Finance Bill, 1963—Report Stage.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 11, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute as follows:

"(1) Where, for any year of assessment, a person to whom this section applies is chargeable to tax under Schedule B in respect of the occupation for the purposes of husbandry of any lands—

(a) the person shall when required to do so by a notice in writing served on him by an inspector of taxes prepare and deliver to the inspector, within the time limited by the notice, a statement of the profits or gains on which he would have been chargeable for the year of assessment if he had made an election in relation to the lands under Rule 5 of the Rules applicable to Schedule B;

(b) where the person fails to deliver the statement, or where the Revenue Commissioners are not satisfied with the statement delivered by the person, the Revenue Commissioners may serve on the person a notice in writing or notices in writing requiring him to do any of the following things, that is to say—

(i) to deliver to an inspector of taxes copies of such accounts (including balance sheets) relating to the occupation of the lands as may be specified or described in the notice within such period as may be therein specified, including, where the accounts have been audited, a copy of the auditor's certificate,

(ii) to make available, within such time as may be specified in the notice, for inspection by an inspector of taxes or by any officer authorised by the Revenue Commissioners, all such books, accounts and documents in his possession or power as may be specified or described in the notice, being books, accounts and documents which contain information as to transactions related to the occupation of the lands;

(c) the inspector of taxes or other officer may take copies of, or extracts from, any books, accounts or documents made available for his inspection under the foregoing paragraph;

(d) where the person fails to do anything which he is required to do by a notice under paragraph (b) of this subsection, the Income Tax Acts shall apply as if he had duly made, under Rule 5 of the Rules applicable to Schedule B, an election in relation to the lands by notice delivered immediately after the commencement of the year of assessment;

(e) where the person has delivered copies of accounts relating to the occupation of the lands and the Revenue Commissioners are of opinion that the accounts overstate the profits or gains arising from such occupation, the Revenue Commissioners may certify accordingly;

(f) where the Revenue Commissioners have given a certificate under the foregoing paragraph—

(i) the Income Tax Acts shall, subject to the next subparagraph, apply as if the person had duly made, under Rule 5 of the Rules applicable to Schedule B, an election in relation to the lands by notice delivered immediately after the commencement of the year of assessment,

(ii) an appeal against the certificate shall, within twentyone days after notification of the person of the giving of the certificate, lie to the Special Commissioners in like manner as an appeal would lie against an assessment to income tax and the provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to appeals shall have effect accordingly."

The point was raised by Deputy Sweetman on Committee Stage that it would be unfair and unjust to apply this section to a man who is carrying on farming in the normal way and who is making a profit under good conditions. I agree with that. I undertook to consider whether the section could be amended to safeguard such a farmer. The amendment is rather long, but that does not take from its effectiveness. I should say that the section was designed to deal with a person in a trade or profession who returns a very small profit on his trade or profession, and intimates to the inspector of taxes that he is making a larger profit on the farm. The amendment provides that the inspector will ask the owner of the farm to make a statement on his profits from the farm, and the Revenue Commissioners will consider whether or not they should go further with the matter.

If the Revenue Commissioners consider that the statement is correct, in their opinion, they go no further and he pays his tax on the valuation, if he has to pay income tax at all. If they think the profit is over-stated, they may require him to pay on profits rather than on valuation. He has an appeal against that decision to the Special Commissioners. If the Special Commissioners rule that his statement was correct, he pays on the valuation and that is the end of it. If they rule in favour of the Revenue Commissioners, he pays on profits. If he refuses to make a return, he will be dealt with in the ordinary way in which any income tax payer would be dealt with in the same circumstances.

Mr. Sweetman

This amendment has been introduced by the Minister in response to the case I made on Committee Stage. I am glad the Minister has met that case. I made it clear on Committee Stage, and I repeat now, that any arguments I put forward, or any representation I made on Section 6 of the Bill as originally drafted, were made to cover bona fide cases, and that I and this Party were just as adamant as the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners that evasion should be stopped.

The purport of the amendment I moved on the last occasion, and of amendment No. 3 which, in the circumstances, it will not be necessary to move, was to crystallise that point of view, admittedly in a very much sharper, shorter and simpler form than the Minister's amendment. Long though the amendment is, as the Minister has just said, I believe it preserves the right of the taxpayer in a bona fide case. However, I should like the Minister to clarify a few points.

The Minister said that if the Special Commissioners found that the taxpayer was right in the statement he produced that ended the matter, and that equally if the Special Commissioners found the statement he produced was wrong, an assessment would be made on him and that ended the matter. I do not think the Minister is quite correct in saying that ends the matter. It seems to me that in paragraph (f) (ii) of the amendment, there is an appeal against the decision of the Special Commissioners. Therefore, I think the Minister would have been more correct in saying that ended the matter, subject to the right of the parties to appeal.

Then I think the Minister has met the points I made.

Mr. Sweetman

Whatever Minister for Finance will be there can see, when it comes into operation next year, what should be done about it. There should be a time limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, to delete "or profession," in line 10 and line 13 and substitute ", profession or vocation," in each case.

It came to my notice that in Schedule D the reference is to "trade, profession, or vocation". It is thought just as well to bring this into line by putting in "vocation".

Mr. Sweetman

Perhaps the Minister would like to indicate the difference between profession and vocation.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy moving amendment No. 3?

Mr. Sweetman

No, Sir. It has been met.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Mr. Byrne

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 13, between lines 33 and 34 to insert a new section as follows:

"In connection with any assessment to income tax where a person proves that he has incurred expense on himself or on any dependant arising out of disability or illness which is serious and likely to be permanent there shall be deducted from the income to be assessed the vouched expenses so incurred in excess of £50 per annum per person and up to a maximum of £300 per annum per person."

Last week, speaking on the Minister's behalf, the Minister for Justice held out some considerable hope that the Minister would be able to accept the principle of this amendment, which is one, as he knows, recommended by the Income Tax Commission in their Seventh Report. I take it the Minister is accepting the amendment?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is quite right that in the second White Paper the Government undertook to consider this question and try to produce a scheme. I am afraid that will take some time. It would be absolutely impossible to try to produce a scheme in this Finance Bill. All I can say is that consideration of this matter will be proceeded with in the hope that we may be able to reach some definite decision before next year.

Mr. Norton

Arising out of what the Minister says, I think everybody recognises this is the kind of difficulty against which it is virtually impossible for the ordinary man to make a watertight provision because the illness may affect not merely one member but a number of members of the same family. Even such schemes as the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme have their limitations from the point of view of the period covered and the financial liability covered. The ordinary citizen, despite all his efforts, can frequently run into the difficulty that he cannot make adequate provision against the onslaught of illness and the prolongation of that illness. I think the Minister should enable persons liable to income tax to claim a set-off in respect of medical expenses.

The Minister says it may take some time to evolve a suitable scheme. I accept that is the situation, but, in the meantime, would it not be possible to arrange with the Revenue Commissioners that an application in this type of case would be sympathetically considered by the Revenue Commissioners, provision being made to cover that sympathetic consideration by a suitable provision in next year's Finance Bill, or any other Bill introduced to give legal effect to the acceptance of the principle in this amendment?

The Minister would, I think, find widespread support for a proposal to deal in a sympathetic way with those who are unfortunately liable to meet heavy medical expenses. In many cases, these expenses can have a crippling and long-continued effect on the family finances. I urge the Minister, even though he may not have the legal powers, to grant exemption at this stage by taking steps, executively or administratively, to give the Revenue Commissioners power to allow a claim for such expenses, it being understood that the exercise of that power will be covered in some subsequent enactment.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I should like to support the amendment and, in particular, what Deputy Norton has just said in connection with it. The amendment seeks to deal with a problem which is not new, a problem which has been raised and canvassed in this House on a number of occasions. It is worth recalling that a step in the right direction with regard to this problem of expenses attendant on ill-health was taken by Deputy Sweetman in, I think, the Finance Bill of 1955 where the payment of Voluntary Health insurance premiums was recognised for allowance under the income tax code. That, however, has still left the unanticipated expenses to which Deputy Norton has referred and which are dealt with in this amendment.

I fail to understand why this should appear to take the Minister for Finance by surprise and why he should adopt, or appear to adopt, the non possumus attitude of saying that, since we have not worked out a scheme, we cannot do anything now. That is like the old adage: “Live horse and you will get grass”. The fact is that throughout the years people have, through their representatives in this House, referred to this particular problem of unanticipated heavy medical expense suddenly falling on a family, bringing with it frequently a cessation of income and a piling up of debt.

We are now on the Report Stage of this Bill supposed to be acting as a deliberative legislative assembly. To my mind, it comes ill from the Minister in charge of the measure to say: "I can do nothing now." Are we not legislating now? Is that not the function of this House? Is that not the purpose? We are changing the law. It is proposed that we change the law under this Finance Bill. If the Minister feels it would be unsafe to accept the amendment in the wording as proposed, then let the Minister suggest some other way of doing it. If he cannot do that, let him at least do what Deputy Norton suggested, accept the principle and if legislation cannot be proposed now, let a concession at least be made in principle that these unwanted and heavy expenses should rank forthwith for legitimate allowance under the income tax code.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to support the view expressed in favour of this amendment. My recollection is that an amendment similar to this has been introduced to Finance Bills on a number of occasions. In addition to that, there is the recommendation on it in the report of the Income Tax Commission. While there may be some difficulties in drafting a scheme, there is a good deal in what Deputy Norton said that something should be done as far as possible by administrative action to allow expenses necessarily and properly incurred on illness, or in the case of disability, where a person becomes liable for some quite unexpected outgoings.

If it were possible to grant the maximum remission, in the case of vouched expenses, by executive or administrative action, it would go a considerable distance towards meeting the case until a scheme has been worked out. As the Minister is aware, there is a good case for granting relief in respect of this particular type of expenditure, where a person may be liable not merely for expenses incurred in regard to his own illness but perhaps in regard to the illness of one or more members of his family. Undoubtedly cases of very considerable hardship have occurred and will occur and it is for that reason that there is a strong case at this stage for doing whatever can be done either by administrative action or ministerial direction to the Revenue Commissioners to grant the maximum allowance possible, where accurate and vouched expenses are incurred.

Dr. Browne

I should like to support the amendment. There is very little one can tell the Minister about this that he does not know because of his own professional background. He must understand as well as we do that this is a particularly unfair provision. A certain section of the community, because of the incidence of sickness, which is unpredictable, may find itself unable to take advantage of the various advances that have taken place over the past 20 years because of an inability to afford them. The desirable thing would be to give the tax remissions which have been suggested in respect of all expenditure on drugs, but it is even more desirable that they should be made available in regard to long-term diseases for which it is now possible to obtain drugs which can make life bearable or possible for people suffering from them such as in the case of long-standing chronic diseases or chest or nervous diseases or diseases such as diabetes. It might make all the difference in regard to a person being able to avail of the drug or not being able to get it.

This is a discriminatory provision. We have all protested about this turnover tax being put on food and clothes and on consumer goods generally, but most of us made the point that this will be offset by trade union action of one kind or another. To that extent the harm may be mitigated but this is specifically directed at a section. The Minister for Justice made the point last week that various schemes would offset the trouble which would be caused to the average person, but there are no schemes available to the general body of white-collar workers. This is aimed practically exclusively at the white-collar worker. The middle income group do not matter very much.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They all matter.

Dr. Browne

I am just saying that the greatest hardship will be on the people who may be affected by virtue of the fact that they may not be able to afford drugs. The lower income group are covered by medical schemes and are protected, so that this penal clause is really directed against a minority which is already fairly heavily discriminated against insofar as they have to pay for the schemes we make available for the lower income group but from which they themselves do not benefit. The Minister may say that there is the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. I have expressed my criticisms of that scheme from time to time. Generally speaking, you can say that for one reason or another it is not availed of by the majority of the white-collar workers. People who might find themselves being ordered to take drugs which they would have to take for the best part of their lives, or perhaps during the winter, simply cannot afford to get these drugs. Possibly they could not afford them up to now but certainly they will not be able to get them in future, if this additional tax is put on.

I would not feel so strongly about this if there were a scheme available to the extent to which it is available to a limited group. As the Minister is aware, there is a Committee of the Dáil in session at the moment considering this whole question of the health services but that is no use to the people as it will require a fairly long period for its discussions and the matter will have to be referred back to the Dáil and legislation introduced. Unless the Minister takes some steps to intervene, it may be difficult to devise a scheme but I am quite satisfied knowing the provisions that have been made in the past in regard to education, house purchases and various other exceptions to the general rule of taxation, that it would be possible for his Department to devise a scheme which would meet the general feeling of the House in this regard.

If the Minister could even give us an undertaking that he is sympathetically disposed to the proposition and that he would do his best to get the Department to introduce a regulation under which people in such circumstances will not be victimised in this terribly serious way, particularly when such a regulation could be much more valuable now than in the past, I think the House would be satisfied to some extent.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I want to support this amendment. I honestly cannot see why the Minister has refused to accept it, nor can I see any great difficulty in doing what is suggested in the amendment for the type of person involved. In the first instance, the Minister might consider the fact that it will not cost the State very much. That is one very good reason why he should accept the amendment. In the second place, the amendment is a reasonable one. The Minister is a medical man himself and must know the burden of charges in relation to medical treatment and must know that these charges have gone up considerably in recent years. He must also know that illness creates considerable difficulty and hardship for the type of person we are endeavouring to cater for in this amendment.

The person concerned here is the salaried man, the payer of income tax. The Minister says it is impossible to do this, but apparently he has given it very little consideration at official level. I understand this amendment was introduced on Committee Stage by Deputy Byrne and others, that it was fully discussed and that it was to be referred to at this stage after official consideration had been given to it. Therefore, it is unreasonable and unfair to refuse to consider it at all in its present form.

Let us take the case of a person earning a fixed salary, maybe with several children at the most expensive stage of their careers. He might be a civil servant or a professional man. One or more of his children may be stricken with an illness which, while not chronic, may extend over a period of 18 months or so. As Deputy Dr. Browne said, they may have to seek the most expensive, up-to-date treatment which might be the means of restoring them to health and enabling them to earn bread for their family in the future. Despite the heavy charges thus imposed on them, apart altogether from the strictly medical costs, they have got to go on paying income tax because the Minister says it is impossible to introduce a new scheme under which they would benefit.

