Could the Minister explain shortly what this section of three pages means?
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill".
Section 43 is aimed at defeating a particular type of case where a group of persons form a company which buys land and puts up a building on it—say, an office block— with a view to reselling at a profit. The actual building may be done by the company itself or by a building contractor. The building contractor may be independent or he may be an associate. If the building were disposed of in the normal way, the profit would be taxable under section 39 (2) (a) of the Bill even if, apart from this venture, the company was not engaged in dealing in or developing land. However, if the person who wishes to acquire the building does not buy it but instead buys shares in the company, the seller or sellers of the shares do not incur liability. The consequence of the operation accordingly is that what would have been a taxable profit in the hands of the company emerges as a non-taxable profit in the shareholders' hands.
In relation to subsection (2) (a), what about a contract that was made before Budget day but the sale was not closed until after Budget day? Is it not caught? Should there not be a provision exempting sales made in pursuance of a contract?
That refers to the sale of shares.
Yes.
The sale of the shares must take place on or after Budget day.
I know a particular case—I am not quite certain whether it is a developing case like this or not —where a contract was made in April for the purchase by a person of shares in a company for the purpose of development of certain land. The contract was entered into in the first ten days of April and the date for closing of the sale is 1st September. The shares will not be transferred until 1st September. I have not examined this from another point of view, whether there is liability or not, but there is a case where the contract was genuinely made before the Minister stood up on Budget day. There should be an exemption to cover a case where the contract was so made. I think "sale" refers to the closing of the sale, not to the execution of the contract.
That is what it would seem to be, and the contract of sale is not outright at that stage.
There usually is a saver in these cases for contracts made before the operative date, which in this case is Budget day. There should be such a saver here.
We can have a look at that.
Sympathetically?
Yes. If I may revert to the last point the Deputy made, if he looks at page 41, subsection (6) of section 45, the last subsection of Part VII, he will see that it says:
Where a sale is effected in pursuance of a previous agreement, the time of the sale shall be taken for the purpose of the two foregoing sections and of the foregoing provisions of this section to be the time of the making of the agreement.
That seems to give them time.
That is so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44
Question proposed "That section 44 stand part of the Bill."
Is section 44 the same as section 43, except for a holding company?
That is so.
It says so in the explanatory memorandum but the Minister knows my distrust of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Question proposed: "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
This whole part of the Bill flows from the new conception of one taxpayer, one charge.
Yes, and it also follows the recommenation of the Commission on Income Tax.
What else does it provide, other than one taxpayer, one charge?
A separate assessment of partners' profits instead of an assessment of the partnership as a whole. It was decided to implement the recommendation of the Commission on Income Tax in that regard and it does complete the operation started in 1963.
It is the same change?
Yes.
Does it not change the rule in relation to cessation?
Each partner is treated as if he were sole trader.
He is therefore deprived of certain of his rights to opt in a partnership?
Yes, that is gone.
He is being deprived of certain rights he has at present and in consequence, could be paying more tax?
The Deputy is referring to the three year period. He is losing that.
Does the Minister not think that that was a proper matter to be referred to in the explanatory memorandum? Part VIII of the explanatory memorandum says nothing about any such change in the taxpayer's rights. All the different sections dealing with revenue in the explanatory memorandum seem to be queer. It seems to me that one man wrote the whole lot and that one man seems to be the Minister himself.
It would not be all that explanatory if I wrote it myself.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Question proposed: "That section 47 stand part of the Bill".
What is the point of subsection (3)?
It secures that where a person delivers a return in a prescribed form, he shall be deemed to have been required by a notice to deliver that return.
Therefore, making a voluntary return will not get him off in future. Does anyone ever make a voluntary return?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment No. 61:
In subsection (4), page 45—
(a) to delete "year 1966-67, and for each of the years 1963-64 and 1964-65, where the claim is for the" in lines 1 and 2, and
(b) to delete "of assessment concerned" in line 7 and substitute "1964-65".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
Question proposed: "That section 50 stand part of the Bill".
