Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 1967

Vol. 231 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 6—Office of the Minister for Finance (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
—(Deputy T.F. O'Higgins.)

There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer and that is to inform the House that, for some time, we have been making an investigation into the system of indirect taxation in operation in the countries of Europe. We have been doing this in connection with our application for EEC membership and also as a comparative exercise with regard to our own taxation structure.

Experts have visited European countries and have studied the system of value-added tax in operation there. Most Deputies know that the commission have directed that all Member Countries of EEC should change over to the French system of value-added tax by 1970. It is my intention to publish as early as possible in the New Year a White Paper giving full information about the value-added tax so that the Dáil and the public may understand it fully and be in a position to discuss it should we, at any stage, decide that it is in our interests to introduce a similar type of taxation system here.

Would it be correct to assume that, in the Minister's next Budget, this system of taxation will not be introduced as the time is too short? The Minister will produce a White Paper and ask for comments on it.

I imagine it would be extremely difficult, technically, to introduce such a system in the forthcoming Budget.

Would it cover turnover tax and wholesale tax?

If we introduced this type of tax, it would certainly be in substitution for the wholesale tax. The French system permits of a final tax at the retail stage but that is not an essential part.

So we shall have turnover tax and something else.

Will it be for the the purpose of bringing our taxes more into line with EEC taxation?

If we attained membership of EEC, we should have to adopt this type of tax at some period.

The Minister is preparing us for it.

It is my desire to be of the utmost assistance to the Members of the House. I want to place full information about this type of tax system at the disposal of the House and the general public.

That would be merely the machinery, and so on and so forth. Our concern would be how it would relate to the general requirements of the Minister for Finance to run the country and what proportion it would be.

The Deputy will be able to work out all sorts of calculations.

I do not think so.

I shall help the Deputy.

The Minister does not appear to be able to establish a Third Programme but there is the possibility that we shall have the EEC form of taxation, whether or not we attain membership of that Community.

This House might decide to adopt it, on its merits. This House might say that it is a very good system, and adopt it, apart from our EEC application.

The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption.

The Minister is trying to get more money by indirect taxation.

When I try to assist Deputies and give them information about these developments, they suspect my motives.

We shall don the sackcloth and ashes.

(Cavan): The Minister's announcement is meant to be a form of shock-absorber.

I want to say a final word on devaluation. I maintained, all along, that we should have preferred it if devaluation had not happened. In order to get over their economic difficulties, the British could have adopted other methods which would have been much more harmful from our point of view and, of the two principal methods open to the British to adopt, from our point of view devaluation was certainly the less harmful.

I have tried at all times to keep devaluation in perspective. It creates problems for us but it also opens up opportunities for us. Our economy is in good shape at the moment. The external balance of payments situation is satisfactory. Industrial production is rising. Our exports are behaving admirably. Our growth rate is four per cent. With the economy in this shape, there is no reason why we should not be able to take this devaluation in our stride.

It is an entirely different situation from that which obtains in Britain.

Our economic situation is at present different from that which obtains in Great Britain and, if we did not have such very close trading relationship and such economic ties with Britain, there is nothing in our situation which would dictate that we should devalue. I think I have dealt with that ground very fully. I repeat that there is no question on my part or on the part of the Government of being complacent about this matter. We are fully aware of all the problems that devaluation has for us as well as the advantages and keeping them all in mind and having due regard to them, we still feel it presents us with great opportunities to go out and get new business and improve our situation and that, all in all, it is something that with national purpose and determination, we can take in our stride.

Is the Minister making the necessary improvements in Córas Tráchtála to ensure that Irish exporters will be able to get these markets we hope they will get? Will they be expanded? I want the Minister to go on record——

Yes, I can give the Deputy the assurance that the budgets for Córas Tráchtála and Bord Fáilte, the two bodies immediately concerned, have been steadily increased over the years. Indeed, very shortly after devaluation was announced, Bord Fáilte told me that they would be looking for an increased budget next year to exploit North American markets.

What are Córas Tráchtála getting? More staff, more money?

Is it still going to be the Córas Tráchtála we knew?

The budgets of Córas Tráchtála and their activities have been expanding steadily over the years and they will continue to expand.

But this is a new situation where the Minister says there is great opportunity for them. Can they avail of this opportunity if they have not the necessary money and other facilities?

We will make money available for them and——

Before the Budget?

Yes, if necessary.

There were two questions I asked specifically. One was the question relating to the new Restaurant and the fact that people who normally dined in the Restaurant were refused permission to dine there. The second is in relation to the fact that the staff of the Houses are required to pay the full price in the Restaurant for food which they should not be asked to do.

I have no knowledge of those two matters but I will communicate with the Deputy about them.

We are all concerned about the Press being refused permission to use the Restaurant.

Yes, could the Minister make a comment on that? That is a different matter. A member of the House, acting as chairman of a sub-committee, ordered the Press out of that Restaurant. We believe all Members of the House should have been consulted before something like that happened. I do not believe it is the wish of the House.

It is not our wish at any rate.

I have no knowledge of that. It is not within my domain.

But the Minister is responsible for the Houses of the Oireachtas and frankly we would like to know to what body we should take this issue in order to get a decision.

I think maybe the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.

They say they have no function and it appears to be right back in the Minister's lap. This is something which may appear to be a small matter. For a number of years a certain procedure was adopted and this was changed by the action of one individual. We do not believe that should be allowed to continue.

It seems to me that this House can run its own affairs in whatever way it wishes. It has delegated powers to the Joint Restaurant Committee——

But not to decide who is to dine there, not to decide who may and who may not go into the Restaurant. That is not a function of the Joint Restaurant Committee.

As a Deputy, could I give a global invitation to people to come into the Restaurant? I will not pay for their meals but invite them in.

I do not know. I only pay the bills.

We think this is something——

My function in respect of these Houses is mainly to meet the expenditure.

Somebody has responsibility.

We all have responsibility as Members of the House.

We cannot have a debate on the matter at this stage.

Our Party are in favour of admitting them. The Joint Restaurant Committee have no authority in this matter.

Could the Ceann Comhairle assist us? Obviously the Minister has not responsibility, from what he says.

Nobody has responsibility.

The Joint Restaurant Committee has full authority to deal with this matter or any other matter relating to the Restaurant.

This matter was not discussed by the Joint Restaurant Committee and the decision taken was taken by an individual.

Is the motion to refer back the Vote being withdrawn?

Question put: "That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration".
Question declared lost.

That will be postponed until 10.15 tonight.

Top
Share