Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1973

Vol. 265 No. 9

Financial Resolutions, 1973-74. - Financial Resolution No. 5: Value-Added Tax.

I move:

That with effect on and from the 1st day of September, 1973—

(a) the rate of value-added tax chargeable on the delivery and the importation of food shall, subject to such exceptions, restrictions and qualifications as may be specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution, be reduced to zero per cent, and

(b) the rates of value-added tax chargeable on the delivery and the importation of other goods and the rendering of services shall be such rates as may be specified in the said Act.

The former Minister for Finance has already indicated our objection to this particular proposal. We believe that, again, it is inequitable relief in that, while it is admitted that poorer families pay more for food, this relief will benefit the well off, the rich and the very rich to an even greater extent. We had proposed that instead of removing the tax on food we would make appropriate compensation to the less well-off amongst us, for example, by considerably increasing the children's allowance payments. There are other objections also that we see to it. I shall not go into them in detail. I will enumerate them very briefly. One is that we believe, as indicated by Deputy Colley, that the removal of value-added tax on food will certainly not be reflected in a reduction of food items. The Minister in his statement today said that special vigilance will be exercised in this respect. He gave no indication as to the manner in which this would be done. We know all too well that the exercise of vigilance over retail prices is something that it is very difficult for any Government to do and to have it done effectively would require very many more inspectorate staff than we are likely to have available.

I want to remind the House again of what was said in relation to the introduction of the decimal coinage system. Again to repeat what the then Deputy Cosgrave said, it resulted in an explosion in prices. It is true that any change of this nature increasing tax on commodities generally inevitably leads to a much greater increase in prices. This is something I would like the Taoiseach to tell us about in relation to the extra vigilance that he says will be maintained on these prices, the extra vigilance which, he said, would be required to ensure that the reduction in the value-added tax on food items will be reflected in across-the-counter payments.

I think this will add tremendously to the problems of the ordinary housewife who does her shopping, particularly the housewife who goes to the supermarket and puts into her basket food items such as cheese, butter, bread, and who at the same time will have to buy other commodities like soap powder and so on. She will find herself having to deal with two rates of tax on what she regards as essential items. I am sure also it will impose an extra burden on retailers.

Therefore, it will be interesting to hear from the Taoiseach, first of all, how the vigilance will be exercised and in what way confusion can be avoided and, secondly, in relation to the commodities which are regarded as non-luxuries. The Minister spelt out some of these today in his budget statement and included sweets, ice cream, confectionery, soft drinks and oral medicines. If somebody has to buy a bandage or a plaster for a cut hand, that item has to bear the extra tax. The Minister also mentioned some of the other items that will be excluded.

I think Deputy Lynch is a bit confused in regard to oral medicines.

The Minister included oral medicines.

They go down.

The Minister said:

I have decided to extend the concession to include oral medicines.

I am reading the Minister's statement.

I think I may not have heard the Deputy properly, in that case. Oral medicines go down.

If I have to buy something to bind up my finger if I cut it I will have to pay the increased tax. I am not going into detail. I should like to pass on to other items that will have to bear the higher rate. These include things that everybody has to buy—clothes, footwear. These are specifically excluded.

There is one other item which it is very shortsighted on the part of the Government to exclude, now that we have been trying to find ways and means of enabling people to use their leisure time and encouraging young people to be more active in sporting activities generally. If a young boy buys football boots he has to pay the extra tax on this item. I think it was short-sighted on the part of the Government. If they had the wit to exclude the items that have been excluded, surely they should have excluded these items that are not luxuries. Perhaps they are nonessentials in that a young boy does not have to buy a pair of football boots or a hurley but it is better to encourage him to do this and keep him off the streets and thus confine his activities to the better things in life. These are just a few of the objections we have and we propose to oppose this resolution also.

There could be anomalies on this resolution. For instance, oral medicines are exempt. Frequently brandy or whiskey are prescribed for old people in particular. If a person gets a prescription for a half bottle of brandy or for a bottle of stout, will it be zero-rated because it is an oral medicine or will it be put in another category and carry a higher rate of VAT? That is a specific and incontrovertible case. However, I am not making the case only with regard to spirits being in one category because they are prescribed and in another category because they are not prescribed. I am quoting this example to illustrate what can happen. The trader, the purchaser and the tax authorities will have an administrative problem.

