I fully accept what the Minister has said. It is certainly in on way his fault. The problem arose because I understood from what was said that these documents were circulated together. I had no recent recollection of receiving them. They were circulated over a period of time including a period when I had no direct responsibility for this matter. That accounts for the fact that I did not have them together in a form suitable for debate. The fault was clearly on my side and not the Minister's. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in permitting the adjournment to enable me to study the matter fully.
I should like to make a number of points in regards to these agreements. First, I think it is common ground that the more agreements of this kind the better to facilitate commercial relationships between the countries concerned. We have a number of agreements already ratified and others are before us today. There are, however, a number of countries in respect of which agreements do not exist but with which we have significant trading relationships and in some cases where there are companies either in existance or contemplating investment here from the countries concerned and I ask the Minister if he can indicate what progress, if any, is being made in relation to similar agreements with countries such as Australia, Israel, Japan, Spain and Portugal. I name only five but these seem to be five with which our relationships are sufficiently close to warrant negotiation of agreements of this kind between us.
This morning I asked the Minister whether a matching credit arrangement existed in all four of these agreements as I had no opportunity to go through them when speaking. My understanding was that he replied that such an arrangement did exist. In so far as I am correct in recalling his saying that—I think it is what he said—I think what he said was less than the complete picture in regard to Italy. In the case of Italy my understanding is that the matching credit arrangement is limited to cases —which would be the minority of cases—where the Italian company hold at least 51 per cent of the share capital of the Irish company. This is a serious restriction of a kind that does not exist in most of the other agreements, those we are ratifying today and others that have been ratified previously. It is regrettable that this restriction is imposed.
In one or two other agreements there are certain provisions of this kind. The normal arrangement is that a 25 per cent holding is sufficient but in the case of Canada I think it is 100 per cent and for France it is 50 per cent. However, in the case of Italy the matching credit arrangement seems to operate only where the company is a majority-owned subsidiary of an Italian company. This is not the case in other instances and I wonder if the Minister could indicate why the problem arose in the case of Italy. Further, can he state if the agreement we have signed involves our recognisation of any Italian tax incentives to industry? Is this reciprocated? Is there any prospect of having the Italian agreement more in conformity with the general pattern of agreements? When I asked this question this morning it might have been better if the Minister had indicated there was a significant exception in the case of the Italian agreement but possibly he had not time to consider his answer fully at that moment.
I am concerned at the time taken to ratify the Belgian agreement. This might not matter if the Belgian agreement was restrospective but that is not the case. It comes into effect only when both sides have ratified it. It was signed two years ago and I am wondering why it has taken so long to bring it to this House. The procedure for ratification is a fairly simple one; it is not time-consuming as will be evident by the short debate that will follow my remarks. Considerable inconvenience and cost has been incurred by some Irish companies because the Belgian agreement has not been brought to the Dáil for two years after signature. I am wondering if this has been influenced by the Belgian ratification procedure? Perhaps the Minister could tell us which of these agreements have been ratified in the countries in question and, where they have not been ratified, if ratification is imminent? A possible reason for failing to bring the Belgian agreement before the House might be that the Belgian Parliament was similarly neglectful, although even if that were the case and if the two Parliaments were hesitating it would be better for us to get on with it and remove a possible impediment in the minds of the Belgians regarding ratification. If each of us is waiting for the other to ratify, the procedure could take a long time.
In general, these agreements have been received favourably. It is unfortunate that the Belgian agreement has been delayed but otherwise the time-lag between signature and the approach to the Dáil for ratification seems reasonable, given the problems of Dáil procedure and the necessity to fit in other matters. However, I should be glad if the Minister would comment on the Belgian agreement in his reply.
It seems a pity the agreement with Italy does not provide for recognition of export and mining reliefs granted by this country. This may be an impediment to Italian investment in Ireland, except on terms that might not be entirely desirable. So far as possible we should be concerned to ensure that investment here by other countries would be minority investment rather than majority investment. An agreement which limits the benefits of tax relief to a case where the Italian company owns 51 per cent of the shares gives a strong incentive to Italian companies investing here not to invest in a minority role but only in a majority role. It should be the purpose of this Parliament to try to encourage investment by foreign companies in a minority role, with majority Irish shareholding. The fact that this agreement appears to operate in a manner contrary to what this Parliament would wish is disturbing and I wonder if there is any prospect of making a change in the period immediately ahead.
There appears to be some differentiation between these agreements in respect of certain other provisions. In regard to portfolio investments, the withholding tax charged appears to be different in the case of Italy and Luxembourg and Zambia. In the case of foreign subsidiaries of an Irish company, the withholding tax appears to be 5 per cent for Luxembourg, 15 per cent for Italy and Belgium and no amount whatever in the case of Zambia. Are there reasons for this differentiation? Has it not been possible to introduce any kind of standardisation or uniformity?
Members of the Dáil are given a volume of documentation that is physically cumbersome. I understand several of these agreements are in print; in fact, this morning I was told that one of the agreements is out of print already and copies are not available from the Government Publications Office. It would be preferable for Members to be given printed versions of the document rather than the rather cumbersome stencilled copies. I should like to know the reason for the rather curious procedure of printing copies and letting them go out of print in some cases, while giving Members of the Dáil stencilled copies. Perhaps the Minister could explain this in his reply.