extensively into modern mining development tendencies everywhere. Modern tendencies are towards the work of exploration and development being done not by the concern which finally does the trading. It is only in an area where there are already proven minerals that it is likely that the trading concern as such will deal with the development work also.
The effect of amendments 11 and 12 is not to provide that any additional expenditure will be allowed, that any new expenditure will be brought into the spread over allowance; but purely that the expenditure which has in fact been expended will be allowed as a spread over against production profits, notwithstanding by whom such expenditure had been incurred. The capital development expenditure can be spread, under the Act of 1946, if it has all been incurred by the original trading company and provided that the original trading company was actually carrying on a trade at the time that the expenditure was incurred. It is clear, however, that in relation to much of this development work, there would, in fact, be no trade then carried on. What would be happening would be developing exploration and, in fact, there is not then a trade at all. If the effect of that was that the allowances could not later be spread over when the trade was commenced and established, it seems to me that it would be extremely unfair.
Let us take a case in point, a completely abstract, theoretical case, but one which I think illustrates the position. An exploration company is formed which goes into an area and explores all over that area and decides or discovers eventually that there is a certain amount of mineral wealth in relation to one of the minerals in the 1956 Act. Having ascertained that it is there, it then exposes the face of the ore body. Having done that valuable and essential work, the exploration company fades into the background and a new company—a public company, perhaps—is then floated and formed for the purpose of carrying out the trade of working the mine. The first company sells its rights to the second company, which I call the operating company. It might sell them for a capital sum or for a rent. I do not suggest for a moment that whatever profit that exploration company should make in its sale price should be allowed as a deduction in relation to the operating company's profits; but I do think that the money which had been actually expended by the exploration company on the ascertainment, development, exposing the face of the ore, etc., should be allowed to the new trading company. If we are not going to do that, then I am afraid we will not succeed in having any prospecting carried out here. Certainly, the prospecting which will be carried out will be limited to a very narrow degree.
The exploration company sometimes may be precluded by its very nature from carrying on the trade of working the mine. The fact that it is so excluded has also the effect of excluding the operating company from the benefit of the spread-over provisions of the Finance Act of 1946. I would ask the Minister to look at this position from the broad view, that what we want to do is to get the maximum amount of minerals that we can extract from the ground, both as raw materials for our own industrial purposes and as a valuable form of exports.
Finally, I might say that in relation to amendment 13, it seems to me that to do this, to make the amendments I have suggested, in the middle of what I might term the post-war mineral searching boom, would be injudicious and unwise. Therefore, I think that we might fairly take the Finance Act of 1946 as being the commencement of that period and that we should cover— in so far as future years of assessment only are concerned and not, of course, anything about going back by way of repayment on existing assessments—in this amendment whatever has been done or is at the moment being done while we are considering the Bill in the House.
First of all, to go back to Section 6 of the Act of 1946, allowances on capital expenditure were provided in the section for the development of mines. Development, I think, covered searching for or testing deposits, or winning access to them or constructing mines and mining works. These allowances were to be spread over a maximum of 20 years. That section did not, as the Deputy pointed out, extend to expenditure on acquisition of the site or on rights over mineral deposits.
The Deputy said there was a case that he was aware of—I must say I have not heard of it—where some work had been done on a mine in the way of development and where it had to be abandoned because no allowance could be made. If that was recently, as the Deputy is aware, it would come under the 1956 Act and therefore the provisions of that Act would apply, that is, no tax for four years and only half tax for another four years. At any rate, I did not hear of that case and I shall make inquiries to see if there is such a case.
In fact, looking at the note given to me, I now see that the word is "cases"—in the plural.
This section is designed to secure that the allowances will over the years equal the relevant capital expenditure, less the amount represented by the residue, that is, the site and so on. Having got that far in pointing out what the 1946 Act laid down, we come to amendment No. 9. In this the Deputy urges that open-cast mining should be included in the case of non-bedded deposits. At present open-cast mining is excluded, as far as they are concerned. The 1956 Act applies to all mines and gives a relief of the full tax due for the first four years and of 50 per cent. for the next four years. The Deputy's amendment covers only non-bedded minerals. When I first looked at it, I thought no case could be made for excluding bedded minerals. However, the Deputy has made such a case and I do not want to delay on it.