I say it is perfectly simple, if he would only accept our amendment, to insert a clause whereby the Revenue Commissioners, when satisfied there is undue hardship, could give sympathetic consideration in relation to the amelioration of income tax commitments. We say that in cases where families are subjected to undue medical expenses, they should be allowed to set such expenses against income tax. The maximum of £300 which we suggest is very conservative. How in all fairness can the Minister argue that a person stricken with prolonged illness will be able to meet his commitments as easily as if he were in ordinary health?

I want to put this to the Minister as well. If he leaves the law in this respect as it is, and apparently he intends to do so, he is ignoring the case of a man who for two years may be laid low with illness such as malignancy and whose family are subjected to all kinds of expenses because of their desire to soften that man's burden, but when he is dead, the Income Tax Commissioners are forced to take the very last halfpenny in tax. In all humanity, surely a clause could be inserted which, while not accepting the full implications of the amendment, would do something to rectify that situation? I can foresee cases where Deputies may be asked to make representations and where, while the Income Tax Commissioners may have all the sympathy in the world, they can do nothing about it because the Minister refuses to accept the amendment.

Mr. D. Costello

I understand there is almost unanimous agreement that the object of this amendment is a desirable one. I understand the Government do not in any way believe that what is proposed here is something which the Dáil should, if possible, accept. We all have sympathy with the type of case which it is proposed should be covered by this amendment. We all know that sometimes some people experience the great hardship that can result from serious and perhaps permanent illness. I feel sure that it would be the wish of all of us that an effort would be made to alleviate the difficulties of people in that position.

If that agreement exists among us, as it appears to me to exist, what then is the objection to this amendment? The answer, we are told, is that there are administrative difficulties. I fail to see how that argument carries weight against the undoubted strength of the argument in favour of the amendment. I can see, of course, that the Minister may be advised by the Revenue Commissioners that there would be difficulties in administering such a provision. But are there not difficulties in administering any law, and particular difficulties in administering many of the laws governing certain aspects of the income tax code as it exists at the moment?

At the present time a businessman is entitled to deduct from his income tax liability his entertainment expenses. A businessman's entertainment expenses are certainly difficult from the administrative point of view and we all know the way in which this law sometimes appears to be strained excessively in favour of so-called business expenses. It is done, though. I am quite certain that when such a proposal was originally made, the argument was used that it would be difficult to administer. However, the fact is we have an income tax code under which such items as business entertainment expenses are deducted. Undoubtedly, that particular part of the code must be difficult to administer. I submit such difficulties by far exceed the administration problems of this amendment.

What are the difficulties? The Minister's colleague, during the Committee Stage debate, stated that it might be difficult to ascertain what medical expenses were. That might be so in individual cases but what we are suggesting is that discretion be given. That is all we ask. Some people may try to get away with something to which they are not entitled, but the vast majority of cases will be plain and simple, cases where people honestly incur nurses' and doctors' expenses and there will not be the slightest difficulty in interpreting them.

It was pointed out there may be sums amounting to £40 which would not come into the £50 range and that there would be others in excess of £300. Of course, cases where the margin will be difficult will arise. There are such cases in every aspect of our income tax code but that is no reason for refusing to accept this principle which I suggest would be a simple administrative matter to apply. One is left with the impression that the real reason is the financial one. If that is the real reason, we should be told it. If the real reason against the amendment is what it will cost the Exchequer every year, we should be told that and the Dáil could then make up its mind about it. I know the way the members of this Party would vote in regard to it.

The weakness of the argument against the amendment would lead one to the conclusion that the real reason is not an administrative one but the cost to the Exchequer. The more one examines this amendment, the more one comes to the conclusion that, without having administrative experience, it is extremely hard to see how any administrative difficulty other than the normal ones can arise in connection with it. There seems to be unanimous agreement in the House that this is a desirable objective to achieve. All sides of the House must have sympathy with the type of person whom the amendment is designed to relieve and the arguments against it based on administrative difficulties seem to carry very little weight. I think the Minister should give careful consideration to the amendment before he turns it down.

Mr. N. Lemass

Last year, on the Finance Bill, I referred to specific cases that would be relieved by an amendment such as this and I suggested that this year the Minister would perhaps consider allowing medical expenses to be deductible expenses for income tax purposes. I have learned since then that payments under the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme are deductible for income tax purposes and I believe we should encourage everybody to go into that scheme. However, there is no compulsion about joining it and while there is no such compulsion, a person has to pay for essential medical attention from his own resources. I find it very hard to see why these expenses cannot be deductible. Whatever arguments the Opposition may have regarding the retrospection in relation to other sections of this Bill, here is one section where the question of retrospection is much more important to people who did not have the opportunity of joining the Voluntary Health Scheme and who may have to spend several thousand pounds to keep themselves alive.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

People who might be precluded from joining it.

Mr. N. Lemass

Yes. All medical expenses should be deductible for income tax purposes and whatever administrative difficulties may come up, I hope the Minister will give this matter sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Clinton

I am pleased to hear Deputy Lemass support this amendment. Nothing would surprise me more than if a Deputy from any side of the House opposed it, as I believe it is an amendment that should appeal to everybody here. I believe the Minister himself is sympathetic to it but I think he sees difficulties that would have to be overcome if it were implemented but these difficulties are no more difficult to overcome than are the administrative difficulties that arise in connection with other reliefs people are entitled to claim.

There is one case that occurs to me as a case of great hardship, that is, the case of a family with a mentally defective child, a child having a normal expectation of life. The parents of such a child may have to pay £4 or £5 a week for its care in an institution over a very long period. I do not think any Deputy here would claim that such people should not be able to claim for that as medical expenses deductible for income tax. I do not think there is any opposition to this amendment from any Deputy except the Minister himself.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It seems to me that this amendment is too narrow. It refers to a disability that is serious and likely to be permanent. I do not know if the Commission confined itself to that in its report.

Mr. Byrne

The amendment uses the words of the Commission's recommendation.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I think it should go wider than that. The costs of medical attention arising out of a curable illness can be very severe. A person may suffer from a severe illness for one, two or five years and still be cured. Any amendment which is introduced to cover this particular matter should cover that type of illness as well as a serious illness likely to be permanent. I would go further than the amendment is designed to go. I think the Minister should make a serious effort to do what he would like to do, as well as everybody in the House, that is, actually to put it into effect. Like other Deputies, I fail to see why there should be any real administrative difficulty in putting it into operation.

Mr. Dillon

I feel that the amendment as drafted by Deputy Byrne is probably the right amendment, even though, to Deputy S. Flanagan, it seems to be only a step in the right direction. I think that to go the full distance suggested by Deputy S. Flanagan would leave us open to the counter charge that somebody who was not excluded by circumstances from the benefit of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme could protect himself by entering the scheme and thereafter insurance himself against the kind of expense here envisaged. But if a family has a member who is chronically ill already and has been labouring under a heavy burden of expense and may anticipate a continuation of that heavy burden of expense, I think I am right in saying that such person would be excluded from the benefit of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme and therefore the dilemma of that family in respect of that person is not remediable by any precautions they could take.

Dr. Browne

And there is an age qualification.

Mr. Dillon

Consider the position of that person who has been bearing this burden without assistance so far and whom this amendment is principally designed to aid. It would appear from all sides of the House that there is a strong feeling that this relief might be provided. Doubtless there are administrative difficulties.

I hope the Minister will not think I am introducing a contentious note if I say that the administrative difficulties associated with this concession compared with the administrative difficulties which are designed for shopkeepers up and down the country under certain other provisions of this Bill are as the proverbial molehill to the mountain. Nevertheless, we must have due regard to the prudent advice of the Revenue Commissioners which I readily concede is usually prudent.

I venture to remind the Minister for Finance of this fact. For years and years, successive Ministers for Finance desired to do substantial justice to civil servants who had retired under an old salary scale. All of us, I think, felt it was inequitable that you might have a Principal Officer retiring in 1956 on one scale of pension and a Principal Officer who retired in 1946 having a very much lower scale of pension. That, many of us felt, was grossly unfair because the man with the lower scale of pension was almost invariably older and therefore less able to supplement his income from another source.

The argument was always powerfully made that the Revenue view was that your pension was part of your salary and any infringement of that sacred principle would bring the whole financial structure of the State down around our ears. I think, finally, we took the plunge and said, recognising the significance of this old-established principle, we felt it was too restrictive on our discretion and we determined to eliminate a great many of the differentials that existed in the pension code. The world has not fallen down around our ears and we have managed to carry on without any grave consequence on this decision to depart from a venerable principle of remuneration of public servants which had survived two generations.

I suppose there are administrative difficulties here but I have often vouchsafed the view which I have never heard successfully countered that such are the resources of the public service of this country that once a Minister tells either the Revenue Commissioners or the Civil Service he wants something done it always gets done. They always begin by telling you that the thing cannot be done, that it is impossible to do it, up to the point when you say: "Now, the argument is over, gentleman. It must be done," whereupon they all lay back their ears and go and do it and it is well done and they find ways and means and the matter is resolved.

If the Minister says to the Revenue Commissioners: "We acknowledge the administrative problems that exist but the thing has to be done," it will be done within 24 hours. Lacunae may arise and abuse may manifest itself but the ingenuity of the Revenue Commissioners will not be taxed to deal with any abuse that arises, which cannot be very widespread. The charge on the Exchequer to provide this relief will be microscopic. I think every Deputy knows that though the individual relief to overburdened families may be very material it will not make anybody's fortune to reduce his assessment up to a limit of £300—and that is a maximum of £300: the reduction may be substantially less.

Still, if you have a sick person for whom special medical expense is annually due, it could do a great deal to help. Here I speak not, happily, with experience of chronic sickness. A great many of us in this House have had experience of the advantage of Voluntary Health Insurance. Many of us entered the scheme more or less in the belief that it was a sensible kind of thing to do without realising the benefits it confers. There is not the slightest doubt that the experience of any family man that the difference between facing a doctor's bill, a hospital bill, unsupported by the Voluntary Health Insurance and with the assistance of the Voluntary Health Insurance is dramatic.

I have known in my personal experience hospital and medical expenses, which would have occasioned families very grave embarrassment, resulting in no serious burden as a result of the assistance given by the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. I urge on the Minister, in respect of that limited class of persons for whom this amendment is designed, those who by age or by health are precluded from helping themselves by paying their annual premium to the Voluntary Health Insurance Board, to accept the principle of this amendment and to give effect to it as soon as may be.

Mr. Sweetman

This amendment has had, today, a somewhat longer discussion than it had on the Committee Stage last week. That is inevitable in view of the manner in which the Minister for Justice, sitting in for the Minister for Finance, apparently without any justification, promised the House that the examination of this problem would be completed by to-day. I must confess that at the time when I heard the Minister for Justice categorically and emphatically promise that the examination would be completed by the Report Stage and when he said, as reported at column 435 of the Official Report, that by then, this examination would be completed I had the gravest doubts whether he was not being grossly inaccurate, to put the mildest possible term on his statement. However, I was prepared, particularly as only a week was involved, to give him the benefit of the doubt and to see what the promise would be.

It now appears, from the statement made by the Minister, that the Minister for justice gave that undertaking without the authority of the Minister for whom he was acting and without regard, apparently, to the facts as they were. It had the effect, of course, of curtailing the debate. It might be desirable for a Minister that a debate would be curtailed in that fashion but anybody with any experience of the courts will tell you that if a barrister makes a representation to a judge that is subsequently proved to be untrue and inaccurate, that judge will not lightly accept any further representation from the same barrister without proof. We now know where we stand in relation to the Minister for Justice. It was, of course, because of that, and only because of that, that this amendment was not more fully debated on the Committee Stage.

Therefore, as the debate was curtailed by the inaccurate and incorrect representations made by the Minister for Justice on the last occasion, it is only proper it should be fully examined today. People on this side of the House, foremost amongst whom has been Deputy Byrne, have been advocating this provision for a number of years. It is a provision which exists in other countries, particularly in Australia. Just as Deputy Dillon has indicated the manner in which official approach is made to certain problems in general, so, too, I can truthfully say the approach made in relation to the Voluntary Health Insurance premium was exactly the same.

The first line was that it was not possible to do what was required. When we were adamant in that respect, even before the institution of the Board, a way was found by the Revenue Commissioners of the time without the slightest difficulty. I have no doubt that exactly the same thing could occur now if the Minister only gave the direction. I said the last day in relation to other matters that the whole theory here in relation to Government is that we have technical experts and that these technical experts are in charge of a Minister. The Minister is supposed to have the commonsense approach of the ordinary person to problems. Having listened to the technical experts, he is supposed to give them a decision on a broad front and see that decision is carried into effect.

Deputy Byrne has been the foremost protagonist of this scheme in recent years. I agree without question that the Voluntary Health Insurance scheme has taken away a large part of the hardship cases, a large number of people who otherwise would have suffered very considerable hardship indeed. But there still remains a substantial residue of people who, because of their state of health or their age, cannot come in under the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. In an endeavour to meet that case the amendment has been put forward.

That point of view was recognised very fairly in paragraph 93 of the Seventh Report of the Commission on Income Taxation, where it stated:

The argument for a tax deduction in respect of expenses arising from disability or illness is not now as strong as it was before 1955 because in that year a provision was enacted allowing, for income taxation, the cost of ensuring against medical, surgical, and nursing expenses. There are, however, a number of taxpayers who, through age, illness, or other circumstances cannot take advantage of that provision.

In paragraph 95, the Commission went on to say:

Notwithstanding this, cases of substantial and continuing personal expenses of an abnormal character cannot be lost sight of without the danger of grave hardship being caused; and some tax provision should be made for such exceptional cases. It is tempting to recommend an allowance whenever any abnormal personal expenditure exceeding a certain limit is unavoidably incurred, but for practical reasons we consider it essential to confine the allowance to a disability of a permanent or quasi-permanent nature.

I mention that particularly having regard to the point made by Deputy Seán Flanagan. The report goes on :

The allowance should be related not to loss of income (as that is adequately taken care of by the consequent tax reduction) nor to disability in itself, because that is not the essence of the matter, but to abnormal expense arising out of disability or illness.