I want to advise the House that there is a small amendment to this section which I wish to introduce on Report Stage. It is something in relief of the taxpayer. In subsection (2), line 53 after the words "no questions shall be raised", I want to add the words "no question as to its correctness".
I agree.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Question proposed: "That section 51 stand part of the Bill".
The Minister made a point earlier in relation to another section. He said that another section was covered by section 64. It is clear beyond question that the opening words "Where for any year of assessment" must be restricted to the year 1965-66 and subsequent years, because it should not go back.
That is the case.
And you cannot make an additional assessment now for an earlier year?
No.
Because of section 64.
Yes, section 64 (7).
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Question proposed: "That section 52 stand part of the Bill".
Do we have factors in Ireland? I thought they were in Scotland only.
I believe the word is used in the original Act and we are keeping to the same wording.
Deputy O'Higgins tells me there is a gentleman called a potato factor.
That is right.
If some people had potatoes here, I am afraid they might be hurling them at the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 53.
Question proposed: "That section 53 stand part of the Bill".
Is that restricted to 1965-66? I think it is, by virtue of section 64 (7).
It is.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 54.
Question proposed: "That section 54 stand part of the Bill".
What exactly is the effect of that?
It has got a lovely phrase—"That is to remedy certain weaknesses".
Yes.
I am sure the Minister did not write that part of the explanatory memorandum anyway.
It inserts two new subsections in section 86 of the Finance Act, 1963. These are subsections (2 A) and (2 B). Subsection (2 A) concerns two types of case. The first is where a lump sum may be paid at the option of the lessee as an alternative to a full rent. The second case is that in which a lease is granted which is deliberately onerous and a sum is paid, as part of a colourable transaction, for the surrender of the lease. The sum paid for the surrender of the lease is in effect a lump sum in place of rent. The proposed new legislation provides that in either case payments are to be deemed to be premiums.
I thought they were always deemed to be premiums.
They will be taxable accordingly under section 86 of the Finance Act, 1963. The new subsection (2 B) relates to a case similar to that in which a sum is paid for the surrender of an onerous lease, namely, the case where a sum is paid as consideration for the variation or waiver of any term of a lease. It is provided that such sums will be liable to tax in the same circumstances and to the same extent as premiums.
I thought the first two were always premiums.
It seems like the same thing. However, there must be some avoidance measures that have been successful.
Have any complaints been received that section 86 did not permit in its strict wording the spreading of the premiums over the period it would appear to provide?
There have been no evidence and no representations.
I may want to say something about it on Report. I came across a case once in which I was advised by senior counsel that the section was defective in relation to its power to spread. In the case in question, it appeared that the effect of the wording of the section was such as to provide that the whole premium had to be taken into account in one year for income tax and surtax purposes, which is the exact thing we have been discussing. Frankly, until I turned up section 86 a moment ago and saw that section 54 of this Bill refers to it, I had completely forgotten, but I want to raise it now, so that, if I feel disposed, I can put something down about it on Report.
The intention would be, if the point is raised, to bring in a specific spreading provision.
That is very fair.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 55.
Question proposed: "That section 55 stand part of the Bill".
I cannot understand the last three lines on page 51 at all. Would the Minister explain what paragraph (a) means?
If I deal with it——
The whole section if it might be easier.
——it might help myself to understand it. The proposed new section 86A deals with the case where a short lease is granted for a premium less in value than the full market value of the lease—to, for example, a company which the lessor controls—and the lease is thereafter assigned by the lessee at a more or less adequate price. The proposed new provision is broadly to the effect that tax is to be charged by reference to the amount by which the consideration paid for the assignment exceeds the original premium. The amount of the excess is, for purposes of the charge, to be written down at two per cent for each year of the original duration of the lease except the first. Does that help the Deputy?
Not much, I am afraid. I shall have to study it. I think "exceeds" should be "less".
Do not tell me Deputy Sweetman is stuck for once.
I am, indeed. I cannot understand it.
Until it was explained to me, I had the same impression as Deputy Sweetman. I thought the deduction should be the other way.
I am in good company.
The Deputy need not boast about the company.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 56.