Going back to the debate on the 1946 Act, I was rather impressed by the arguments put up, because this question of open-cast mining was raised. The then Minister made what appeared to me to be a fairly good case against including open-cast mining. His case was that there was a very much bigger risk involved in making borings. You were not sure whether or not you would strike a good bed of minerals, whether or not you would strike a substantial amount or whether or not they were easy to work. In open-cast mining you did not take the same risk. For that reason, the 1946 Act excluded open-cast mining.
I should like to say a few words about all the amendments. Amendment 10 is to delete paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section 1 of section 6. As the Deputy pointed out, these paragraphs exclude from relief expenditure on the acquisition of the site of the mine or the rights of that site and also the acquisition of rights over the deposits. The Deputy thinks that these exclusions should now be deleted and that relief should be given for any expenditure on the site and on the rights over the deposits.
The Act was designed to cover development expenditure and deliberately excludes the question of site and deposits. The question is whether we should now consider removing these exclusions or not. I believe it has been a very controversial subject in other countries. In England, for instance, I understand the Deputy's suggestion was recommended by a Royal Commission but it was not adopted by Parliament. The British case is not a good parallel to ours. In Britain, no other relief of any kind is given and in that event they were not in a position to consider it on the same basis as we would here.
A case can be made for it, as the Deputy has done, but I think arguments can be advanced against it. Arguments such as we had here yesterday on another matter would apply to some extent. For instance, if this concession were given, the owner of the mine would look for a better price from the buyer. In that case, the owner or vendor would reap an advantage in no way due to his own initiative, and there is no reason why the Dáil should confer that benefit on him. If the amendment were to be adopted by the Dáil and if I, in turn, were to say: "Let us take the tax off the vendor", that might not be welcome to the Dáil, either. If it happened that by our action the value of the mine was increased, the purchaser might come to the conclusion that it would have been better if the Dáil had not dealt with the matter at all.
Another point that arose yesterday was this. If we relieve the purchaser of a certain tax and do not put a corresponding tax on the vendor, there is always a danger of collusion between the two which would lead to tax evasion. That, as we agreed yesterday, could be avoided in some other way. Under the existing law, if the owner of a property in which there are deposits leases the property to a person for a rent or a royalty, the person who takes the lease pays on his profits from the mine, if there are any, and of course deducts tax from his rent or royalty when paying that over. If the change is made and if he pays a lump sum, while he will be still liable to pay tax to the Revenue Commissioners, he will not have the opportunity of deducting tax from the person who leases either the rent or royalty to him. It is a controversial subject and one that would require a great deal of thought before it could be agreed to.
Section 6 deals with the case of a mine changing hands. It is dealt with in very much the same way as we have dealt in this Bill with the changing ownership of a factory building—that the writing off of the factory building would still go on. But, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, the section did not cover the case of a man who had spent a certain amount of money developing a mine but had not actually entered into production. At least, it is doubtful if the section covered that. In amendments 11 and 12 the Deputy seeks to cover that contingency by making it a continuous process, as it were, and the first man would now count as expenditure when the second man purchased the mine. I think these two amendments are right and should be implemented. The Commissioners do not know of any such case where this has occurred. I am not saying it should not be done; but for that reason, it is not urgent.
Amendment 13 brings in cases in which operations may have started before this part of the Finance Bill was passed. Having, as it were, given my views on this matter, I would put it this way to the Deputy, that I agree Nos. 11 and 12 must be done. It is not urgent and it will be time enough to do them in the next Finance Bill because if a case should occur during the coming year, it could be worked into the provisions of the next Finance Bill. It gives us time to review the whole thing and see, first of all, if these amendments which are consequential amendments are necessary and if there are any other odds and ends, they can be cleared up at the same time.
As regards Nos. 9 and 10, I have no very strong views for or against them. If I were forced by a decision to vote, I would vote against them because I think there is not sufficient information to express an opinion in their favour. Therefore, in conclusion, I agree that Nos. 11, 12 and 13 should be dealt with in the next Finance Bill. As regards Nos. 9 and 10, I shall give them further consideration and while, at the moment, I am not convinced that they are correct, I certainly have an open mind, and I am prepared to consider any arguments that may be put forward before the next Finance Bill.