The Commission went on in paragraph 96 to recommend the allowance that has been set down by Deputy Byrne, Deputy Ryan and myself. When we were drafting this, we set it down in the exact terms of the Commission's recommendation, because we wanted to be quite clear that we were fortified by the report of the Commission in what we were asking the Dáil to do.

The report concerned was dated 28th March, 1962. Although the printed Seventh Report of the Income Taxation Commission has not been available to the general public for 15 months, it has been available both to the Minister and to the Revenue Commissioners for that period. I personally was extremely disappointed when I read the Second White Paper on Direct Taxation, having regard to the the manner in which this point has been stressed by Deputy Byrne, myself and others time and again. That White Paper only went as far as saying in paragraph 39:

The possibility will be examined of framing a scheme which would be administratively practicable and at the same time would effectively confine the relief to cases of the kind contemplated in the recommendation.

That was in April last. This is a secret locked up under the Official Secrets Act within the bosom of the Minister for Finance and his advisers, but I hazard a guess that the draft of the Second White Paper on Direct Taxation was probably approved by the Minister somewhere about last February. If I am correct in that, there have been five months or so since paragraph 39 was drafted. It is a pity, to say the least of it, that in that period we do not appear to have progressed any distance. Again today the Minister can only say he is still examining the matter. I think there is a provision that this can be done in Australia. I am not aware of the exact provision in Australia but we could take the Australian precedent. Could we not bring in a scheme to suit our particular circumstances? At least, it would be a start in considering the examination and implementation of the proposal now.

We would have had all this discussion on the Committee Stage if the Minister for Justice had not shortcircuited the discussion by promising that the examination would be completed today. The Minister for Finance should realise that there is on him an obligation to redeem the assurance, which was perhaps reckless and incorrect, of his colleague and to give the House now a categoric promise that in relation to this matter, there will be allowed out of the profits or earnings of every person this year an allowance to meet the expenses of illness in the terms set out in the amendment. In regard to assessments under Schedule D, it would come into operation next year when this year's profits are being assessed; in regard to Schedule E, PAYE, the appropriate adjustment could be made at the end of the year or even after that, but related to this year through this provision. Administratively, it would be perfectly possible to do it. The only thing needed is the will to make the necessary arrangements now.

We all know how serious, prolonged or permanent illness can mean almost disaster to any family. It can easily arise in cases where a person, because of age or previous health record, cannot be taken into the Voluntary Health Scheme. Unless there is something like this, for the white-collar workers in particular, there will not be the relief very often at the point of time when it is most needed, when the breadwinner of the family is prevented from earning to keep the family in the last years of his life. For that reason alone, the Minister should accept the amendment and do so in the certain knowledge that it can be done even in relation to this year, perhaps at a later stage.

Mr. Leneghan

I have two reasons for feeling grave doubts about this amendment. First, it seems to have been introduced by people who spent almost seven years since 1948 in office and entirely overlooked the necessity for this during that period when people were much poorer than they are now. Evidently, they did not then regard it as necessary. I find it difficult to believe that their brains have matured so rapidly since then. Why did they not do it themselves and get full credit for doing it when they had the opportunity? The other reason for doubt is that it appears that this is nothing more than a rich man's amendment, another way of evading income tax. There is a health service here and if it does not operate well in the counties from which these Deputies come, that is, in my opinion, their own fault. It operates more than reasonably well in my county. Anybody can get free hospitalisation with an income up to £800 and if it is a necessitous case, even with an income much higher than that. There is no doubt about that. We have also the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. I do not know why those proposing this amendment have decided it is so necessary now and thereby prevent so much money going to the Revenue Commissioners.

I have no doubt if this were to be accepted, it would become one of the greatest frauds ever put across in this country. If I could see any means of avoiding fraud, I would back it, but I cannot. It would put a premium on fraud. We all know there are thousands of fake medical certificates issued every week and money drawn under false pretences as a result. If this goes through, what will happen? The country will be flooded out with fake certificates. Anybody who wants to avoid income tax has only to get a medical certificate. Cannot anybody see through that? If this amendment were brought in in a reasonable fashion, so that it would apply to vouched hospital expenses but not to surgeon's fees, then I would see some point in it but to put down an amendment which leaves the whole thing open to abuse of the grossest type is something I could not stand for.

Certainly, I ask the Minister to examine the question of giving some income tax rebate in respect of vouched hospital fees, maintenance fees, fees for anaesthetics and so on. I would not be so daft as to ask the Minister to accept surgeon's and doctor's fees. It would mean that doctors who are already being paid by the State or the local authority would be able to duplicate their fees and could hand any type of bill to a patient. This proposal is a glib one and appears very humane on the surface but only a man who is a case for a mental home would accept it as it is put down. It could not be tolerated. Nobody would ever be in good health in this country if the Minister were to accept certificates such as are issued by the gross in this country today as the basis for a rebate of income tax. I ask the Minister to consider what I have said as it is very important.

Mr. Tully

We have heard of the English who came here and after a few years were considered more Irish than the Irish themselves. Having listened to the previous speaker and knowing the sentiments expressed by two members of Fianna Fáil, I think we can say the previous speaker is more Fianna Fáil than Fianna Fáil themselves.

Mr. Leneghan

I have told the truth for once.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy might be tempted to tell the truth some time later.

Mr. Leneghan

When we come back in October.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

So long as they have Deputy Leneghan here to act as whipper-in for Fianna Fáil, they may feel fairly safe. The only thing is that when the election does come around, a number of us here feel that we shall come back and that is more than can be said for those who are keeping the Government in office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the amendment.

Mr. Tully

Surely the wording of the amendment is quite plain. It says: "In connection with any assessment to income tax where a person proves that he has incurred expense..." The question of fake medical certificates and a local authority paying for expenses and all that is a lot of cod because in fact the individual has to prove that these expenses are incurred. That being so, there is no doubt that the amendment as suggested is workable and can be worked without any fraud.

As far as fraud is concerned, we have had this shocking reflection on the working class people and on the medical profession when a reference was made to fake medical certificates. I have dealings with a lot more workers than Deputy Leneghan and in all my time I have not come across a case of fake medical certificates being issued. The Minister for Health makes sure of that. If there is even a trace of something being wrong, he will investigate the matter and punish severely the doctor who has issued not a fake medical certificate but a certificate without having fully examined the patient. This is a matter on which all Deputies, whatever side of the House they belong to, can speak, and the only thing we can do in connection with this charge is to put it in the same category as that in regard to the brandy that was given to the lighthouse keepers. It is a suggestion that should not have been made and which ought to be withdrawn.

I would appeal to the Minister to consider this amendment. It is not a political issue here. It is simply and solely a question of what is best for the people. I believe firmly that the Minister is as anxious as we are to alleviate suffering as a result of severe illness. The only difference is that he, as Minister, is not prepared to take the step which we want to take and cannot take. He is the only person who can do what is being asked.

We all have experience of unfortunate people, who have been ill over a period, partially recovering from their illness and for years on top of years having to pay for expensive drugs and medicines and also having to pay for treatment by the local doctor. A reference was made here to free treatment and the Deputy who made it is not aware of what actually happens when somebody is ill and that somebody has not a medical card. Very many workers, even not so well paid workers, are in that position and while they can possibly get free treatment or nearly free treatment in hospital, while they are receiving treatment in their own home, whether they are continuing at work or not, the doctor must be paid. Drugs must also be paid for and that takes an enormous amount of money. It is only those who have seen illness over a long period in a home who can really appreciate the enormous expense which can be incurred by such a person. As was said this evening by Deputy Seán Flanagan, the only thing we disagree about is that the amendment does not go far enough. I believe the amendment should go much further and I would ask the Minister at least to implement what is suggested here.

I am dealing mainly with wage earners who will be affected but there are other categories who will also be concerned. Unless people are in the category of the very rich, a period of a few years' illness where expensive medical treatment is being paid for will bring them to the brink of poverty. I am one of the people in this country who do not sing the praises of Coalition or inter-Party Government but credit should be given where credit is due. It is true that it was the last inter-Party Government who brought into being the Commission which made the report on this matter and suggested this was the way to deal with it. It was also the last inter-Party Government that introduced the Voluntary Health Scheme which has done so much to help the people who have been described here as the white-collar worker during a period of extended illness.

It is quite true that over the years big improvements have been made in various services and no doubt those improvements will continue but this is something which requires immediate attention. Whether or not the amount is refunded to those who are paying through PAYE at the end of the financial year or whether any other arrangement may be made is simply a matter of the mechanics of the Bill. What is really important is that the gesture should be made. It will not cost the Exchequer a lot and it will mean a great deal to those who are in a position that they have to ask that it be applied to them.

Mr. A. Barry

It is a useful circumstance that the Minister for Finance is also a doctor of medicine because he can realise more clearly than most of us in this House the benefit we seek to achieve in this amendment. It is true the amendment could not possibly relieve the frightful impact of grave illness in the family but it could help to prevent the financial tragedy that often follows such affliction. While it may not provide comfort for a family, it may help to ease the burden where, say, a breadwinner is a long time ill. I need not outline the various ways in which it could cushion the effects of such an illness.

I do not know about the administrative difficulty but there is something to be said for the point that has been made that if the accounts of a business man can be checked—admittedly, there are fewer of them but they are particularly troublesome for the Revenue Commissioners—these other cases can also be investigated where the position would be far clearer and where the truth could be ascertained more easily. Perhaps the Minister has had some estimate of what this would cost. None of us has but we should have a look at the cost. After all, the higher the cost is to the State, the greater the measure of relief that is given to the unfortunate persons affected.

There is a very limited group for which this is provided. Certain disabilities such as age prevent many families from taking part in the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. I believe this proposal has the good wishes of all Deputies, with the exception of Deputy Leneghan. The Government Deputies who have spoken in support of the amendment deserve the thanks of the House and particularly Deputy Seán Flanagan because I notice that when he supports any proposal, it is successful, as evidenced on last Thursday night. We are all united in this matter against Deputy Leneghan. I want to remind the House, in contradistinction to what Deputy Leneghan said, that the Irish people have a fear of God and will not try to defraud in a matter of this kind. One can only describe Deputy Leneghan as a stage Irishman who should not be listened to.

Mr. Booth

We are all agreed on the principle here but I am afraid, for once, I would be in support of the attitude of the Revenue Commissioners which appeared to be conveyed to us by the Minister, that the amendment as drafted would be unworkable. I can quite see why Deputy Byrne followed the wording of the report of the Income Taxation Commission. He felt he would be on stronger and less contentious ground by doing so. I think that if you look at the wording as drafted, you could very easily find a number of weaknesses. First of all, the amendment provides for the expenses to which a taxpayer might become liable "arising out of disability or illness". I think it is essential that the word "necessarily arising out of disability or illness." No one, least of all the proposers of the amendment, would wish to subsidise hypochondriacs.

That is exactly the point I am trying to get at. Maybe I phrased it wrongly. The person who is unacceptable to the Voluntary Health Insurance Board and who is an uninsurable risk should be specially covered by some amendment such as this. I do not feel this amendment really meets the Bill. It is put down with the best intentions, I think. I do not want, like Deputy Sweetman, to start imputing motives, but I am sure this amendment was put down by Deputy Byrne with the best motives, and from his own experience. We should judge it in that light, but I think it does not meet the Bill because the Revenue Commissioners can prove conclusively that it would lead to administrative chaos. The Minister could tell the Revenue Commissioners that he wants something along these lines, at once. I cannot support the amendment as it stands. I support with all the emphasis at my disposal the general purpose behind the amendment.

That is a serious reflection on an honourable profession. It is a reflection which should not be allowed to pass in this House. These people have given their services for many years, very often without getting a halfpenny for them. I repudiate the allegation of Deputy Leneghan. I add this: if Deputy Leneghan knows, or persuades himself he knows, of cases where certificates are being issued fraudulently by doctors and surgeons, then it is his duty as a Deputy, not to talk of his duty as a citizen, to go at once to the Garda and give the information he says he has, or else withdraw the allegation he made here. I challenge him now to go to the Garda and give the information he says he has at once, or withdraw his slander on the medical and surgical profession.

That, Sir, was by way of interpolation. I want to return now to the principle enshrined in this amendment. We have now no such thing as a middle-class. The procedure I adopted personally in the past was to take the self-employed person. When I was in office, I know I certainly had the sympathetic support of the Revenue Commissioners for the principle that the self-employed person should receive some alleviation. I refer to the person whose raw materials are, first, his own health and, secondly, his brains and skill. Industrialists are in a position to make pretty good money out of their industry and are enabled thereby to meet their hospital, nursing home and surgical expenses. They can leave behind them an asset in the shape of their business and the goodwill attaching to that business. That is not available to the self-employed man. He gets no allowance, as industrialists do, for depreciation in plant and machinery. His plant and machinery are his own physical capacity, brains and skill. He should get some consideration. Industrialists have been reaping increasing benefits over the years. The self-employed man is ignored.

It is his choice. I think we should do things in the proper way and not break the rules.

If it were to be accepted that such items as medical expenses or school fees, the burden of which varies from taxpayer to taxpayer, were to be included in the personal reliefs for income tax, there is logically no reason why consideration should not be given to every part of the tax-payer's income which is employed to meet unavoidable expenditure.

Theoretically, a relief of this nature would cut across the concept of income tax as a non-discriminatory tax. For that reason, the theorists are opposed to added reliefs such as the one we are advocating here. I appeal to the Minister to exercise independence of judgment in regard to income tax reform as he has done in Section 2 of the Bill now before us where he excludes amateur sport from income tax. That was strictly refused by the Revenue Commissioners.

If the Minister puts his foot down, reinforced by virtually the unanimous approval of the responsible members of this House, he could have a scheme prepared in a matter of hours. The practical difficulties are not by any means immense. At least he can give recognition to the principle enshrined in the amendment and provide us with some alleviation, even if it is not all that could be desired, even if it is not a perfect scheme. If the Minister is in office this time next year, and that seems very unlikely at the moment, we must wait for another Finance Bill to incorporate this suggestion into the tax code, but how many chronic sick will have died, how many widows will have been left with doctors' bills which they will find great hardship in paying?

As has been said, the inter-Party Government, at the suggestion of Deputy Sweetman, set up the Income Taxation Commission, a body of experts who have issued seven reports recommending changes in our system, and most of them have been rejected by the Government. The Minister has been true to form in that respect. He is proving himself to be an arch-conservative Minister for Finance.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 71.

