Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1968

Vol. 236 No. 3

Finance Bill, 1968: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete subsection (3).
—(Deputy Cosgrave.)

As was said when this amendment was discussed on Tuesday last, its purpose is to substitute the Revenue Commissioners for the Minister for Finance. While there has been some criticism in the past of leaving a discretion in certain respects to the Revenue Commissioners, there is, I think, an even greater objection to giving a discretion in a matter of this sort to the Minister. In fact, one of the aspects of this section as it is drafted is that the Minister can waive statutory conditions. It might be possible to consider a revised amendment under which the Minister would have the discretion, on the recommendation of the Revenue Commissioners.

It is also, I think, worthy of note that, in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, no reference was made to the fact that this discretion was being conferred on the Minister. While these explanatory memoranda are not regarded as definitive, nevertheless I think, in a matter of this sort, it is important that the full implications of the section should properly and adequately be explained. There is a strong case, in a matter of this sort, for not having unfettered discretion allowed to the Minister. For that reason, the amendment was put down by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins as was a similar one by myself.

I think, on the whole, this is not an unreasonable proposition on my part. We are dealing here with something which is new and complicated. It could well happen that a company concerned might be in breach of the conditions for only one day of the year. As I mentioned before, what we are concerned with here are marginal departures from very stringent conditions. I feel the House will get a better understanding of this if I explain that already we have had to change what we had in the Bill originally to meet particular cases. If we had gone ahead with the original conditions laid down in the Bill as we devised them they would have been quite useless in so far as some of the organisations were concerned and we have had to revise them already. I feel we must leave some way out here to cover the case where, for example, a company might be in breach of one of the conditions maybe for a couple of days in the year so that the discretion to deal with that situation should reside in the Minister. Of course, the exercise of any such discretion would only be on the advice of the Revenue Commissioners; in fact, it could only come to the Minister through the Revenue Commissioners because it would be the Revenue Commissioners who would be dealing with the company's liability for tax.

It seems to me that what I propose should meet the case, that the discretion would rest with the Minister but if he exercises the discretion he must publicise that fact in Iris Oifigiúil. Therefore, the matter could be raised here in the House at any time. It would be undesirable to substitute the Revenue Commissioners for the Minister in this respect. As I said, Deputies on that side of the House, and indeed Deputies on this side of the House, from time to time have been very critical of our giving any discretion to the Revenue Commissioners. I do not think we should do it on this occasion. After all, it is the Minister who is politically accountable and that is the way it should be. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that any exercise of this discretion by the Minister could only be on the advice of the Revenue Commissioners. Perhaps if the Deputy would agree to withdraw amendments 30 and 31 and let my official amendment 32 stand then between now and the Report Stage we might see if some further words might be inserted to make it clear that the Minister would only act after consultation with the Revenue Commissioners.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.

I move Amendment No. 32:

In page 19, subsection (3), line 21, to add to the subsection "and notification of any authorisation under this subsection shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is given”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."

What type of work is envisaged here?

What is involved here is the sort of situation where an Irish firm of engineering consultants would plan and design a project which would be built abroad. For instance, if a firm of Irish consultant engineers planned and designed an oil refinery for Iran they would be paid for those services and from now on the payment for those services will be treated as an export which, in fact, it is, and will be allowed for export tax relief.

That is reasonable. I thought that that was what was envisaged but has any consideration been given to including other sections, other consultants, such as architects?

Yes, they are covered.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill".

The relief here is only granted in respect of payments made under the Redundancy Payments Act. It has been suggested to me that the relief might be extended to cover voluntary payments.

Voluntary payments for loss of future earnings are covered in another part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 37 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 40.

Amendment No. 33 and perhaps as No. 34 is related we could take 33 and 34 together.

I move amendment No. 33:

In subsection (2), page 27, line 42, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Central Bank".

What is concerned here is the new type of investment accounts we propose to authorise the trustee savings banks to open for their clients and a new rate of interest will be fixed which would be paid on deposits in these accounts. The Bill proposes that this rate of interest should be determined by the Minister for Finance. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 propose that it should be fixed by the Central Bank. I think that is based on a misconception and it would be very much out of line with the normal practice. All these rates are fixed by the Minister for Finance as part of his operation of the Exchequer. The Post Office Savings Bank and the ordinary rate of interest payable on the deposits of trustee savings banks are fixed by the Minister for Finance as part of his management of the Exchequer funds, savings and so on and I suggest that these amendments might be withdrawn.

This was the new proposal announced in the Budget?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.
Section 40 agreed to.
Sections 41 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 9th July, 1968.
Top
Share