Question proposed: "That section 56 stand part of the Bill".
What does this section do or purport to do?
It is a new section. It should be explained that section 92 of the Finance Act, 1963, is concerned with a case in which a charge is being made on a lessor under section 86 of the Act and the premises in question are occupied for business purposes by the lessee. The purpose of this section 92 is to even things out, as it were; broadly, it provides that, where the lessor has been charged by reference to the premiums as if it were rent, the lessee is to be treated correspondingly as paying rent over the term of the lease and an appropriate deduction is to be made for tax purposes in the accounts of his business.
In other words, to bring the two per cent of the premium in for the lessee as well as taking it from the lessor.
That is right.
Fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58.
Question proposed: "That section 58 stand part of the Bill".
I should like, at this stage, to give notice that, in response to representations I received— I think this is the appropriate place— I propose to move an amendment on the Report Stage to the effect that where a gift of money is made to the Minister for Finance for use for any purpose for or towards the cost of which public moneys are provided the amount of the gift will be deductible in computing liability to income tax, surtax and corporation profits tax.
What kind of gifts?
Gifts of money made to the Minister for Finance for——
Not to the Minister himself.
No. There are some philanthropic persons—at least there is one—who want to give money to enhance some national monuments and things of that nature and it would be a mistake not to accept it, if the only deterrent were that it would be chargeable to tax.
Some very public-spirited person.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Question proposed: "That section 59 stand part of the Bill."
This deals with capital allowances, does it not?
This is the section that extends by three years the period of operation of the double initial allowance on plant and machinery and industrial buildings.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 60.
I move amendment 62:
In line 19 to substitute "twenty-five" for "twenty."
This amendment is not very elegantly phrased to deal with what I have in mind but it provides a peg on which to hang my hat. I should like, first of all, to say that I appreciate the extension contained in section 60 which has been included by the Minister in response to representations by me, amongst other people. It is, of course, desirable that the date on which a mine had to come into operation to get the concession should be extended somewhat. It is not generally realised, however, that there is a good deal of work at the beginning in operating a mine which to a large extent would take away the benefit for the first year which is provided in the 1956 Act. I admit quite frankly that when I introduced the 1956 Act, I did not know anything like as much about the business of mining as I have had to learn in the meantime.
The 1956 Act provides that there shall be an exemption for the first four years at full rate and an exemption for the second four years at half rate. This was brought in for the purpose of trying to engender an interest in mining in Ireland, just as the export tax remission was brought in at the same time in the other complementary Acts for the purpose of engendering an interest in exports. Both Acts have played their part in creating that interest. Export tax remission is given at 100 per cent for the whole period of exports under the Act; mining relief was restricted to 100 per cent for the first four years and to 50 per cent for the second four years. It does appear clear to me now, as it was not clear to me in 1956, that in the first year of a mine's operation, there will inevitably be quite a substantial tuning-up period and that there will be a long period, running for six months or more, during which a mining mill may have to be operated, stopped, restarted and so forth, for the purposes of adjustment and that a large part of the first year will be lost in this tuning up.
I agree at once that a large part of the first year in relation to exports is equally lost, but in relation to exports, it does not matter to this extent that exports get full remission all the way through. Mines, however, get full remission for the first four years but get only one-half remission for the next four years. The effect of the tuning-up period, therefore, in practice, means that the first year's exemption from profits is of no value at all, because during that year no profits are earned at all because of this tuning-up period.
The format of the 1956 Act is such that the period of the exemption comes into force immediately the mine starts to tune-up. That has several disadvantages. It has a disadvantage in relation to the loss of the first full year which is never recovered; it has a disadvantage in relation to the carry forward of capital allowances and of initial allowances of one sort or another. It was fair enough before the Minister for Finance of the day extended in, I think, 1958, the remission for taxation on profits from exports from 50 per cent to 100 per cent, but once that was done, the effect of these restrictions has been to cut down quite substantially the position for mines as against the position for exports. Virtually the whole of the production in a mine, as apart from the position of capital equipment, is something which is exported and has, and will have, I hope, in the future, a very substantial effect on our balance of payments. For that reason the Minister should go further than he has gone here.