Tá

Barrett, Stephen D.
Barron, Joseph.
Barry, Anthony.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Paddy.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Michael.
Browne, Noel C.
Burke, James J.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Patrick.
Carroll, Jim.
Casey, Seán.
Clinton, Mark A.
Collins, Seán.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McQuillan, John.
Mullen, Michael.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Thomas G.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, Michael.
Dunne, Seán.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Everett, James.
Farrelly, Denis.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
O'Keeffe, James.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.
Tully, James.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Leneghan, Joseph R.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Brian, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
Ryan, James.
Sherwin, Frank.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Crotty and Tully; Níl, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.

Question declared lost.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 14, between lines 15 and 16, to insert a new section as follows:

"Subsection (1) of section 22 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by subsequent enactments, is hereby further amended by the addition of:

`and a deduction of £120 in each case for a widowed mother or a child for whom the child allowance under the Income Tax Acts is not applicable but who is medically certified to be incapable of maintaining himself by reason of physical or mental infirmity'."

This amendment seeks to increase the dependent relative allowance and follows the discussion we have had on Committee Stage. At that stage, we had down a general amendment to increase the dependent relative allowance to the amount allowed in respect of a child. That was an amendment which had in fact been recommended also in the Commission's report. As reported in the Official Report of 9th instant at column 441, the Minister said: "I would certainly favour a greater allowance for deserving cases if it could be done that way." Accordingly, to meet his views, the amendment has been framed to restrict— perhaps harshly but still to widen the door a little bit, if it is possible—the benefit to the case of the widowed mother or the permanently disabled child.

I read out on the last occasion a heartbreaking letter I received from a man in relation to his circumstances. There cannot be any difficulty whatever in the administration of this. It is just as simple for the Minister or for the Revenue Commissioners when they are administering this to grant an allowance for a widowed mother. There is no difference at all because when dependent relatives' claims are being considered, it is necessary that the relationship he proved. The fact that a person is a widowed mother is already proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners before the allowance of £60 is granted.

Mr. Sweetman

If one pushed that argument to its conclusion, you would never have any amendment of any Bill anywhere. However, I am prepared to admit that the particular division made here was only put up to the Minister within the last three days, whereas the last amendment has been put up to him for years.

Mr. Norton

The Minister urged against this amendment that there has not been sufficient consideration given to the problems with which the amendment deals and that he would like to see the matter further examined. Is it possible for the Minister to get this problem examined, as well as the one with which the previous amendment deals, between now and the next financial year? Is it possible to associate with the examining committee some members of this House, for example, who know the realities of life up and down the country and just do not see life only through a Government ledger or balance sheet?

There are cases of hardship where a widow is left in circumstances which impose very considerable difficulties on her. There are cases where married sons endeavour to sustain their widowed mothers even when they have families of their own to maintain. In such cases the burden on the son is pretty heavy. I have never seem much evidence of any excessive generosity in the granting of allowances in such cases. I know of many cases in which the son's burden is a pretty heavy one considering the inadequate relief he gets. I should like to see that whole question examined, but examined with a view to understanding the humanities of the situation and making some provision whereby reasonable cases of hardship of that kind would be understood sympathetically by the State and appropriate reliefs granted. Is the Minister contemplating a departmental examination of the problem only?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The Commission did consider it.

Mr. Sweetman

What did they recommend?

Dr. Ryan

They recommended that all be brought up to £120.

Mr. Sweetman

Therefore, the Commission did not advert to the special circumstances—they wanted to bring them all up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 6:

In pages 24, 25 and 26, to delete the words "1st day of January, 1962" wherever they occur and to substitute therefor "1st day of January, 1963".

We had a long discussion in relation to corporation profits tax on the last occasion. I have no doubt that the amendment of the law the Minister proposes in Section 37 is retrospective. The Minister suggested the other day it was wrong to advocate that such amendment was retrospective because of the period in which corporation profits tax was payable after the assessment was made. The accounts of the company are closed. The assessment is made and I think it is payable three months after that date. The Minister maintained that the case we were making was not correct.

I personally did not agree with the Minister's argument, but, to give him every opportunity of travelling this distance if he wanted to, we have put down this amendment to make the date the 1st January last. In that way it will not be necessary also to have subsection (5) of Section 7, which clearly shows that the provisions in the Bill are retrospective. If it was not necessary to reopen any assessments already made, then some case might be made for the Minister's point of view. But the Minister has himself proposed that assessments made and closed would be those the section would give the right to open again. In those circumstances I completely fail to understand how he can possibly say the provisions of the section are not retrospective. They are, and I would have far more respect for the view of all concerned if they came in and frankly admitted that and said it would not happen again. Otherwise, I feel this will be a very bad precedent in the future.

Mr. S. Flanagan

What would be the difference in revenue?

General MacEoin

I should like to support Deputy Sweetman. The chairman of a small company recently told me that his turnover was approximately £1,000 per week and that in a long month it might run to £4,500. He made the case that, having closed his books, distributed the profits, carried out repairs and so on, this retrospective tax would impose a very considerable burden on him. He said that, with the turnover tax after 1st November and the corporation profits tax, it would mean he would be working for nothing for the year.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I want to refer to this tax to the extent that there may be a retrospective element in it. I understand the Minister at one stage did make the case that this was not a really retrospective tax. I accepted that when speaking on the Budget but I do not accept it now. The Minister must face the situation that it is widely believed in business circles, among accountants, solicitors and barristers whose duty it is to advise clients where they are investing money in the country, that something is being done which has a retrospective element in the Bill. That will cause grave harm to our economy.

The Minister probably knows, because of the repeated exhortation to various interests outside the country to come and invest money here, that there has grown up a practice for people to come in and at least investigate the possibilities before they invest. It is a matter of grave importance to our economy that we should get that outside capital. I think we all agree on that and certainly each Government has acted on the desirability of getting people with loose—not hot—money to consider investing here. They come here and go to an accountant or solicitor or both and one of the first questions they put is: "What is the position as regards taxation laws here?" In any view of the law of taxation and various laws dealing with the imposition of taxation and various other laws dealing with grants of public money to encourage investment here, a solicitor or accountant has a difficult task in trying to construe the statute and advise the client properly but one thing these people all want to know is: "Is there a possibility if we invest money in this country that there will be any retrospective taxation?"

The Minister may take it from me that is asked repeatedly and up to now every solicitor and accountant was entitled to answer: "No; you are perfectly safe in that respect. You may have to pay increased taxation later but you will never have to reopen your accounts once you have got a discharge receipt from the Revenue Commissioners." That is to be changed now. Nobody can controvert that the effect of this measure is, whether it is technically retrospective or, as apparently the Minister wishes to maintain, is, in fact, merely a tax requiring the reopening of accounts, in effect retrospective because it will impinge on business people who have paid their taxes up to date and got a receipt in full discharge from the Revenue Commissioners. That receipt, on which business was regulated for the future in the belief that all taxation was over, will now be reopened and any solicitor or accountant who will now be questioned, if this tax itself does not frighten away investors from the country, and asked: "Is this retrospective tax we are talking about likely to happen again?" must be told there is no guarantee that at some later stage something like this will not be done in another Finance Act.

The Minister may recall that in the Finance Act of 1958—I think it was— dealing with dividend stripping a provision was put in by the present Government that was admittedly retrospective and intended to be so. But from the Minister's side of the House, the Minister for Justice and Deputy Booth made such a case that in deference to their views—not to anything we said—that retrospective element was taken away. So great a case was made that the Minister withdrew. I believe that was the first time anything like retrospective tax was introduced in our legislation. At least, it was the first time for very many years.

This is not merely a question of getting in money because money is necessary this year. There is a bigger principle involved and one that will cost this State dearly if it is not made clear to prospective investors that there will never be retrospective taxation. If a headline is not given by this Parliament to this effect undoubtedly it will frighten off people who might invest good money for useful purposes here. What will be gained by this provision whether you call it retrospective or merely reopening accounts? What amount of money will be got compared with the amount that may be lost, putting it at the lowest, through people being frightened off on finding that something like retrospective taxation has been put into this Bill? I ask the Minister to consider this very seriously because from information put at my disposal I suggest people are asking: "Is this going to mean that we cannot rely on investing our money in this country with any certainty that next year again something like this will not be done?"

One of the essentials of just law is that it should be certain. No law is just unless it is certain. People are not likely to invest hard-earned money in industries here and help build up our economy unless they know with certainty what the taxation laws will be. I do not care whether this can be labelled as not retrospective from some narrow technical Revenue point of view. The fact is that accounts that were closed are to be reopened and a receipt given by the Revenue Commissioners in full discharge is not in full discharge when accounts are to be reopened.

I listened to a speech by Deputy McGilligan on the Committee Stage of the Bill in which he pointed out that this type of corporation profits tax and other taxes were not required. I listened to a speech by Deputy Booth who, in effect, condemned the retrospective tax but said the Minister wanted the money for economic expansion. He wanted the Minister to say he would not do it again but he did not even get that assurance. That will be noticed by people who invest money here. Deputy Booth said he did not like the retrospective provision previously and prevailed on the then Minister to withdraw it. In this case, he asked the Minister: "Please tell us you will not do it again." I looked up the final speech the Minister made on the Committee Stage and he gave no such undertaking.

Deputy McGilligan said this was not necessary—I am speaking from recollection but I think I am right— whether you call it retrospection or reopening of accounts. All that is to be got out of it is £500,000. That can be got in either of the ways Deputy McGilligan pointed out, with his experience as Minister for Finance. It can be got by an allowance for over-estimation. There was only £2 million allowed for over-estimation in the Budget this year. Another £500,000 could be got from that source. It could also be got from savings. This whole tax would only give £500,000 this year and the Minister could issue directions so that by departmental efforts, this amount could be saved in order to maintain the principle that there should not be retrospection in taxation.

This is not a question, as Deputy Booth said, of the necessity of carrying on the economic programme of the Government. Everyone recognises this must be done. This is a drop in the ocean compared with what will be got by the 2½ per cent turnover tax. It would be good business to drop this retrospective element or reopening of accounts element, whatever you call it, in this taxation, in order to assure people who are thinking of investing their money in this country that they will not be liable to a recurrence of this kind which would shake the confidence of investors in this country to a point where far more damage might be done—I need not put it any further—than by dropping the retrospective element of this tax.

Mr. Leneghan

Once again, I regard this as a tax on the rich man and as such I heartily welcome it but instead of going back to 1st January, 1962, as the Minister proposes to do, if I had anything to do with it, in most cases, I would go back to 2nd September, 1939, and start from there and this Minister would get some money. Deputy Costello has defended the foreigners. He did not say anything at all on behalf of Irishmen. He is terribly afraid that if any foreigners come into this country, anything will be done to discourage them.

Mr. J. A. Costello

Why are you asking them to come in and spend their money?

Mr. Leneghan

I am not doing it. It is the Deputy. He made no case for the Irish people but made a tremendous case for the foreigner. We know the attitude of his Party towards Irishmen. Deputy Costello is greatly worried over the accounts of these foreigners who come here but if a poor countryman draws the dole and it is found five years later that even by a trip-up for which he was not responsible he has drawn anything over and above what he was entitled to, he has to pay back the money in respect of those five years. Deputy Costello did not stand up to defend him. The members of his Party spoke about the money that would be taken out of the country if the rich men of this country had their accounts looked at in any way. The ordinary dole man and old age pensioner must have their accounts looked at and they have no redress in this House or elsewhere. It is a shame that there can be any section of the community getting away with murder as a great many people have been doing.

Deputy Costello says solicitors and accountants will give advice in this regard to people coming into this country or other people who set up industry, simply and solely because this tax does not suit Deputy Costello and because he is making election propaganda. I am of the opinion that solicitors or accountants who would be so foolhardy as to do that should have their names struck off the register and be put out of business.

Mr. Dillon

I wish to say a word on this principle of retrospection. I hope the Minister has been edified by the support that has come to his aid. It very aptly describes the reaction of certain people to this wholly evil proposal. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and whether you call this operation the reopening of accounts or retrospection, it certainly introduces a new principle into taxation which Deputy Leneghan has most eloquently expounded. We should all be indebted to him for showing us whither this proposal is likely to lead us and the type of mentality to which it is irresistibly attractive.

Mr. Leneghan

I do not have to leave my constituency or my home town to be elected.

Mr. Dillon

The more he rambles on, the more dramatic is the description of the type of mind fascinated by a proposal of this kind. I would suggest to the Minister that nothing I or any other rational Deputy could say could more eloquently condemn his proposal than the contribution which Deputy Leneghan has made in support of this proposition.

Deputy Costello has laid down that the principles of taxation to be just must be certain. I am afraid that is rather a despairing principle to enunciate in connection with this Finance Bill, which, among other startling provisions, contains the requisition that every shopkeeper in the country, if he is asked to sell a pound of nails, must conduct an elaborate inquisition before he determines what he may charge for the pound of nails. If the man intends to use it on his neighbour's house it is free of tax and if he intends to use it on his own, it is liable to tax, and so on, so that a whole series of litigious situations arise which no one can foresee.

I do not hope in the context of a Bill of this kind to persuade the Minister to withdraw the restrospective element in this tax on the ground of law. I urge on him the folly of persisting in this proposal first because it gets him a relatively insignificant sum and, secondly, quite apart from that purely fiduciary aspect of the question, because of the much more important question as to whether we shall keep intact the principle of not standing for retrospective legislation, however attractive that procedure may be to weak minds.

I remember very well when dividend stripping was before the Dáil, the operation was generally recognised on all sides of the House to be a devious method of avoiding legitimate taxes. When it was proposed to proceed retrospectively against those who had evaded the taxes which it was the intention of this House they should be called upon to pay, we were all agreed that, in order to preserve a principle of taxation, we would allow the astute dividend stripper to go free rather than take the satisfaction of catching him by abandoning a fundamental principle of taxation which is part of the general infra-structure of this country which attracts external capital for investment here. It is extremely difficult to press such views upon the Legislature because if we abandon the principle and examine each question on its merits, we can nearly always make a case for saying that we are going to catch somebody who deserves to be caught.