I must say that the Minister has met me very fairly but I understand there is some urgency about Nos. 11, 12 and 13. I suggest they could easily be dealt with by leaving over the matter until Report Stage so that I could ascertain if there is any urgency. So far as No. 10 is concerned, it was not an amendment that I was putting forward on its own legs but because I felt that if I did not introduce it as it was, the other amendments would be entirely inoperative. It is more consequential.
I know that when the Finance (Profits of Certain Mines) (Temporary Relief from Taxation) Act, 1956, was going through we had some discussions about this and frankly, I do not mind admitting I have learned a great deal more about mining in those discussions and in discussions I have had since that time. I would ask the Minister to see if he can ascertain whether these cases have arisen where it is alleged that people were going to go into production and into the work of exploring and searching for and producing minerals but discovered because it was not possible to writeoff production costs or original costings, the whole venture was useless and was abandoned. If there are such cases, and if I can get them brought by the persons concerned to the attention of the Minister, he might view the situation in a different way.
Certainly. The Revenue Commissioners have no knowledge of such cases.
I do not think they can have knowledge until it becomes a crystallised case.
The Deputy will have to help me.
I shall have to ask the persons who told me about it to help me.
On amendment No. 9 which Deputy Sweetman introduced, I should like to refer to the question of extending the tax benefits to open-cast or open-pit mining. There is the other point that before you actually mine, you have to explore. That is generally done by diamond drilling and it is only after that that you can decide what method you will adopt to extricate the ore from the deposit. It is quite possible that a mining company might decide to adopt both methods; in other words, to open-cast up to a certain stage and then to mine in depth. If that is so, they would be entitled to relief on one type of mining and not on the other. Is that correct? Does not that strengthen the case for this amendment, of applying that exemption to both the open-cast and the mining in depth. They can be, and very frequently are, a continuing process and, as Deputy Sweetman says, if you want to encourage mining, it would be a good thing if that were done.
We shall give it full consideration anyway.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 10 not moved?
Would it be possible for me to move these amendments and then to withdraw them so that they will appear on the records?
The position is that only one amendment has been before the House.
May I move the others seriatim and then withdraw them because I want them on the records?
The Deputy may, if it is agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before section 78 to insert the following new section:
"Section 6 (1) of the Finance Act, 1946, is hereby amended by the deletion in the paragraph relating to references to capital expenditure incurred in connection with a mine of clauses (c) and (d) thereof."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:—
Before section 78 to insert the following new section:
"Section 6 (12) (a) of the Finance Act, 1946, is hereby amended by the addition after the word ‘mine' where it thirdly occurs, of the words ‘or would have been so granted had the original trader carried on the trade of working the mine'."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Before section 78 to insert the following new section:
"Section 6 (12) (b) of the Finance Act, 1946, is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor:—
‘another person (in this subsection referred to as the successor) succeeds to the original trade or would have so succeeded had the person incurring the said capital expenditure been carrying on a trade'."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
Before section 78 to insert the following new section:
"Section 6 (12) (a) and (b) of the Finance Act, 1946, shall apply to expenditure incurred before as well as after the passing of this Act."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I wanted to move the amendments because otherwise they would not appear on the records.
Amendments 14 and 16 are largely drafting amendments. I can explain the changes on the Schedule.
That is what I was about to ask. Wait until we come to the Schedule. We shall deal with No. 14 now.
I move amendment No. 14:
In subsection (2), page 52, to delete "enactment" in line 9 and substitute "enactments" and in lines 10 and 11 to delete "have effect as on and from the 16th day of April" and substitute "come into operation on the 1st day of August".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 78, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 79.
Question proposed: "That Section 79 stand part of the Bill."
Was it on Section 79 or the Third Schedule that we decided to discuss the levies again?
I think it was on the Schedule.
Just as the Minister prefers. I thought that under the section which puts them in the care of the Revenue Commissioners, it might be more in order.
Very well. I think this is rather complicated so I shall send the Deputy a copy in writing afterwards. Up to 16th April, certain articles of iron and steel were liable to an ordinary protective customs duty. This duty had attached to it the ordinary licensing provision that applies to all protective duties. Similar articles made of aluminium or aluminium alloy were not liable to any protective duty but were liable to a special import levy. The levies have attached to them only a limited licensing provision, operative only in the case of goods required for use in manufacture, as apart from consumer use. There is a distinction there in that, in regard to goods subject to protective duty, a case could be made that even they should be imported free for consumers. That could be done, but in the case of the levy they could be imported free of levy only for manufacturing purposes.