Has the Minister considered this? I put it to him that he is walking into a peculiar kind of trap in the ambidextrous balance of this resolution. One part says certain items are to be zero-rated and the other part in effect says that VAT tax is to be increased. Between the two an item could slip from one category to the other. There is a question of what tax is to be imposed and this affects the Revenue, the retailer and the customer. The Minister should look at this on a broad basis.

This resolution is a clear example of the double-talk of the Government. Earlier we heard of the various allowances that would be given to the family but we find in part of this resolution that tax on items such as petrol, fuel, clothing, footwear, non-oral medicines, building materials, laundry charges, cleansing materials for the home, furniture, kitchenware and hardware and kitchen equipment will be increased. Items such as fuel, clothing and footwear are important for the less well-off section.

I should like the Taoiseach to distinguish between oral and non-oral medicines. There is an increase in taxation on one and a zero-rating on another and this will mean the housewife will have to pay the extra cost. However, there is no change for dances. Apparently the old age pensioner can still go to dances at the old rate of 11.11 per cent.

The increase in petrol will affect the cost of living in a variety of ways. Many old people who have not electricity are compelled to heat their homes by fuel and the extra costs here will hit them badly. The increase in clothing and footwear will put a substantial burden on the weaker section of the community—the section of whom we heard so much earlier. The Government gave it with one hand and they are trying to take it back by increasing VAT. People who send items to the laundry will also be affected. If a person wishes to improve his home he will have to pay more because building materials will cost more.

For newly-married couples and people who are setting up homes this will mean an extra burden as furniture, furnishings, kitchen equipment and hardware will cost more. All this is an indication of the double-talk of the Government. Housewives, especially those who have large families, will be severely hit with the extra costs for footwear and clothing. Any benefits they have received will be more than absorbed by these new increases. Dances will still be at the old rate but there is no doubt it will be the Government's last tango in Dublin.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to a matter which I think took the Taoiseach by surprise, namely, the increase in the rate of duty that will apply to sports goods and equipment. The increase is a significant one of more than 3 per cent. Having had experience in dealing with sport and recreational organisations for more than two years, and having established a sports and recreational council to promote recreational activity and to show the community the beneficial effects, I am sorry the Government have taken a detrimental step in the development of the sporting and recreational programme.

I should like to tell the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Government that representations had been made to me by the various recreational organisations to reduce the rate of tax on sports equipment and thus ensure that recreation would be used to the fullest extent by as many people as possible, particularly deprived children from our cities. It was pointed out to me that they should have every opportunity to indulge in useful physical recreation. However, despite that and the attempts of the former Government to encourage and promote useful and healthy recreation, the Government have introduced this measure which puts a higher rate of VAT on sports goods and equipment.

This is very different from the impression given to the public in the election campaign by the National Coalition Government——

The Deputy must keep to the resolution.

I am dealing with the resolution and the Government's proposals that they would be able to take VAT from food by transferring it to luxury items. If electrical goods, furniture and sports equipment are to be classified as luxury items, if this is the Government's way of fulfilling their pledge to the electorate, I think events will judge them for having misled the people. In that connection, I said before I thought there were signs from hints that had been made that items other than luxury items would be included in the increased rate of VAT.

A matter of great concern to me in my home town, Nenagh, is the price of hardware. As a result of this budget —Deputy Dowling pointed this out— most articles of furniture as well as household fittings will be taxed at a greatly increased rate. The manufacture and sale of kitchen utensils represents a very important part of Nenagh's economy and these will now be subject to a higher VAT rate. It is obvious the Government have not heeded, or have forgotten, the text of the greatest authority of all: "Not on bread alone doth man live." They think that the exclusion of food from VAT entitles them to tax any other item. They have apparently deluded themselves into the belief that in doing this they are discharging their promises to the electorate.