There cannot be any more vital error than to abandon fundamental principles of our legislation in order to wreak vengeance upon astute operators who have heretofore avoided the Revenue Commissioners' detection. Here is a context in which we are not engaging in any such detection. We are not looking for anyone who has astutely avoided the operation of taxation enacted by this House. Here we are dealing with people who have scrupulously conformed to the law, and who hold Revenue Commission certificates that they have done so. In this case, we are taking them back and saying: "Your certificate of clearance in respect of tax paid is now revoked, not because you obtained it by fraud, not because there is anything in it which is not true, but because we have changed our minds as the Legislature of the country, months after you paid your tax."

I do not believe there is a Deputy on either side of the House—with one distinguished exception—who does not recognise the fatuity of this procedure. I do not know why the Minister has thought it wise to recommend it to the House. I urge him to make the same adjustment in his approach to this matter as he made on a previous occasion when an element of retrospection appeared to be in contemplation. I would urge that upon him even if the Revenue sacrifice were much greater than it is likely to be in this context. I urge it all the more vehemently in our present circumstances, when manifestly revenue is obtainable elsewhere and when, in fact, it is highly probable that it is not essential to produce a balance in the Budget.

Dr. Browne

I think all sides of the House are under an illusion in regard to the whole question of taxation under this section. The Government, as part of a propaganda device, have attempted to sugar the pill of the general turnover tax by trying to create an impression in the country that this is a sort of Robin Hood procedure of robbing the rich to help the less well off and the poor. They have tried to give the impression that everyone is being equally penalised by the new taxation policy.

I believe the difficulty about this tax is that it will not be paid by the people who are being asked to pay it in the first instance, the manufacturers, industrialists, or whoever it may be. Without any doubt, in the absence of some form of dividend, profit, or price restriction, the first thing that will happen is that the tax will be passed on to and paid by the consumer. I was talking recently to people who own a clothes shop and they told me they had been given to understand that so far as the wholesalers are concerned, an increase of ten per cent is being placed on the price of an article which now costs, perhaps, 39s. 6d., in order to pay for the taxation proposal. That is an isolated instance, but I suspect it will become the general practice.

The relative absence of serious opposition to the tax, and the rather noisy opposition to the retrospective element in the tax, are most significant. The Government side have created the illusion that they intend to tax all sectors of the economy and that, for that reason, they have brought in this excess corporation profits tax. As I say, it is completely illusory, and I do not think it will have the effect which they appear to intend it to have. The consumer will pay. Equally in regard to the retrospective clause, I think most Deputies will know it is common practice for firms to put certain funds into reserve each year. Those reserves are available for the payment of an unexpected tax of this kind. The average firm has those reserves to meet a contingency like this, if it arises. If it did not arise, they would distribute the money, and eventually it would return to the industrialists, or manufacturers, or whoever it might be. In that way, they would get money which could be paid to the State in the form of this retrospective tax. In fact, the money will be recovered again from the consumer, because it will be money which was made in profits by a firm overcharging the consumer at a particular rate or price.

I do not think we need be unduly concerned about the average firm faced with the prospect of finding money to pay this tax. It will be paid, in any case, out of funds which would be distributed in dividends or profits. It came from the consumer in the first instance. There is, I suppose, understandable disappointment on the part of wholesalers and firms who were looking forward to ultimately distributing the money from their reserves, and who did not reckon on that money in fact being paid to the State through this tax.

I have very little objection to the retrospective clause. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fallacy, the illusion and the weakness in the suggestion that this tax will fall equally on the rich, the not so rich, the white-collar workers, and workers generally. This tax will be passed on, and that makes the turnover tax a greater penalty on the mass of the people. There is no question of the wealthy being exploited, in any way, or penalised. I am quite certain that after this tax is imposed, the annual declarations of company accounts of dividends and profits will be precisely the same as they have been since the companies were formed, irrespective of any tax proposals put forward by various Ministers for Finance over the years. The general tendency has always been to pass on the tax to the consumer. It is he who ultimately pays all forms of taxation.

Mr. S. Flanagan

On second reading, I expressed my misgivings about the retrospective element in this tax. It is obvious from the wording of subsection (5) of the section that the tax is retrospective. I would feel much happier if the Minister would frankly agree it is, and give us an assurance that it will not be necessary to do this again, and that it will not be done again. If the Minister says he has to make it retrospective in order to get in the revenue this year and that he does not intend to propose similar legislation in the future, many of us would feel a lot happier about the position.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think there will be general agreement that retrospective taxation is objectionable from a number of angles and the fact that some firms may have the funds available does not alter the validity of that objection. Whether or not they have the funds available is really beside the point. It is, in fact, quite unrealistic to imagine that people would engage in trade or business if they did not expect to make a profit out of it. I see no objection to that. On the contrary, if traders and business people carry on commercial undertakings, they are entitled to make a profit. Provided that profit is reasonable, there can be no objection to it and the fact that profit is made acts as an incentive to those directly concerned.

This proposal to make the CPT retrospective has been criticised not only in the House but also by a number of persons who have spoken or written on the matter and who are directly affected by it. The principal objection —this seems to be the strong argument against retrospection—is that those who pay tax, whether it be the individual or the company, should know beforehand what the actual tax liability is. In that case then, no matter what the liability of the individual or the company is, there is advance knowledge of the precise rate of tax. In this particular instance, retrospection means that a number of firms or companies which had already passed their accounts and allocated whatever sums were approved for dividends, or distribution, or to reserve, or for any other purpose, ordinary running expenses, or otherwise, will now have to review their accounts. They had taken action on the basis of the completed audited figures for the particular accounting period. As a result of this proposal, it will now be necessary for these firms to review their previous accounts and to provide for the sums necessary to meet the retrospective element in this proposal.

The fact that this has been objected to by so many people, not only in the House but outside it, and the fact that, so far as I know, it was operated on only one previous occasion indicates that there is general opposition to a tax of this character. It is contrary to the accepted practice in this regard. It is contrary to the generally known and accepted taxation canons. In addition, it will cause considerable difficulties in certain cases for the firms concerned. I believe the Minister should reconsider this proposal. While there may or may not be views on the actual rate of corporation profits tax, that is a separate matter which can be discussed, but, so far as the retrospective element is concerned, the Minister should reconsider the proposal with a view to its withdrawal.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I should like to support what Deputy Cosgrave has so ably said concerning corporation profits tax. I refer in particular to the retrospective feature of it. I think the increase represents some 50 per cent, but, whatever arguments might be advanced in favour of increasing it, I do not think any argument can sensibly be put forward for making it retrospective. I would urge the Minister very sincerely to consider altering the date when it will come into operation. If the country needs the money, needs it very badly, there are other ways in which it can be raised, ways less damaging to our reputation.

I do not think the Minister realises how damaging this is to Ireland, to our financial status and our general business reputation. We are putting ourselves on a par now, without perhaps absolutely doing so, with those countries which have not very much respect for contracts, expressed or implied. Every business bases its prices on what it knows the running costs will be. In that series of factors, there is the taxation which the firm will face at the end of the year. It is very wrong, very unfair, to go back after the books have been closed. In many cases, the financial year closed before this proposal was introduced. These businesses have now no way of recouping themselves. For the year ended 1964, these companies will be saddled not only with the 50 per cent extra corporation profits tax for the year 1964 but will also have to pay for the excess which fell in respect of the year 1963.

That is a very big burden on many companies but apart from the burden, it is damaging to our reputation as a country which wishes to get into the forefront of the industrial life of Western Europe. I would seriously urge the Minister and the Government to consider that aspect of this tax. It is something which puts us into the category of States amongst which we would be very sorry to find ourselves. I am very much in favour of the amendment and I trust the Minister will alter the date.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Costello was wrong when he said that the yield from this tax would be about £500,000. It will be almost £3 million and therefore it would not be so easy as he thought to substitute some other form of raising money for that fairly substantial amount. I must say I am not impressed by this talk about the retrospection of this tax. I cannot see the point of it. If we had increased income tax under PAYE, they would start to pay from that very day probably, and nobody would regard that as being retrospective. The fact that they start paying that week, or perhaps the following week, or whatever it might be, means they would pay the tax for this year. That same increase in income tax, when applied to the companies, would be payable also in this financial year but it would relate to the last accounting period of that company which might be to 1st January, 1962, or earlier or later, and there would be no talk about reopening their accounts because that would not be done.

Take the corporation profits tax. We want to collect the money this year the same as we would want to collect income tax this year if we increased the income tax, but we must give some yardstick as to what it will amount to and the only way is to relate it to the profits in some year and we said January 1st, 1962. They will be calculated on that basis. The company will be assessed with the amount and they will pay it out of their bank account or their income for this year, but it will be paid exactly the same as they would have paid an increase in income tax and paid over the same period, or within the same period, as the person paying PAYE would pay an increase in income tax.

The fact that it was related to 1962-63 in order to find out the amount payable is the only item of retrospection. It is retrospective with regard to the period for which it is calculated because it is calculated on the profits of that year. Of course, it could not be collected until next year. I cannot see hardship to companies in this, apart from the hardship of the increase, and I cannot see that any contracts will be broken, about which we heard so much from Fine Gael benches.

Certain Deputies have mentioned the harm it will do to our economy from the point of view of people putting their money into industry here. Surely we should not be arguing the case for them? We should try to argue the case against them as far as we can. I do not think we should argue the case when it is not a good case that is being argued.

In regard to Deputy Dr. Browne, I have every hope that this tax may not be passed on to the consumer. I do not think it will. Where competition between various industries is very keen, it is obvious that one industry cannot afford to put up prices unless its competitors do likewise. That may not be agreed to in all cases. I do agree with the general proposition that nearly all taxes pass on to the consumer generally.

Mr. A. Barry

They do; they must.

Dr. Ryan

We will accept that.

Mr. McQuillan

God help them now between the turnover tax and this.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Costello said that we could have got this money in other ways. He mentioned raising our estimate for overestimation. I think we have it high enough and in fact my experience after the first quarter of the financial year makes me think that we have put it a bit too high.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister said last week that it is beyond contradiction that the consumer eventually pays all the tax. The Government, through the Minister, are now bringing in this corporation profits tax. The only attraction about it is that on the face of it, it would appear that the Minister will get £3 million from a source that can well afford to pay it, but there is not the slightest doubt that this £3 million will not be paid by the companies but by the consumers within the next 12 months or two years. It will be passed back to them. In my opinion, the reason the Government are behaving in this fashion is to give an illusion that they are going left. This is to persuade the ordinary individual that the Government have a policy which is anti-conservative, progressive and straining at the leash to go left.

They believe that the public will swallow this when they see that the corporation profits tax people are being given the works in this Finance Bill. If the Government were serious about extracting money from a source which can well afford to pay it, and serious about their intention of adopting a progressive and left-wing view, they would make provision in this legislation for price control. That is the logical sequel to a measure of this nature. Side by side with this legislation, there would be price control so that the consumer would not be exploited within the next 12 months.

The fact is that from November 1st, the consumer, the man-in-the-street, will pay 2½ per cent turnover tax. It will be collected by the traders but it is the general public who will pay. Not alone will they pay the 2½ per cent but they will also pay this £3 million corporation profits tax, which goes on indirectly because no one in the business world will saddle himself with a tax when he can pass it on to the consumer. That is why I believe that in this Bill the Government have introduced a situation which in the next 18 months will result in a tremendous increase in the cost of living and consequent wage and salary demands.

Mr. A. Barry

In every company balance sheet, the first thing is a provision for taxation and after that, the funds are divided up in dividends for shareholders and a sum for reserve for future development. These are the facts of life and in a capitalist society, you must accept it or change the society.

Mr. Sweetman

As far as I could follow the Minister, he said that if this item related to income tax, the objection would have been taken away and there would have been none of this bickering in relation to describing what is being done as reopening the accounts. I do not know whether or not I have paraphrased the Minister unfairly. That is what I understood him to say. I do not know whether or not he wants to correct my interpretation but if he does not, we must take it that is what he said.

That meant the Minister was convicting himself out of his own mouth because subsection (5) gives the express power in Section 37 to reopen accounts that have been closed. It is clear that when the power is there to reopen accounts that have been closed it means going back on certificates that have been made and arrangements that have been come to. The effect of this will be that the amount in question will be paid for out of reserves. Of that there can be no doubt. Reserves should be used for the purpose of future expansion to provide greater employment. It is nonsense to suggest, as was suggested by Fianna Fáil Deputies, that the effect of this provision would be to restrict profits. If what the Minister required was retrospection in distributed profits as those Deputies suggested, there was an easy way for him to do so—to differentiate between retained and distributed profits, to tax the distributed profits and leave the retained profits there for the purpose of providing the expansion, the increase in productivity, that is so urgently required. The Minister chose not to do that; he chose the other method and he was convicted by the Tánaiste, speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, and by his own subsection (5) providing that accounts could be reopened.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Governey

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister for Finance does not know that.

The Minister might take the line taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who said today he was not speaking for the Government. I trust that, when the Minister comes to reply to the question of a turnover tax in respect of lotteries and pools run for charitable purposes, he will be able to give us some encouragement to the extent that those that, in fact, are run for charitable purposes will not be subject to the turnover tax.

Mr. J. A. Costello

Mr. J. A. Costello

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Why not exclude them, so?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Exactly.

Mr. J. A. Costello

The Minister for Finance has brought into this section a provision making a particular type of lottery subject to the tax. He takes out of the Act of 1956 those types of lotteries that require a licence under Section 28 of the Act. Am I correct in that? Section 28 of the Act provides that a licence is necessary, but, before you can get a licence, one of the conditions you have to fulfil is that it shall be for some charitable or philanthropic purpose and that the licensee shall make no profit. Why bring that into this tax? You cannot get a licence unless you are doing it for a charitable or philanthropic purpose. Therefore, it is being brought in to capture people trying to get money by means of lotteries for philanthropic purposes. You can go along, of course, and do what one Deputy is reputed to have done: have on your ticket that a raffle will be held "in aid of the above" and Deputy So-and-So was "the above".

Mr. Lenihan

He was a Fine Gael Deputy.