The Department of Industry and Commerce had projects in train because some aluminium manufacturing businesses asked to have the aluminium levy transferred to a protective duty. It was transferred over at the same rate—I mean, at the same rate of duty—and it was decided at the same time to re-enact the already existing duty on iron and steel goods and to extend its scope to the aluminium goods.
Reference No. 3 gives effect to this. So far as iron and steel goods are concerned, the Reference reproduces the ordinary licensing provision that had always attached to these goods but, in the case of aluminium goods, there is provided only the limited licensing provision that had applied to them under the levy. It is really perhaps an extension. As I say, this is somewhat complicated and I shall send the Deputy a copy.
As the Minister will remember, when we were discussing this the other day I sent him over my marked copy of the neostyled Order. Yesterday, I asked for it back. I got another marked copy back and it explains the situation perfectly. The Minister need not, therefore, bother to send me the Order. Had I got my own copy back I should not have understood it. I got that from somebody else marked with the cross in the right place. I had put it in the wrong place. It is quite clear now that the emphasis arises because it says that on all other articles these special manufacturing licensing provisions are not applicable.
I should like to raise some other points in relation to the question of levy. I shall not go into the general position in regard to levies or what part of the proceeds from them are being paid to capital account or balance of payments at all. I have made my views on that known to the Minister. I shall not repeat them now but I want to make it quite clear that, though I am not repeating them, I am not withdrawing them. Rather, I hold them even more strongly as day follows day.
One of the things at present chargeable under special import levies is sensitised photographic film. In my view that is one of the first things that should have been discharged when there was to be relaxation of levies. If I am correct—I use "if" deliberately —that photographic film for hospitals or for microfilming work in relation to libraries and so forth is excluded, and if I am correct in thinking that the type of photographic film material needed for photostat work for industrial business purposes still has to bear a levy, it seems to me to be quite wrong that such film should be subjected to levy. This film is not made here and there is no point whatever in keeping it still subject to levy. The ordinary wide X-ray plate film is no longer subject to levy.
I do not understand why electro-thermic and electro-mechanical appliances are still subject to levy when there is no element of protective duty involved. In relation to electro-thermic appliances, thermostatic and regulative control is involved. If thermostats are not installed there will be excessive use of electricity. That will not be of any great assistance to the national economy.
I do not know whether or not the Minister is in a position, if I put down a question, to give me the amount of duty collected under each separate heading in relation to special import levy last year in so far as that levy is retained this year. I am wondering whether or not we can get a breakdown of figures to see what the current special import levy list produced last year. I do not expect the Minister to give me an estimate of what each reference number would produce this year. If we can get what it produced last year, on the basis on which it is now in force, that will enable us to make an adequate comparison. If it is possible to get that information, I shall put down a question to the Minister. That may shorten some of the discussion we might otherwise have, perhaps, on the Report Stage in relation to one of the sections. Section 19, already discussed. The general position in relation to levies is one we can discuss again. I shall not waste the Minister's time discussing it now.
I could not give detailed information to the Deputy with regard to what the licensing provisions would be in relation to films. Generally speaking, where films are used for X-ray and that sort of thing, they are free. I should be very glad to give the Deputy the information he seeks. I shall send it to him or, if he likes, he can ask a question.
I am not sure whether the reference numbers are the same, but, when we were considering the list and trying to make some gesture by reducing levies, one of the considerations was that we would cut out those which were hardly worth collecting, those which only brought in an income of £500 or £1,000. In that way we did get an estimate of the yield under each of the items and I can give the Deputy the information if he asks for it.
The original reason for bringing in electric appliances, and so forth, was in order to bring the balance of payments position under control. As I pointed out in my Budget speech, it is still necessary to keep some of the import levies in order to maintain a satisfactory balance of payments position. That is the only defence we can make for keeping the levies on certain articles not made here.
Thermostats should be excluded because they act as a regulator of consumption rather a boost to consumption.
That can be considered.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 80.
I move amendment No. 15:—
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(8) Any reference in this Act to any other enactment shall, except so far as the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment, including this Act."
This is a drafting amendment.