Is it Government policy, is it Labour Party policy especially, is it Deputy Tully's policy, to describe as luxuries such items as footwear, clothes, furniture and coal? Does Deputy Tully describe these items as luxuries?

The poor will have, from this budget, a little more with which to buy.

Is it Labour policy to tax all these items? Deputy Tully was the man who spoke about the yield of taxation going to the social welfare classes. Do they not have to pay any taxes?

People do not buy furniture every day. They buy loaves every day and bread is one of the items exempted.

Do they not have to buy coal?

I was very interested in the contribution of Deputy O'Kennedy who referred to one of the matters of considerable interest to me. This budget appears to me to be anti-recreational, anti-public amenity——

The Deputy may not go off into a general discussion at this stage. We are debating a particular resolution.

I can quote the Minister's opening statement, at page 27, where he spoke of "sweets, chocolates, ice cream, confectionery and soft drinks". This seems to me to be an attack on the kids, the children of the country, by a Government who are now claiming to have got the vote for young people of 18 years. Some say, of course, that it was a Fianna Fáil Bill which got that right to vote.

It was not a Fianna Fáil Bill. I introduced it here. The Deputy ran away from it and he is over there as a result.

This has nothing to do with Financial Resolution No.5.

When I consider more deeply the taxing of sweets, chocolates, ice cream and a number of recreational facilities I see one very significant thing. As from today, oral contraception is tax free. The Government are obviously afraid——

(Interruptions.)

One of my main concerns is the manner in which this budget will affect newly-married couples setting up homes. They will be faced immediately with a 3 per cent increase in prices, including housing materials. The car industry will suffer seriously and is there not a grave danger that employment in the motor assembly trade will fall as the prices of cars become prohibitive. Those who have been living well will continue to have their caviar but the others will suffer even more than they are at the moment.

The Chair would remind Deputies that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that these resolutions would be taken and completed in the normal time and with the normal procedure.

He said they would be completed today.

The House sits until 10.30 only, and the Deputy knows that well.

The House can change Standing Orders at any time.

The House can sit until midnight and there is nothing to stop that happening.

According to Standing Orders, the Deputy knows that a motion to sit later than 10.30 may not be put after 8.30 p.m. This is a matter for the Government and the Leader of the Opposition agreed to this not so long ago.

He said the resolutions would be completed today. He did not mention 10.30.

The Deputy knows what the normal procedure is. The Leader of the Opposition said the resolutions would be passed today.

Today is Wednesday and it will continue to be Wednesday until midnight. It is entirely a matter for the House which can change the Order of Business at its discretion.

The debate will continue according to normal procedure. I now call on Deputy Wyse.

At this late stage I make a special appeal to the Taoiseach to change the taxation structure in regard to sport. There are dedicated people all over the country who give all of their time to promoting sport for youth. Another serious aspect of this Budget is the manner in which it hits the furniture trade. I am sure the Minister for Local Government and his colleagues in the Labour Party are fully aware of the unemployment in the furniture trade all over the country.

All due to Fianna Fáil.

I have no doubt that at this stage the Taoiseach should be prepared to reconsider this matter, especially because this is a very severe blow against the interests of the country.

I should remind Deputies opposite that it was they who introduced value-added tax. It was the party opposite who introduced it.

May I ask a question? A Deputy was on his feet. Is he not to be allowed to speak?

A Deputy

He has left.

He was on his feet. Is he not to be allowed to speak?

The Taoiseach is replying.

Is he to be put off because of the severe imposition of new taxation?

If Deputy Molloy listens for a moment he will hear all about it.

Value-added tax was introduced by the party opposite when they were in Government. The simple fact is that it is a complicated tax. Whether it is at the existing three rates operating up to now, or whether they are revised as is being done in this budget, it is still a complicated system. Deputies, and particularly Deputies who were Ministers, know that and appreciate it. We gave an undertaking in our letters of intent to take value-added tax off food. We have completed that. We said it would be replaced by an alteration in the rates on other items.