Mr. J. A. Costello

He was not a Fine Gael Deputy. Apparently, you can do that under this provision. You do not have to go to the courts. A further extraordinary matter strikes me about it. Philanthropic purposes are singled out of the Act of 1961. As far as I can see, if you are carrying on a pongo game in a building, that is not being taxed. The licensing of amusement halls and funfairs is Part III and not Part IV. Part III is not in under this. Amusement halls are where they carry on pongo and all the rest of it and make money out of it. That is not subject to tax. What is the philosophy behind this, if any? The Minister says his tongue is hanging out for money, but where is the money to be made here? They do not require any from the funfairs and pongo, but they seek out the charitable and philanthropic purposes. I should like to know the meaning of it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I should like to support the previous speakers regarding the withdrawal of this tax. There is no justification for asking the organisers of lotteries for charitable purposes to pay this turnover tax. Following the outbreak of polio in County Cork some years ago, the Cork Polio Pools were established. For the past few years, they have devoted their activities mainly towards the provision of care and treatment for mentally defective children. They are doing excellent work in that field. As with the promoters of other pools, they have to depend on the charity of the public for their funds and they run these weekly pools.

There is no justification whatever for the Minister for Finance telling these people they must pay 2½ per cent on their gross turnover. In fact, they are doing the work of the Minister for Health, who should be catering for this unfortunate section of the community. Time and again I have made representations concerning the provision of homes and treatment for mentally defective children. Neither the State nor the local authorities made much headway in that direction. We found a few years ago they were almost the only section of the community not looked after as they should be. I am asking the Minister for Finance, as a man who understands the problems confronting the promoters of such pools, to withdraw this tax.

I avail of this opportunity to congratulate the Cork society on their excellent work. There were mentally defective children in West Cork whom neither I nor the other representatives could help until the Cork Polio Pools were established. Now these children are undergoing treatment and possibly some of them will be restored to health. I am asking the Minister to accept the amendments proposed by Deputy Corish and Deputy Governey and not to try to make money for the Exchequer at the expense of these charitable organisations.

Mr. D. Costello

It should be made clear what is being done in this Bill. Representations were made by the charitable organisations running lotteries to the Minister with regard to their liability for income tax and corporation profits tax. These representations obviously met with the sympathetic approval of the Minister, because in this Bill it is proposed to exempt charities that run lotteries from income tax and corporation profits tax. At the same time, it is proposed in this Bill to impose on these charitable organisations the turnover tax. I am informed that, in fact, the imposition of the turnover tax will mean they will be paying more in tax than they had been paying in income tax and corporation profits tax.

It is possible that the Minister's bounty in accepting the arguments made by these organisations was to some extent influenced by the fact that methods had been devised by which the amount of tax they were paying was considerably reduced— methods which were perfectly justifiable and which they were entitled to adopt under the provisions of the income tax code. Be that as it may, the Government have decided that these charitable organisations should not pay income tax and corporation profits tax. Why? Why should these charitable organisations not pay as other organisations, except that they are doing good work for this State and for the people they are helping. It is perfectly right and proper, therefore, that these charitable organisations should not pay income tax and corporation profits tax.

If the Minister is satisfied with the arguments put forward on their behalf to exempt them from income tax and corporation profits tax, why is he not satisfied with the arguments on their behalf that they should also be exempted from this turnover tax? In fact, these charitable organisations will now be paying more tax than they were before this Bill was introduced. In one way or another, it was possible for them to arrange their affairs so that income tax and corporation profits tax in many cases were not too onerous a burden upon them. This new provision will be a very serious imposition on them.

As a result of the passing of this Bill, notwithstanding that the Minister has accepted the case that they are worthy of exemption from income tax and corporation profits tax, he applies the turnover tax to them. We had a short confined debate on the Committee Stage on Deputy Governey's amendment. The Minister's reply was that he appreciated the points made by the Deputy; that a turnover tax of this kind must be very general in its application to be effective and he did not see that a case could be made for exempting lotteries any more than any other activities. Everyone must make their contribution. That is recorded in the Official Report at cols. 548 and 549 of Vol. 204.

That statement is not accurate because there are people who are exempt from this turnover tax. Sporting activities are exempt. Why should they not pay their contribution if everybody has to make a contribution? I am not trying to set off one worthy object against another and these exempt organisations may have a good case. All we are saying in this amendment is: here are charitable organisations providing services which would otherwise have to be provided by the State or people would just suffer and die unreasonably: the State is benefiting from the activities of these charitable organisations and we should exempt them from the tax.

The argument that everybody must pay is not valid. The GAA, the Rugby Union, the Football Association and anybody who wants to run a sporting event will not have to pay. There are exemptions and exceptions. Why not except these charities? The point is made that this only applies to lotteries under licence under Part III. The Minister for Justice, in his intervention, seemed to be making the point that it applied only to licences, not to permits. You can apply, get a permit and run a raffle at a dance or carnival and earn a few pounds for your organisation. That is not what you are concerned with but with organisations like the Rehabilitation Institute, the Polio Aftercare Committee in Cork, the cerebral palsy group and with various organisations looking after mentally handicapped persons and those suffering from polio and tuberculosis, organisations which are helping deserving people and undertaking burdens which the State would otherwise have to bear. What answer is there to that? In heaven's name what answer is there to putting a tax on these and not on sporting activities?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Having heard the interventions of the Minister for Justice on this matter, it seems there is more than slight confusion between his views and those of the Minister for Finance. I support the very reasonable plea made by Deputy Governey and the Leader of the Labour Party. From intimate knowledge I have of the working of the Rehabilitation Institute I know it is an outstanding movement doing excellent work for those concerned. That institute and other voluntary organisations giving outstanding service to the country should be completely exempt from this tax.

I am not suggesting the tax should be imposed on the GAA or the Rugby Union or any sports organisation. On the contrary, I feel, in addition to these sporting organisations, any religious or charitable organisation should be exempt. Lest there should be any misapprehension in regard to the GAA that body is performing excellent work and is to be admired for the way it has cultivated Irish pastimes and sport since first founded by Michael Cusack. The Football Association and the Rugby Union—which latter has been so highly praised by no less than the President—should be free of tax. Nobody on this side of the House will suggest it should be otherwise, but surely if these organisations are to be exempt, because we appreciate and value their services to the country, we should similarly treat charitable organisations.

We can have no better demonstration of the value of their services than what we heard from Deputy Murphy and Deputy Costello who have an intimate knowledge of this work. I have intimate experience of the outstanding work of the Rehabilitation Institute and I speak with a certain degree of anger at the thought of imposing tax even of one farthing in the pound on such a wonderful movement. These are organisations for which the Minister for Health and every Minister appeals for public support outside the House and asks people to be generous to them. Then they come in here and put a tax on them, an unnecessary tax that should never be imposed. I appeal to the Minister to exempt them.

Lotteries and pools are run extensively at present and most of them take in more than £100 per week. They have been set up as diocesan or parish organisations to raise money for school-building or improvements. When we have a Government who do not provide sufficient money to enable school managers to have proper schools or to carry out necessary repairs or have proper recreation facilities, surely there must be some means by which voluntary associations and those public-spirited enough to work for such purposes should be able to do so free of tax? The Government will not give sufficient money for schools, recreation halls and other such purposes and yet where an effort is being made by public-spirited citizens to raise funds by means of lotteries, silver circles and pools, a tax is imposed on them.

While the Minister may feel that silver circles, lotteries and raffles conducted for parochial purposes by the Catholic Church usually bring in a substantial sum of money, we must consider the minority, the non-Catholic section of our community who have not the same financial resources for the provision of school buildings and other such purposes, of which we have experience in many parts of Ireland. Those non-Catholic citizens contribute and are anxious to raise funds for school improvements, playgrounds and so on. In many instances in the midlands, they have not the same grants. They have not the same facilities or the same means of raising funds as Catholic organisations. Here in this Parliament, where we accept there should be equal rights for all, we should consider the case which has been reasonably made particularly in relation to non-Catholic parochial associations and organisations that are raising money by this means. Such bodies should not be taxed.

The Minister knows that in every parish in Ireland today there is a fund-raising campaign for the reconstruction of a Catholic church or for the building of a new Catholic church because most of the Catholic churches of this country were built 150 or 200 years ago and are in a state of decay and collapse. The time has come when probably every Bishop in Ireland is faced with an extensive building programme in regard to churches and schools. The Hierarchy are making appeals through their parish priests to the general public to contribute generously towards the building of these churches and schools. In order to build churches and schools, lotteries, silver circles and pools are established and here we see the mean, low hand of the Government dipping into the bottom of the bag to see what they can pull out of it. This is scandalous and despicable. There should be complete exemption in this regard.

I venture to say there is no Deputy who will want to suggest that the tax should be put on any sporting or other organisation. The desire is to keep it off where it should never have been imposed. The Minister is doing a very bad day's work in not giving the necessary exemption for all charitable movements and for all associations and organisations carrying out wonderful work in relation to rehabilitation and so on. I want to place on record that, so far as I am concerned, I would not advocate a tax on the GAA or any other sporting organisation and I am glad it has not been put on. At the same time, I want to advocate that the other associations mentioned by Deputy Costello should also be exempted.

I have refrained to a great degree from speaking on this Bill. I shall perhaps make a speech tonight or tomorrow in relation to the turnover tax which I regard as unnecessary, unwanted and unwelcome. However, this is one provision to which I want to express my bitter and angry opposition. It is unreasonable, low and mean, and it is a typical Fianna Fáil raid on organisations or movements which have been established for the good of the country and which have done very useful and valuable work. I hope the Minister will reconsider his attitude in relation to this matter and fall in line with the reasonable suggestions that have been made by Deputy Governey and the leader of the Labour Party.

Mr. Tully

I wish to bring the debate back on to the rails. When the Bill was first introduced, there was a tax on the "gates" of large sporting organisations. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister to reconsider this and I am glad to say that he introduced an amendment which means they are all free of this tax. The reason he gave us was that only the big "gate" could be caught and it was not worth the trouble. I am only paraphrasing but I think that was, in effect, what he said.

It would be most unfair if anybody in this House attempted to play one thing off against another. Most of us agree, for a hundred different reasons, that sporting activities should not be taxed. We should not try to say that they should be taxed and that pools and lotteries should be free. I believe sporting activities should not be taxed and I also believe that pools and lotteries should not be taxed.

The work being done by the people who run these pools and lotteries— mainly those who run the pools because they are the people who take in fairly big money—can be divided into two categories: people who help the disabled and people who promote church building and repairing. Both of these categories should be excluded from the terms of the Bill. However, when church building and repairing are mentioned, if the Minister were prepared to agree that this type of work should be subject to 100 per cent Government grant, that the Government would supply the money, then there would be no reason for this sort of thing. When the Government do not supply the money, then it has to be got in another way. The same thing applies with even more force to the activities of the organisations that carry on the pools because the work being done by these people is work which rightly should be done by the Government, and I make no apology to anybody for saying this.

Who should be responsible for helping the disabled? Who should be responsible for trying to do something for the people who have been suffering from TB? Surely the Government should carry the responsibility? Who should be responsible for assisting the mentally handicapped? Surely it should be the Government, but the Government, not alone this Government but every Government of this country, have consistently refused to accept such responsibility. They have always made the case that this is something for voluntary effort. The country is doing reasonably well through voluntary effort but now we find something new coming in. There is a turnover tax to be applied to the takings.

Deputy J. A. Costello made the point earlier that it might be said that the tax was only 6d in the £ on the turnover, but, as we all know, the amount of money which usually finds it way into the funds of the organisation after the prizes and running expenses have been paid is about 5/- out of £1 and sometimes very much less. Therefore the 6d does not come out of the £1 but out of what is left, which may be 5/- or 2/6 in many cases. That is a very heavy impost.

There is no reason at all why the Minister should include this type of organisation in his turnover tax. I agree with some of the people who said earlier that the Minister was a reasonable man. Surely when he has had another look at this and when he realises what it actually means, he will agree with us, without any heat being engendered in the debate. Surely we must try to persuade the Minister to remove this penal tax? If it is not removed, one of two things must happen. The public must be persuaded to contribute more, or the organisations must reduce their activities. The State could step in and give a little help, but I am afraid that is hardly likely.

The section refers to the "issue of tickets or coupons issued for the purpose of a lottery to which a licence under Part IV of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, relates." Where does the Irish Hospitals Sweep come into this? The Act does not apply to it. I should like the Minister to say whether it is intended to include the sweep or to exclude it. We are not making all these arguments to hold up the House, but to try to persuade the Minister that an injustice is being done. We are trying to persuade the Minister that it is in everyone's interest that the tax should not apply to these organisations. Surely the Minister appreciates that it is very important that the terms of this Bill should not apply to the efforts made by national and local organisations.

Mr. A. Barry

I believe that if the Minister met me in his own home, in a club or in a pub, and we talked about this matter in an abstract way, he would be more emphatic than I or any other speaker in support of this proposal. I do not know how this House operates so that a simple, right thing cannot be done. There is always a predictable reaction. Whoever sits in the Minister's seat, the reaction is always the same to a worthy, worthwhile project such as this. We should try to get rid of the compulsion which operates in this House. I believe that all the Deputies sitting opposite agree with us about this proposal. I believe the Minister agrees with us. Could we not agree effectively? There is no money in it, but a great injury will be done to the organisations which seek to get funds in this way. They net very little out of these collections but enormous benefits are achieved when all the nets are put together. A great injury will be done if the Minister does not accept this amendment.

Mr. Harte

I should like also to appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. I speak as a representative of North-east Donegal where recently a great move has been made to do something for mentally handicapped children. The National Association has formed a branch there, comprising all sections of the community, irrespective of creed, class and political outlook. If a person with different political convictions from mine were speaking to the Minister outside the House, as Deputy Barry said, he would tell the Minister this is a most dangerous step to take.

We all know that one section of the Irish community that has been sadly neglected is the mentally handicapped section, particularly mentally handicapped children. Great things have been done for the eradication of TB, and now the nation has awakened to the fact that something must be done for mentally handicapped children. The people of the country are beginning to become aware of that great problem and to try to solve it. It is more a national problem than a Government problem. It is too great for any Government to tackle and, therefore, the assistance of the general public is needed. If the Government call for the assistance of the general public, it must be in relation to capital. Therefore the Minister should consider accepting this amendment.