I do not think my amendment for extending the total period from 20 years to 25 years is either an elegant or even an accurate way of doing what I want, but perhaps the Minister will consider it. He has representations already in his Department from me about the matter and having given the appropriate notice now, if I felt so disposed, I would be in order in putting down something on Report. It is a matter of some consequence and one which is so technical that the Minister would find it difficult to understand exactly the implications from a technical point of view as apart from the technical tax point of view.
I can assure the Minister that if he or his officers have any difficulty in grasping the whole concept of what is involved in the initial engineering side of a mining venture, and how that trial run period and certain other aspects of it must affect the benefit of the tax provision that is being given, I will be very happy to arrange that the people who do understand and can express themselves better than I can will attend to the Minister and his officers.
Maybe the Minister might do what Deputy Sweetman has just said, namely, consider going much further than this whole question of mining taxation. I believe that it is not being helped by the attitude of the Minister's Department. The situation with regard to mining generally is something new to this country. They are depending on information received from mining countries where mining has been carried out for a very long time and where the system of mining and of taxation is entirely different from what it is likely to be here. The Department is trying to set up a system of taxation which should not apply to a developing country. Perhaps the Minister might have that matter looked after personally. If he wants particulars, I can give him some particulars where the prospect of a mine is being seriously interfered with because some people in the Minister's Department seem to think that a mine here and one somewhere else must be the same and that when a mine goes into production there are no obstacles here which do not occur in other countries, the result being that taxation which could easily be borne by a mine in some other countries which have been developed for years might not be possible at all in this country.
When I was in the Department of Industry and Commerce, I dealt to some extent with prospecting licences and mining leases and with mining legislation generally. I was assured by most of the people I met, mainly Canadians and some from South Africa, that we had the most liberal mining laws in the world and they were quite pleased.
That could not be, because they were modelled on Canada and we did not make them more liberal than Canada.
Certainly as regards taxation.
I am afraid the Minister has the wrong end of the stick. I do not want to cross swords with him.
When Deputy Sweetman was Minister about ten years ago, he had an idea about mining to which perhaps mine is now limited.
I had none.
I know he felt there was a certain urgency about encouraging these people to undertake mining operations and, therefore, a limit was set beyond which if they did not start, they would not merit these tax reliefs. The time has been extended first to ten years and now to 20 years. That would bring the date up to 5th April, 1976, that is, 11 years hence. I think, as of now, at any rate, that that should provide sufficient incentive and encouragement to these people, people who have prospecting licences or who even contemplate asking for prospecting licences and going into development, to start as quickly as possible because, while we like to do things for posterity, we like to enjoy the fruits of our own labour, too, as quickly as possible.
We nearly did not, in this case.
The reason I put it in was the Minister's section 6 in this Bill in relation to exports. He extended exports for another five years. That is why I did it.
The exports reliefs were already in existence. It was a simple extension.
But so were the mining reliefs.
He includes the products of the mine.
This affects the time for starting. There are 11 years between now and then.
I quite agree that my amendment did not get at what I wanted to get at. It is not directed at all towards the matter about which I spoke.
That makes it very clear.
It is very difficult to answer that argument.
I was talking on the section, not on the amendment.
At all events, may I suggest to Deputy Sweetman to let the 20 stand for the moment, anyway——
Certainly.
——and to instil, we hope, a senses of urgency in mining operators in order to qualify for this tax relief. If we find difficulty, perhaps we might look at it again.
I shall not be here 20 years hence.
Deputy Sweetman referred to the tuning-up period. I understand that is discounted because it is not a profitable operation. The four years will commence from the tuning-up period—I should say commencement of trading.
I think the tuning-up year is because it is commencement of trading. To put the matter in order, may I withdraw the amendment and discuss the section?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 60 stand part of the Bill".