I think this is the amendment that covers the point I raised in relation to the 1920 Act.
That is correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
In relation to the First Schedule, is this the amount that is added in respect of interest for the dealer in securities, who is not exempted?
Yes. Section 7 deals with the dealer. That is the first point. Sections 8 and 9 deal with charities, exempted companies and ordinary companies.
Question put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
This deals with the agreement to prevent stripping on one side of the Irish Sea or the other. The Second Schedule is to prevent dividend stripping being done across the Irish sea, either way.
Yes. Where our Act protects us against stripping, the British Act prevents them. It is doubtful if the agreement is not over and above that and that, therefore, they could get around it.
The art or device of dividend stripping was not conceived at the time of the original agreement between the two countries.
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
Is the Minister prepared to state how much of the deficit on the quarter's accounts up to the 30th June, which he published the other day, is due to this change in the collection of duty on tobacco?
It would be nearly £2 million, I believe.
So that, if it is £1 million down, his revenue is £1 million up?
It more than makes up the deficit. I mean, if we had collected the tobacco tax the same as last year, we would have a better revenue this year. I do not know exactly the amount. It is almost £2 million, I think.
Has the new system of importing crude oil to the refinery and collecting the revenue as excise, had any effect on the customs revenue?
Very little.
Question put and agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 16:
To delete Part I and substitute the following Part:
"PART I.
|
Number and Year. |
Short Title. |
Extent of Repeal. |
|
No. 11 of 1928. |
Finance Act, 1928. |
Section 26. |
|
No. 20 of 1932. |
Finance Act, 1932. |
Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 25. |
|
No. 15 of 1933. |
Finance Act, 1933. |
Section 19. |
|
No. 31 of 1934. |
Finance Act, 1934. |
Section 20. |
|
No. 28 of 1935. |
Finance Act, 1935. |
Section 25. |
|
No. 31 of 1936. |
Finance Act, 1936. |
Section 12. |
|
No. 25 of 1938. |
Finance Act, 1938. |
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 22. |
|
No. 18 of 1939. |
Finance Act, 1939. |
Section 17. |
|
No. 18 of 1950. |
Finance Act, 1950. |
Section 7. |
|
No. 21 of 1953. |
Finance Act, 1953. |
Section 5. |
|
No. 22 of 1956. |
Finance Act, 1956. |
Section 18. |
I promised to give some details here, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I shall take them in order as given here: Finance Act, 1928, Section 26— exemption for horse racing; Finance Act, 1932——
Why is that being deleted? What does it mean?
All sports are now gone, so it is no longer necessary to have this.
These are all entertainments duty, are they?
Yes, they are all entertainments duty. I resume the list: Finance Act, 1932—exemption for outdoor sports promoted by G.A.A. or N.A.C.A.; Finance Act, 1933, Section 19—repayment concession for greyhound racing in rural areas and exemptions for amateur boxing, badminton, international lawn tennis, swimming and rowing; Finance Act, 1934, Section 20—general exemption for outdoor sports; Finance Act, 1935, Section 25 —amendment of Section 19, Finance Act, 1933, which is being repealed; Finance Act, 1936, Section 12—exemptions for fencing and table tennis; Finance Act, 1938—exemptions for billiards, chess and squash rackets; and then there was an amendment of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1934, which is being repealed: Finance Act, 1939, Section 17—exemption for bridge; Finance Act, 1950, Section 7 —amateur wrestling was removed at that time.
Only amateur, though.
Only amateur. Finance Act, 1953, Section 5—exemptions for basketball and cycle roller racing and Finance Act, 1957, Section 18—amendment of Section 19, Finance Act, 1933, which is being repealed.
Deputies will see that the thing was being done piecemeal over the years and there was practically nothing left at this stage, so the general relief on all outdoor sports and indoor sports was brought in to finish the job.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: That the Fourth Schedule, as amended, be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill.
As far as I understand, the amendment only covered Part I of the Fourth Schedule. Is not that so?
Yes. The rest remain as they were.
Could the Minister tell us, for the record, what the purpose of each repeal is in Parts II and III?
In Part II, the first— the Stamp Act—arises out of the change in marine insurance. They are all purely consequential.
They are an purely consequential?
Yes.
That is all right. In Part III are they purely consequential?
Yes, consequential on the provisions of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 8th July, 1959.