It is not right that, voluntary organisations having come together at great expense to the individuals involved to try to get funds to solve this major problem, the Government should then ask them to pay 2½ per cent on any fund-raising campaign for which a licence is needed. As Deputy Tully said, 6d. in the £ does not seem a lot, but 6d. in the £ on a turnover of, say, £100 a week on which the profit may be £10 or £12, cuts that profit by 50 per cent immediately. It then becomes a serious imposition.

In North-east Donegal where we have more of the religious minority than any other constituency, the parishioners have to pull their weight even to the extent of writing to people who have emigrated for help in the building of schools so that their children may have a school befitting their own denomination. It is wrong to impose a tax of 2½ per cent on such collections. We also have poor parishes where Catholic priests find it more than difficult to improve the school facilities. When the need arises to replace a church or a chapel, great efforts are needed and those poor parishes must call on brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces who have emigrated to the States, or to Great Britain, for help to fulfil their ambition. It is wrong for the Minister to tax the dollar bill that has been sent from America to help the native parish erect a new church. The Minister should accept this amendment. It is the most worthy amendment that has been moved during this debate.

Mr. Coogan

I support this amendment. The proposal in the Bill represents an imposition on the voluntary effort of which we stand in such great need in this country, the effort so necessary to get done those things upon which the Government have fallen down. It is significant, and the Minister should appreciate the significance of it, that none of his own Party have spoken in support of this proposal. The Minister should take note of that. This tax can only be described as a callous tax and the Minister is apparently alone in his anxiety to impose it.

Dr. Ryan

All I can say, in standing by the provision in the Bill, is that any turnover tax must be as general as possible. There are exceptions made. If we make more exceptions, the result will be like a stone falling into a pool of water. Exceptions will create further exceptions and, in the end, the whole tax will be nullified.

With regard to charitable lotteries, in particular, some of them owed a considerable amount of income tax. Under this Bill, we are exempting them from income tax in future and we are letting them off what they owe. We are exempting them from income tax and imposing a turnover tax. In doing that, we are not leaving them any worse off.

Someone asked about the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. The Irish Hospitals Trust pays 25 per cent stamp duty on the amount set aside for hospitals. That represents about six and a quarter per cent on the turnover. It is one of the arguments, in fact, why lotteries should be dealt with under the turnover tax; they are, to a certain extent, in competition with the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. I do not know if Deputies are aware that there is a distinction between licensed lotteries and permit lotteries. Many of the lotteries in parishes— many Deputies referred to these—are really permanent lotteries and would, therefore, be free of this tax. Two Deputies spoke for the non-Catholic sector of the population; as far as I am concerned, I have not had any representation from that particular sector.

Deputy J. A. Costello suggested that lotteries were being taxed but bingo will not be taxed. That is wrong because the section we are dealing with, 47 (1) (a) (vi), provides:

acceptance of stakes staked at gaming to which a licence under Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, relates,

Therefore, bingo games will be subject to tax like everything else.

Deputy A. Barry made a very strong appeal to me to be reasonable in this matter. If we were all of us here trying genuinely to hammer out an efficient and reasonable tax, I might be inclined to be more reasonable, but I am afraid I cannot expect from the Opposition any attempt at making this tax efficient.

The Minister's main case is that those who spoke in favour of this amendment were pleading specially, appeared to be making special pleas for those who run pools and lotteries. The Minister himself and his colleague, the Minister for Justice, made very many special pleas in respect of the exemptions listed here at pages 66 and 67. We are told that sales by farmers and fishermen should be exempted; sales in bulk under Section 52 should be exempted; sales of medicine and drugs for cattle should be exempted, the special plea being that all is being done in the cause of greater production.

I do not know what special plea there is, nor have we heard any, for the exemption of banking and insurance services. Money lending is exempt; advertising is exempt; building and the installation of heating, lighting, plumbing and sanitary fixtures and fittings are exempt. In respect of the installation of heating, lighting, plumbing, sanitary fixtures and fittings, all these could be luxuries in a great many cases, installed by people who can afford to have them installed, but, as far as this particular section of the Schedule is concerned, these are exempt.

The case made here has been a case for the exemption of pools and lotteries run for charitable purposes. The Minister advances a bad argument when he says that, if he gives way on this little thing, it will borrow others and, in the end, his revenue will be much depleted. There is, I think, an outstanding case for the exemption of any project run for a charitable object. If the Minister appears to be a lone individual being pilloried, that is not the fault of anybody on this side of the House; it is the fault of the Deputies who sit behind him. It is the fault of the whole Fianna Fáil Party because, if there are no arguments for the things for which the Minister has responsibility and which he has promoted, then there is a good case for support for these things from the Party of which he is a member, the Party which elected him, I assume, to the office he now holds.

I do not suppose there is any point in saying anything at this stage because the mind of the Minister seems to be made up and the minds of the other 70 plus two Deputies. Certainly greater consideration should be given to the suggestion embodied in these two amendments. Some may argue that this is only 2½ per cent, 6d. in the £, but as far as many of the pools are concerned, out of every £, about 15/-represents expenses and 5/- is the profit. That goes to the charitable organisation or the project in which they are engaged and this will mean that the profit will be reduced to 4/6d. and the tax, as far as their actual profit is concerned, will be 10 per cent.

That can be very serious for these organisations who are doing work which in some cases, not all, could be described as work which should be undertaken by the local authority or the State, or the community generally. We have no guarantee that the situation will be different in years to come— in fact it is to the contrary. It is only 2½ per cent now but the principle is accepted by the Government and seems to be accepted by the Revenue Commissioners and by all those who support the Government that a turnover tax is a good thing. A turnover tax of 2½ per cent may not be a severe imposition in some cases, but if it is to progress as it has in Sweden, and jump up by two points every year, the tax will be a very heavy burden on people such as these. However, it does not seem to be any use arguing and all we can do is express our disapproval of the tax on such things as pools or lotteries for charitable purposes and vote accordingly.

Mr. Governey

I am disappointed that the Minister will not agree to the removal of this tax on lotteries which we have mentioned here especially, as everybody who spoke, spoke in favour of its removal and of these two amendments. I do not often rise to criticise any individual but it is surprising that not one member on the Government benches spoke against either of these amendments. It seems that the Minister is alone in his stand tonight. Perhaps he feels that is his job as Minister but it is heartening to the movers of these amendments to know that not one person has spoken against them.

I am in favour of exempting all lotteries or draws for sporting, charitable or parochial purposes. A few nights ago, at the request of a number of Deputies, the Minister agreed to an alteration and in this circumstance he could have accepted the suggestion here and could have removed this tax on lotteries run by sporting, parochial and charitable organisations.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71: Níl, 65.

Tá.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Leneghan, Joseph R.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G
Moher, John W.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
Ryan, James.
Sherwin, Frank.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.

Níl.

Barrett, Stephen D.
Barron, Joseph.
Barry, Anthony.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Paddy.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Michael.
Browne, Noel C.
Burke, James J.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Patrick.
Carroll, Jim.
Casey, Seán.
Clinton, Mark A.
Collins, Seán.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Dunne, Seán.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Everett, James.
Farrelly, Denis.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McQuillan, John.
Mullen, Michael.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donnell, Thomas G.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
O'Keeffe, James.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Geoghegan and J. Brennan; Níl, Deputies Crotty and Tully.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Leneghan

Getting weaker and weaker.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 31, line 29, to delete "£500" and substitute "£750".

The subsection provides that a person may elect at his discretion to be accountable for tax on moneys received by him in relation to the activities in which he engages in a case in which those moneys have not in any month exceeded £500. When the Bill was discussed in Committee, Deputies Sherwin and Leneghan put down an amendment to raise this figure to £750. I said there would be no great objection to that because it did not make a very big impression on the revenue. It could not be dealt with on Committee Stage so it appears now. At the limit of £500, a retailer is probably financially better off by registering rather than not because he gets the relief at the 5/- and the 7/6 rates and also gets necessary goods free of duty. At the rate of £750, it is not necessary to adjust the allowance and I am proposing, in amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 to lower that to 5/- for the first £100 so that amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 will have to be taken together to get an understanding of what is involved.

Mr. Leneghan

I should like to congratulate the Minister on what he has done but I should like to ask him whether the £500, or the £750 under this amendment, relates to actual taxable takings. If the shopkeeper sells something not taxable, does that mean that he can still sell £750 worth of taxable goods? There are agricultural items which are not taxable and if he sells a number of these, does that mean that he could exceed sales of £750 and still opt out? It could happen that such a man would sell £600 worth of taxable goods and £200 worth of agricultural items which are not taxable. Could such a man opt out?

Dr. Ryan

His total turnover is taken as £750.

Mr. Leneghan

It could happen that quite an amount of his sales would not be taxable. Could you not fix it that he could opt out for the £750 that is taxable?

Mr. A. Barry

This is estimated by the Government to deal with roughly 80 per cent of the retail points in the country. If it is possible to move back from 80 per cent of the retail outlets I think it should be possible to go the whole way. If it is confirmed that 80 per cent will not add anything to the 2½ per cent, will the Minister not go further? Retailers do not want the task of collecting this tax and they will not have it if they can avoid it. The extension of the limit of £275 to all retail outlets would simplify the task of the Revenue Commissioners and would remove from all these retailers the burden of devising a scheme to collect it. It would remove much of the opposition.

Mr. Norton

I am puzzled about this amendment. Last week an amendment was accepted to reduce the sum to £250. That amendment was made on the Committee Stage of the Bill. Now, without any argument to the contrary or without any demand for it, we propose to bring it up to £750.

Mr. A. Barry

There are two votes involved.

Mr. S. Flanagan

They are two different matters.

Mr. Tully

We would like to get the whole thing quite clear.

Mr. Norton

What is the reason for the vaccillation between £250 and £750? Why the sudden change and why is it being done without any apparent demand for it—at least any vociferous demand?

Mr. O'Sullivan

L and S, without the D.

Mr. Norton

What are we switching from £250 to £750? Perhaps the Minister might tell us that. As I understand this section, if it is amended, it will mean that people who total less than £750 a month, which is about £9,000 a year, will be able to arrange that they will not be personally accountable for the tax but that the wholesaler will undertake to pay the tax on their behalf. It means that there will be no inquisition as to their sales and turnover by inspectors of the Revenue Commissioners.

If they consent to the method by which the wholesaler will pay the tax for them, they will be free from form-filling and from inspectorial inquisitions and they can live their lives as they have lived them in the past. If that means anything, it means that the wholesalers who will be supplying the people who accept this arrangement will be supplying two types of trader, one with takings of over £750 a month and the other with takings of less than £750 a month. In the one case, they will be responsible for paying the tax for the shopkeeper and in the other, they will not be paying the tax because the shopkeeper will be liable to pay the tax to the Revenue Commissioners himself.

If you have a wholesaler selling goods to these two types of persons, for one of whom he does not pay the tax and the other for whom he pays it, quite clearly the wholesaler is not going to charge each the same price for the different commodities. He is going to charge the shopkeeper for whom he pays the tax more for his goods if he is going to pay the tax for the man who has a turnover of less than £9,000 a year. In the other case, the shopkeeper will pay the tax himself. The shopkeeper for whom the wholesaler pays the tax is going to find that his goods will cost him 2½ per cent more than those of his competitor who pays the tax himself. If he is going to pay 2½ per cent more for his goods to the wholesaler than he has been paying up to now is it not the most natural thing that, if he can arrange it, he will increase his prices to compensate himself for the additional cost he is paying for the goods? That being so, then it means the consumer will pay at least an additional 2½ per cent.

You might call this a turnover tax, if you like, but it is nothing more pleasant than self-delusion—a most excellent exercise at any time. The fact of the matter is that this is a purchase tax. It will be paid only by the people who purchase the goods to the extent that the shopkeepers decide— they having to pay more to the wholesaler for their goods. The wholesaler will pay their tax. The shopkeeper will then jack up his prices accordingly. There is not a scrap of assurance in this House or by the invocation of the prices legislation that the shopkeeper will limit his increase in price to 2½ per cent. It may very well be more.

So far as the consuming public are concerned, it is no protection for the consumer against increased prices due to this Bill and to this particular section. We have been told by the Government that the prices legislation is not intended for use in such circumstances. Therefore, the ordinary consumer, particularly the consumer who will buy goods on credit, will be exposed to paying a higher price in the future for goods than he is paying today.

How do the Government reconcile a climate of that character and a tendency in that direction with the advice and exhortation that there should be a pay pause? How can you have a pay pause, on the one hand, if you have a rise in the prices of goods, on the other? I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister that if this tendency manifests itself in the only way in which it will manifest itself, namely, by an increase in prices, then pay pause exhortations or administrative injunctions of that kind will have little effect because people will make whatever effort they can to compensate themselves for the increase in prices. The Minister may say that social welfare benefits will be increased to compensate certain persons against the increases which will follow under this Bill. To some extent, that may be so, but the unfortunate fact is that our social welfare services are already too low to discharge the obligations which they are intended to cover. Our rates of sickness benefit, of unemployment benefit, our old age pensions and our widows' and orphans' pensions are lower than they are in Britain, are lower than they are in the Six Counties and, in fact, are lower than they are in any other country in the European Economic Community with which we hope to associate ourselves at some later date.

To say that the small increase granted in the social welfare benefits will be adequate compensation is to miss completely the point that, at present-day levels of prices, these social welfare benefits are not adequate to enable the people to purchase a decent standard of living. It does not enable them to purchase the most meagre standard of living, much less to be able to meet the consequences which will flow from this deliberate act on the part of Parliament in taking a course of action, the only effect of which will be to raise prices still further for the consuming public.

Mr. S. Flanagan

A good Second Reading speech.

Mr. N. Lemass

If Deputy Norton will refer to Section 48, he will discover that in subsection (3) (a) (i) and under paragraph (d), the £250 is still there. These are a group of amendments proposed, as I see it, to meet most of the objections raised by the Opposition and, in fact, to reduce the burden of taxation in many cases. For instance, where a man had to pay 5/-on his first £50 and 17/6 on £100, it is now reduced to 5/- on the first £100.

When we come to the group between £250 and £750, I think we meet the argument referred to by the Opposition. As reported at column 621 of the Official Report of 10th July, Deputy Dillon said:

But those who know rural Ireland know that the vast majority of shopkeepers there do not employ chartered accountants at all. They have now two alternatives. One is to settle with the Revenue Commissioners themselves their monthly liability to turnover tax, or else employ—at considerable expense— chartered accountants to prepare returns and certify them to the Revenue Commissioners. In either event, the cost in time and in convenience, and indeed in money, is a very substantial item for a small businessman.