What happens, as I understand it now—as I frankly admit I did not understand in 1956— is that a mining mill starts. It finds after some months experience that because of some unforeseen thing in relation to the minerals law it has to stop and to make some substantial change in relation to its engineering technicalities. When any ore has run through the mill it has to be sent away, abroad usually, for treatment or, in any event, it has either to be dumped or used. It is obviously better for it to be sold than dumped even though it may have to get what is a very much lower price than it would get if the mill were working correctly. The dumping would cost a great deal of money both from the point of view of having to transport it and of having to find some place to dump tailings and waste. Because of the fact that the product of the mill has to be sold, even though at a reduced price, that is the commencement of trading. There may be stops and starts. I can tell the Minister that, in a case with which I am associated, and which he knows about, it is estimated that there will be a six months' period of stops and starts and that will have the effect of killing the first year of the operation of the benefit unless there is some adjustment in that respect.
Apart from that, there is the question of the capital allowances which cannot be carried on afterwards. Again, the argument is used that it is different from exports; it is. It is different from exports because this comes to an end in eight years whereas the export relief goes on now until 1981, I think. I would urge the Minister, the door having been opened wide enough, to get his officials to discuss it with people who are more competent than I am to discuss the engineering technicalities. I can assure him from my personal experience that before I realised the engineering difficulties I did not understand the manner in which the taxation code would work in respect of it.
I can see what the Deputy is getting at now. I think I agree with him that his amendment would not have achieved what he wants.
No. I said at the beginning that my amendment was merely a peg to hang my hat on because I did not quite know how to draft what I wanted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.
I move amendment No. 63:
In subsection (1), page 56, line 27, to insert "they" before "may".
This is to correct a drafting flaw.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 61, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I should be obliged if the Minister would have another look between now and Report Stage at subsection 1 (b). It appears somewhat unjust that where an appeal is brought before the Special Commissioners and where the Special Commissioners, having commenced the hearing, adjourn it, they may order that a certain proportion of the assessment money may still be paid forthwith. I can see a very good reason for paragraph (a) because if that provision were not in the Bill, it would be possible for an appellant to delay the hearing of the appeal improperly. However, it seems unjust that the Special Commissioners, at their discretion, can adjourn an appeal and still order payment of a certain proportion of the amount still under appeal. There is a procedure set out under subsection (2) that the inspector of taxes shall give notice in writing to the appellant of the making of the order and there may be an appeal back to the Special Commissioners who made the order in the first place. Would the Minister undertake to look at the provision so that the right to make an order under this paragraph will be confined to cases where the hearing has been adjourned on the application of the appellant?
I am not familiar with the machinery.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 62
Question proposed: "That section 62 stand part of the Bill".
This section repeals the 25 per cent stamp duty on land purchased by non-nationals. This is something I do not like. Could the Minister give the House the revenue from this stamp duty in the past two years?
In the first place, the Deputy will appreciate that the purpose of the 25 per cent duty was more as a deterrent than as a means of collecting revenue. The purpose was, of course, to deter aliens from buying land here. We found it was not a sufficient deterrent because, much though we regard land prices as inflated, nowadays in Ireland, by international standards, land is still very cheap and the 25 per cent duty did not seem to operate as effectively as we thought it would.
The Fine Gael Party eventually convinced the Minister of that fact.
I am still not yielding to the argument that there was undue purchase of land by aliens at that time. Nevertheless, there was a certain amount of public feeling and campaigning, and it was felt the purpose of deterring such purchases would be better achieved by an amendment of the Land Acts which would give the Land Commission power to say whether or not land may be sold to foreigners. That section is now in operation. The amount of duty collected in a 20-year period was £869,000.
Could the Minister give us a breakdown for the past five years?
In 1964-65, the figure was £183,000; in 1963-64, it was £138,000; in 1962-63, it was £117,000; and in the previous year, it was about half that figure.
The amount was going up.
In the last year, the duty brought in £183,000. In face of that, we spent the best part of a day discussing legislation which was to take £10,000 from our own hard-pressed widows and orphans—small, insignificant sums being extracted from widows because, the Minister said, the finances of the State would not stand any less. Here we are to present £183,000 to Germans, British and other non-nationals and we apparently regard this as unimportant. On the question of non-nationals buying land, I feel very strongly.
We cannot go into the merits of that on the section.