For the benefit of the House, the social surveys show that, in the lower income group, 40 per cent of the income is spent on food, and 60 per cent on all other items. We propose to take 5 per cent off food which will certainly give a much greater benefit to the lower income group who spend 40 per cent of their total income on food. In respect of a number of other items the increase will vary from 3 per cent in some cases to 1½ per cent in others.

And 6 per cent in others.

The position is, therefore, that as far as essential items are concerned, all households whether they are in the lower, the middle or the higher income groups, obviously buy food more frequently than they buy pots and pans or household furniture of any character.

What about clothing?

And boots.

Households have to buy food and have to consume it every day. Coal is seasonal and is not bought in the same quantity. Deputies know that. The variation here is very slight. There is no use in making a wild song and dance about this. We have taken 5 per cent off the essential items on which 40 per cent of their income is spent by the lower income group.

What about the old age pensioners?

Old age pensioners will benefit by this.

They had free television licences.

According to the social surveys 40 per cent of the expenditure by old age pensioners is on food. It is better to take tax off food and put it on brandy, prescribed or unprescribed? Surely it is better to take it off food than to take it off brandy or spirits of some sort. We are also taking it off oral medicines. The previous Government introduced taxation and exempted animal medicines and put it on medicines for human consumption. I am certain that we are taking the right decision in this regard.

On a point of order——

What is the point of order?

I should like the Taoiseach to answer one question.

Not at this stage. That is not a point of order.

What about ESB charges?

(Interruptions.)

The fact is that there is a slight variation upwards but there is also a reduction in the stamp duty in respect of houses. As a contribution to the newly marrieds Deputy Dowling was so solicitous about some months ago, we have given this reduction, announced in the budget, amounting in the case of lower priced houses to over £100. That is a considerable benefit. We are leaving the dance hall tax at the existing rate. I was in a Government at one time which put a tax on dance halls and the then deputy leader of the then Opposition gave a written undertaking to the dance hall proprietors that he would take the whole tax off. It was taken off in a subsequent budget when they got into office. I think it is better to leave tax on dance halls and take it off food.

That was your last tango.

On a point of explanation——

I can only allow a question.

Would you refresh my memory, Sir, on the Standing Order which says the House cannot suspend Standing Orders by agreement of the House?

I refer the Deputy to Standing Order No.20:

A motion that the Dail shall sit later than 11 p.m. on any Tuesday or Wednesday, or 5.30 p.m. on any Thursday, may be made without notice, and not later than 8.30 p.m. on the former days, or 3 p.m. on the latter day.

The Taoiseach referred to the fact that food——

The Deputy may ask a question.

——had to be bought each day——

I cannot allow statements at this stage, only a question.

He said they did not have to buy fuel each day. Will he elucidate how they are to cook the food, and will ESB charges go up?

That is not a question.

Standing Order No. 20 does not say that Standing Orders cannot be suspended by agreement.

If the Deputy does not know he should know.

Has the Deputy a question to put? If he has not the Chair will put the question.

Deputy Murphy is on his feet.

The Chair asked the Deputy if he wished to put a question and he did not answer the Chair.

I did. I am sorry if I was not heard in the confusion. I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question. I see that the rate of value-added tax on radio sets is being increased from 30.26 per cent to 36.75 per cent, an increase of 6.5 per cent. Will this tax be put on radio sets, on gramophones and records for the blind?

The blind are exempt.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 61.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • McDonald Charles B.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson. John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Andrews and Browne.
Question declared carried.

We do not propose to have any debate on the remaining resolutions in view of the ruling given that it will not be possible to sit after 10.30 tonight. When I said today that we would honour the tradition of the House of concluding business today I had in mind 12 o'clock midnight, but I understand it is not possible to move that we sit beyond 10.30. In these circumstances we propose in whatever time remains, to debate the other resolutions and to vote them all en bloc at the appropriate time, that is 10.30.

It is proposed therefore, with the permission of the House, to take Resolutions No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 together and vote en bloc. May I have a motion along those lines?

I move that Resolutions No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 be discussed together and that they be voted en bloc at 10.30 p.m.

Question put and agreed to.

I move the following Financial Resolutions.

Top
Share