He went on, then, in column 622, to point out that supermarkets and these multiple stores, and so on, would not have any great difficulty and that process would be far simpler. At column 569 of the Official Report of the same day, Deputy Sweetman is reported as saying:

But this, coming on top of that imposition,——

We have been trying to get that for six weeks.

Mr. A. Barry

Will he add to the tax?

Mr. S. Flanagan

I want to reiterate what Deputy Lemass said to see if, at long last, we can get it into Deputy Tully's skull. My argument the last day and the argument of Deputy Lemass just now is to the effect that retailers may elect to have the tax taken by the wholesaler, thereby avoiding the necessity for having any additional book-keeping or of going to any expense in connection with book-keeping. That was one of the objections which Deputy Dillon mentioned and which Deputy Lemass quoted from Deputy Dillon's speech. It is now clear the reason I supported Deputy Leneghan's amendment last week was to remove from these people the necessity for having any additional book-keeping, in other words, to simplify the matter for them.

When an amendment is put down and a Deputy speaks to it, he cannot expect to say all sorts of things and then scoot out of this House, as has been done, and get away with it.

Deputy Dillon threw enough muck last week.

Mr. Dillon

I thought they would not like this. My intervention was designed to illuminate Fianna Fáil Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Dillon

This is legislation gone altogether mad and even at this stage I suggest to the Minister that between now and the time this instrument of extraction comes into operation, he should drop the idea of extracting this tax at retail level and have the provision apply to all retailers.

Mr. Cunningham

That will not put up the cost of living?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dillon

If it does, then, by your amendment, you are further increasing the cost of living on 80 per cent of the people who are dealing with retailers. In my opinion, it does not matter where you collect, you will ultimately get it out of the people and if so, my suggestion is, if you want to extract £10.5 million from the people it is folly to do it inefficiently. You are determined to get the money; we have opposed that with all the resources at our disposal and shall continue to do so, but if you are going to do it, it is folly to do it inefficiently and more expensively than the process requires. It is for that purpose that I suggest to the Minister that out of the maelstrom of confusion attending this Bill, which he evidently understands so little, he would be wise to realise that he has made a whale of a mess and determine to go the whole hog in respect of this and allow it to be levied in respect of all retailers in the same way as he has decided to collect it from 80 per cent of them.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 31, line 58, to delete "£500" and substitute "£750".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 32, to delete "descriptions" in line 25 and substitute "description" and to delete "or paragraph (b)" in line 26 and substitute ", paragraph (b) or paragraph (c)".

On Committee Stage, an additional section was inserted in Section 48. It is necessary to refer to this in Section 49 and this is the appropriate amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 11, 18, 21 and 27 are cognate and may be discussed together.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 32, lines 56 and 57, to delete " of kinds which are suitable for domestic heating" and substitute "for domestic use".

The oil trade have been discussing these matters with the Revenue Commissioners and are of opinion that the amendment is necessary for the smooth working of the measure. They hold there are oils which are not exempt but which would be suitable for domestic heating and if the words proposed here are used—"domestic use"—it would be much easier for the tax to be applied where it should apply and not applied where it should not apply.

Mr. Dillon

This will catch the paraffin in the lamp as well as the paraffin in the stove?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but it will not catch as many as the other way.

Mr. Dillon

You are going very deep down. There are very few paraffin lamps left in the country but you cannot even leave the drop of oil that goes into it without a tax. We have to amend the Bill to catch the paraffin in the lamp as well as paraffin in the stove.

Dr. Ryan

No. This is not to catch the paraffin in the lamp. That is already caught. I cannot object to Deputies laughing at their leader's silliness but I want to try to educate him on this. This is to exempt certain oils that are not exempted.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 34, line 22, to delete "£50" and substitute "£100".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are consequential.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 34, to delete "1st day of August, 1963" where these words occur in lines 33 and 40 and substitute "19th day of October, 1963".

Last week on the Committee Stage in relation to this aspect of the Bill, we put the case to the Minister that by leaving 1st November as the date for the operation in relation to goods sold before that date, he was going to cause immense hardship. The Minister has provided in the Bill that goods bought by contract prior to the 1st August will escape the tax network. When we suggested that should be moved back so that it would exempt goods bought prior to 1st November, the Minister said that a very large part of the anticipation would be done in the last few days before the tax came in. I have taken the Minister at his word and have provided accordingly that goods bought in the last few days will be subject to the tax, paid for after 1st November, but that goods bought between 1st August and 19th October will be free of the turnover levy.

It seems to me self-evident and patent—and we had the discussion at great length last week—that it is unfair to tax the persons concerned with 2½ per cent on goods that may be sold between now and the date on which the tax comes into operation. That is an indirect way of bringing the tax in at a date earlier than has been announced. It means, in effect, also that those who can afford it will be able to anticipate the tax, pay cash and lay in supplies and that those who cannot afford it, who have not got the funds to do it, will be caught by the levy. That is unfair and the provision should be amended.

Dr. Ryan

I have stated my views very fully on the Committee Stage against changing the date from 1st August and I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Norton

May we take it this excludes oil used for central heating purposes?

Mr. Dillon

Amendment No. 18 is not under discussion.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister answer the question?

Dr. Ryan

Oil used for domestic heating will be taxable.

Mr. Coogan

Has the Minister borne in mind the effect this will have on the oil heating industry and the manufacture of heaters in Galway? The position is that it has the edge on electricity. That has been proved over the past few years. The ESB have priced themselves out of the market. The Minister by this action is now pricing out these heaters which are a first-class article. This is a new industry and it gives good employment. The Minister should bear that in mind.

Dr. Ryan

Electricity will also be taxed.

Mr. Coogan

Electricity will be taxed. The sky is the limit. The Minister is going into orbit.

Mr. Harte

They will do anything but go to the country.

Mr. Cunningham

Did the factory get a grant?

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 66, line 43, to delete "(being sales exceeding such value limit" and substitute "(subject to such limitations, if any,".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 66, line 48, to delete "in bulk (in bulk being interpreted" and substitute "(subject to such limitations, if any,".

Mr. Dillon

I want to warn the Minister that unless he operates this group of amendments to exclude from purchase tax animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers and seeds, he will create an utterly chaotic situation. It is utterly impossible to segregate the purchase of animal feeding stuffs or fertilisers into bulk or quasi-bulk. I know the Minister is removing the term "in bulk" and substituting "subject to such limitations". It is impossible to provide that you should charge a customer one price for one cwt. of fertiliser and a different price for six stone. If the proposal is, in fact, an attempt to abandon that taxation, it is a useful reform but to make a commodity taxable if sold in certain quantities and not taxable if sold in other quantities will create a situation of chaos, which, I remind the Minister again, will ultimately result in the unscrupulous successfully evading the law and the imposition upon a law-abiding merchant of an utterly intolerable administrative burden about which he cannot honestly make true returns because he will not be able to construct it for his own information, never mind the information of the Revenue Commissioners.

Dr. Ryan

Any trade group with whom we have had discussions on this matter so far appear to be able to come to satisfactory arrangements with the Revenue Commissioners and I am quite sure the same will be done in regard to feeding stuffs and fertilisers.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 66, line 50, to delete "of kinds which are unsuitable for domestic heating" and substitute "other than hydrocarbon oils for domestic use".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 67, between lines 23 and 24, and in the First Schedule, to insert "Sales of bread, butter, tea, sugar, milk, flour and meat".

The purpose of the amendment is to exempt from the operation of the tax bread, butter, tea, sugar, milk, flour and meat. At an earlier stage, I referred to the fact that one of the places mentioned in the White Paper where there is a sales tax in operation is Canada and that practically all foodstuffs are exempt from that tax according to the Explanation of Taxation in Canada, published by the Bank of Montreal. In addition, the other day I happened to come across a publication called Taxation for Today, issued by the English Conservative Organisation. They made it clear that it would be unthinkable to put a general sales tax on goods and services at retail level and not to exempt food. All the arguments were that foodstuffs should be exempt.

The position here is quite clear. The Minister has consistently set his face against exempting the ordinary staple foodstuffs mentioned in the amendment. That they are staple foods no one can deny; that they are foods used at every meal by the ordinary people no one can deny. It seems to me quite clear that the ordinary everyday articles of food should be exempt from the tax. In my opinion, the amendment speaks for itself far more strongly than anything I can say.

Mr. Corish

Opposing this taxation as strongly as we do and opposing any taxation which is akin to a purchase tax, sales tax or turnover tax, we especially bitterly resent the fact that the foodstuffs which are the necessaries of life are to be taxed. Needless to say, we support this amendment. May I qualify that by saying we are strongly opposed to the tax as a whole?

The Government's attitude in the discussions on the turnover tax has been something like this: "We need £11½ million. Where are we to get it?" So far we have no information as to the amount of taxation it is expected will be collected from the various categories, say, in respect of food, or the different articles of food which we regard as basic necessaries. I wonder if, even at this late stage, we could be given an idea of what the problem of the Government would be if bread, flour, butter, tea, sugar, milk and meat were exempted? Further, could we be informed what would be the extent of the Government's alleged financial problem if bread and flour were exempted, or bread, flour and butter, or any one of these articles, or a number of them, were exempted from the turnover tax?

Mr. Haughey

I was consulting the Parliamentary Secretary on a matter on which I wanted information.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The transfer of a Garda perhaps.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Corish

It is no consolation to people who will undoubtedly suffer to say that there is a turnover tax on these essential foodstuffs in Sweden, Canada and other countries. You cannot have both sides of the argument. The people in Sweden, as was pointed out here tonight, have very much higher social welfare allowances. Their conditions are quite different. Their wage structure is different. Conditions generally are different in all these countries and it will be no consolation for a widow with 35/- a week, which is the sum she will have from 1st November next, to say that all these people are taxed in these countries.

I urge the Minister to exclude foodstuffs, not to tax food at least. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget Statement, said that if he were to exclude foodstuffs, he would have to impose a turnover tax of 2/- in the £. It certainly would be less, but how much less I do not know, since we have not got the figures if bread, flour, butter, tea, sugar, milk and meat were excluded but there is a vast range of other foodstuffs which, I am sure, run into some millions of pounds. I and my Party support this amendment asking that particular foodstuffs be exempted from this tax.

Mr. Donegan

Mr. Corish

In reply to the Minister, it is little compensation for taking £11½ million.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest that, if anyone had made that allegation against Deputy Sherwin, never mind the ruck of the Fianna Fáil Party, he would have burst a blood vessel in repudiating any such allegation. Did you notice tonight the delicacy of Deputy Cunningham when pressed to say if he is in favour of taxing bread, butter, tea, sugar, milk, flour and meat; he said he did not want to say? I want to ask a question: is somebody else in favour of doing it? Come now. Deputy Cunningham is a sophisticated man. He is a pedagogue; he is in the habit of teaching people to think logically, to know their own minds, to be clear in their intention, and to be resolute in doing what they believe to be right. Does he not think he has an obligation to tell the people of East Donegal whether he believes in taxing purchases of bread, butter, milk, sugar, tea, flour and meat? Why can he not say "yes" or "no" to that? Is he in favour of taxing these things or not?

That is not a point of order.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Donegan was distressed about the small farmer in his area with 11 children. The increase in the children's allowances is roughly 1/- a week. If he has 11 children, he will get 11/-, which is equivalent to an expenditure on his part of £22. Therefore, the small farmer will have to pay £22 a week on the necessaries of life before he will lose.

Mr. Donegan

That is your figure. You have to have your ages right and everything else right for that. The Minister knows I have not the time to debate it but we will do it by question and answer.

Mr. Haughey

Administratively, it is impossible to do this and the justification for the non-exempting of these items is that in any case where hardship would ensue, the social welfare arrangements which the Minister for Finance is making will more than compensate.

Mr. S. Collins

Give the people a chance.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 71.

Tá.

Barrett, Stephen D.
Barron, Joseph.
Barry, Anthony.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Paddy.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Michael.
Browne, Noel C.
Burke, James J.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Patrick.
Carroll, Jim.
Casey, Seán.
Clinton, Mark A.
Collins, Seán.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Dunne, Seán.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Everett, James.
Sheridan, Joseph.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Farrelly, Denis.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McQuillan, John.
Mullen, Michael.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donnell, Thomas G.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
O'Keeffe, James.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Tierney, Patrick.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Níl.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Leneghan, Joseph R.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
Ryan, James.
Sherwin, Frank.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Crotty and Tully; Níl, Deputies Geoghegan and J. Brennan.

Question declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 23 is out of order.

Mr. D. Costello

How is it out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

It introduces new matter into the Bill.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 67, First Schedule (EXEMPTED ACTIVITIES) to add:

"Sales of medicines or medical preparations for human use or consumption."

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 71.

Tá

Barrett, Stephen D.
Barron, Joseph.
Barry, Anthony.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Paddy.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Michael.
Collins, Seán.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Dunne Seán.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anhony C.
Everett, James.
Farrelly, Denis.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
Browne, Noel C.
Burke, James J.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Patrick.
Carroll, Jim.
Casey, Seán.
Clinton, Mark A.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McQuillan, John.
Mullen, Michael.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donnell, Thomas G.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
O'Keeffe, James.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Sheridan, Joseph.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Níl.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Leneghan, Joseph R.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
Ryan, James.
Sherwin, Frank.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Crotty and Tully; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 67, First Schedule, to add after line 23 the following:

"The sale of drugs, medicines, and medical appliances generally where sold under medical prescription,"

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 67, First Schedule, to add after line 23 the following:

"The promotion of pools and lotteries for purely charitable purposes."

Amendment put and declared lost.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 67, line 39, to delete "of kinds which are suitable for domestic heating" and substitute "for domestic use".

Mr. Dillon

This is the amendment that puts the tax on the oil in the lamp.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman

Earlier to-day the Minister for Finance and I had an argument about the Sinking Fund. I told him the figures he gave in reply to a question to-day proved he was wrong. I want to say they did not. I was wrong to the extent of .174 of one per cent.

Dr. Ryan

A short head!

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17th July, 1963.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 16 Jul 1963

Finance Bill, 1963—Report Stage.

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Jul 1963