I should like to make it clear in the records of the House, for some future occasion, that I was not in agreement with the Minister or the Fianna Fáil Party in their attitude to this question. Where foreigners come in and start factories, we pay substantial contributions to entice them——
The Deputy is going further outside the section.
The sooner the Minister allows me to make my point, the sooner I shall finish. Where we induce foreigners in with money and grants for the purpose of setting up factories which give employment in a permanent way, I am in agreement with the Government but I think the whole idea of allowing them to buy land here is wrong. If a 25 per cent duty was not sufficient to deter them, we should have raised it to 250 per cent if necessary. Our idea was to stop them coming in and if that required that they pay a very substantial duty for the privilege of buying land here, then we should impose that duty and maintain it. The idea of relieving these people of a £183,000 duty is wrong. If the Land Bill makes it possible to regulate the availability of land to foreigners, that is no reason why they should not pay a duty on the land they buy. If the Land Commission allow such people to buy land, they should pay a substantial tax for the privilege. We spent a day discussing the extortion of money from our own deserving people and today we decide not to take £183,000 from foreigners. On my own behalf and on behalf of the Labour Party, I dissociate myself from this provision.
The Deputy is completely on the wrong track.
I do not think so.
The object in changing the method of deterring non-nationals buying land from a 25 per cent duty to a provision in the Land Act was to ensure, for the benefit of the people of Ireland, that agricultural land would not be bought up by Germans, French, Americans or anyone else. The Deputy mentioned industry. The same tax would not apply at all to an alien in that respect.
I said I was in favour of that.
Since the purpose of the legislation was to deter and since that purpose was not effected, a new method of deterring the purchase by aliens of agricultural land has now been provided. Therefore, this £183,000 is not germane at all to the discussion in that under the new method it would not come in. As I said, it was not for revenue purposes.
Do I understand that non-nationals will not get permission to buy any agricultural land or any holdings in future?
That is not true. Some of them will.
If the Land Commission is going to give permission to these people to buy land, why do we not charge them tax at the same time? If our land is, by international standards, cheap, what is the purpose of taking off this 25 per cent? It would be an additional deterrent. Why depend on one when we can have two, one of which is already in force?
The 25 per cent cases were cases of purchases of land the Land Commission would have no means of stopping but where the Land Commission gave consent, even under the old system, the lower rate of duty would be applied. I want to repeat that this is not revenue as such. The purpose of the original legislation was a deterring one. It is no longer necessary now because there is another deterrent and a more effective one in other legislation.
I will accept the Minister's statement that there is a more effective deterrent but it is a pity when we are raising taxes and taxing ourselves that we do not put a tax on non-nationals buying land because, whether they get permission from the Land Commission or not, it seems an ideal method of raising revenue and getting some benefit for the ordinary man-in-the-street from the fact that non-nationals are coming in and buying up the place. It is a pity that this section has to go, no matter what point of view the Minister has.
It is rather difficult to reconcile with the grasping net.
(South Tipperary): Non-nationals can come in and there is a special provision in the Land Bill that the Minister can make exceptions.
That is true and was true before also.
(South Tipperary): I support Deputy Norton's plea that the provision should remain.
I do not think it fits in with the policy the Minister is trying to maintain in this House, that he is trying to establish an Irish Republic for Irish people, that one of the few taxes taken out of this Finance Bill is one that applies to non-nationals while every other tax is being put on to the Irish people. It is a pity that that is the Minister's attitude. If it is not bringing in revenue, what harm will it do to leave the provision there?
It does bring in revenue.
The figures the Minister gave in this House recently indicate that he has £585,000 to throw away in a year. He could relieve the ordinary Irishman.
That will not be available any more because of the new provision in the Land Act.
That has nothing to do with it. This new Land Act simply requires a person to apply to the Land Commission for permission. There is no prohibition whatsoever imposed on the Minister for Lands to prevent him giving permission. Once permission is given, these people can now purchase the land without paying the share of stamp duty they have been required to pay since 1947. If the Minister is in a generous mood, I submit that this generosity should be displayed towards Irish purchasers of their own home with lesser market value than £5,000. When that is done, then something could be said for giving relief of stamp duty on purchases of property but no merit can be shown in this particular proposal. It does not relieve the Irish taxpayer. It provides relief for people who are coming from their own country to purchase land here and not people in need of any form of financial relief such as is proposed in this measure.
The only people coming in are people who will add to the production generally of the country and these people get permission anyway for the lower rate, so there is no question of revenue. I had better not say any more because every time I speak somebody else gets up.
Can the Minister not allow this to remain and see the effect of it?
We will have nothing to discuss next year. Would the Minister not leave that in until next year when we can see what it has brought in?
Can the Minister answer this question: Has he any evidence that this particular stamp duty has discouraged people from purchasing property here for productive purposes or the kind of purposes he has in mind?
The Deputy is full of life now. He was not here even ten minutes ago when I was talking about that point.
I bow, and I suppose I will read the report in six months time when the printers' strike is over.
Will this not enable a former owner of Miss Cossie to buy a farm without paying stamp duty on it?
I do not know what the nationality of the former owner is.
Very few know.
We would like to know.
Would the Minister not consider leaving this in, since there is no urgency whatever in the matter? It cannot upset the Minister's Department one way or the other. Why not leave it stand another year? He has been so reasonable on everything else, surely he can leave over this section which only has the effect of taxing non-nationals and does not apply to Irish people?
It was considered very carefully. I have so many things to come back with on Report that I will never finish.
This is something that you will not have to come back with. You can say you are deleting it.
I cannot say that. There is no amendment.
I do not think there will be any difficulty about that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 63 and 64 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
The repeal which we have been discussing is, as I understand it, on the top of page 62 in Part VIII of the Bill and I think the Schedule should not go through with that repeal in it. The purpose of the Land Act is to decide whether the case can or cannot go through. There is no reason why the decision could not be left in the hands of the Land Commissioners, who are an independent body of persons, as to whether it is a case which should go through without payment of the additional duty or whether it is a case that should go through only with payment of the additional duty. The Minister could very easily use the duty.
I think it is true to say also that if the duty were retained for the moment, it would be possible to assess the validity of the Minister's contention without doubt. The Minister said the retention of the duty serves now no useful purpose; therefore, why keep it? The only evidence we have of that is the, I am sure, bona fide guess of the Minister. The hard facts are that, on the figures he gave, this duty has yielded over £187,000. That can be cut down to nothing from this on or it may yield merely £100,000 or £50,000, but, whatever it does yield is certainly a matter that we should consider fully in the light of actual experience, not in the light of guided hopes or estimates which the Minister may put forward. Certainly, we would feel that the Schedule containing that repeal is not a Schedule which should pass and we will have to consider it at a later stage.
There was, of course, previously a similar provision that it could go through either with or without.
I do not understand the Deputy.
Before the passage of the 1965 Act, there was a system by which the Land Commissioners could decide whether the foreigner concerned could buy without paying the 25 per cent or could buy only with paying the 25 per cent. The same practice could quite well operate now if the Minister wanted it.
I would appeal to the Minister not to have a closed mind on this aspect of it.
I shall think about it. I want to examine a little more of the background of this.
Very good.
That is fair enough.
That is reasonable enough, but since the Minister was reasonable on the other sections, I think this might well be left for another year when more experience will have been gained.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
What does the Minister plan for the Report Stage?
I was going to suggest next Wednesday.
Provisionally?
Yes.
Obviously this will have to be considered in relation to what the general picture may be.
Apparently we shall know more about that tomorrow afternoon.
Could the Minister give us any indication as to when he will have decided on his amendments?
I would hope to have some of them by the weekend, and maybe more on Monday.
We would need to know, in view of the discussion here, the nature of the Minister's amendments.
It is extremely difficult on a technical Bill like this to work without a printed report of the discussion.
I shall do my best to get out the amendments I have by the weekend but I cannot promise that. In any event I shall try to have them all by Monday. If we order the Report Stage for Wednesday, I shall certainly not want to insist on it.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th July, 1965.