Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1973

Vol. 267 No. 5

Finance Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

I move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

This Government aim to make Ireland a new and better land. This Finance Bill, taken with other budget day proposals, is one of the prosaic but essential steps towards the attainment of that worthy objective.

To set the provisions of the Bill clearly in their economic and fiscal perspective, I propose to summarise the strategy underlying this year's budget. The 1973 budget has three main facets: first of all, its central fiscal action was designed to lift the growth rate appreciably, thereby taking up the slack and underused capacity in the economy and helping to reduce the level of unemployment, which is a serious social and economic problem; secondly, the budget provided really worthwhile improvements in the social welfare sphere and, finally, the first stage of the implementation of a comprehensive tax reform programme.

The budgetary action to stimulate the economy, strengthen the national infrastructure and thereby raise the level of employment is clearly evidenced by the rise of £130 million in current expenditure and of some £60 million in capital expenditure or a combined rise of over 20 per cent. This outlay will have a notable impact on the economy in the months ahead. Domestic consumer and investment demand will be expanded, with beneficial repercussions on industrial production, productivity and employment. Businessmen are now, and will be, able to plan ahead with confidence that growth is the Government's priority. All sectors will benefit from the increased activity which will be generated. The social welfare concessions in the budget have made possible a striking betterment in the quality of life of the many thousands of people in this country who are dependent on social welfare benefits to sustain their standard of living. An indication of the extent of these improvements can be had by considering the amount of additional outlay involved: in a full year, the increase over existing expenditure on the social services will be 44 per cent. No category of need was left untouched by the new concessions; no better earnest could be given of the commitment of this Government to social reform and of the priority it accords to the needy and afflicted in our community.

The Bill contains the provisions required to give effect to the taxation changes proposed in my budget statement as well as provisions on a number of matters, notice of which was not given in the budget statement or in the financial resolutions passed on budget day.

Part I of the Bill deals with measures relating to income tax, including sur-tax, and to corporation profits tax.

I indicated in the budget that I proposed to rationalise the income tax penalty provisions so as to enable defaulters to be dealt with more effectively. A number of measures are included in the Bill for this purpose. Section 1 imposes a minimum interest charge of £5 in respect of overdue tax collected under PAYE by employers and section 34 disallows interest on unpaid PAYE tax, value-added tax and stamp duty as a deduction for the purposes of income tax and corporation profits tax. It should be remembered that an employer's liability to remit PAYE tax deducted from employees' income, is no more than an obligation to pay over money received by an employer for the State. There can be no justification for delay in paying over tax already deducted from workers' pay packets. At present there is no penalty, apart from the interest charge, for failure to remit, to the Revenue, PAYE collected from employees. Section 43 rectifies this situation by imposing on the company a penalty of £20 plus £20 per day as long as the non-remittance continues and a new additional penalty of £20 on the secretary. Section 21 secures that where penalty proceedings are taken for PAYE tax estimated to be due, a certificate signed by an officer of the Revenue Commissioners that the tax so estimated is payable will constitute prima facie evidence to that effect. Where there is failure to produce records in connection with claims for exports tax relief, the penalty applicable is being raised in section 44 from £50 to £100 which applies for non-production of records for income tax purposes generally. Section 45 aligns the present income tax penalty of £500 where a company fraudulently makes an incorrect return or statement with the corresponding value-added tax penalty of £1,000.

As envisaged in the budget statement, tax relief in respect of expenditure incurred on business entertainment is being restricted, under section 23, to cases where such expenses are incurred, not only wholly and exclusively, but also necessarily for the purposes of the trade or profession. The section also secures that in the case of machinery or plant used for providing business entertainment, for example, a yacht or motorcar, such assets will qualify for capital allowances only to the extent that they are used for the purpose of business entertainment which meets the test of being wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of the trade or profession.

Under existing law there is no limit on the cost of a motor car used by a business or professional person which may be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the tax allowances in respect of the car. Sections 24 to 29 are aimed, subject to certain exceptions, at ending this position by confining the allowances in the case of expensive cars to what these allowances would have been if the car had cost £2,500.

Other anti-avoidance measures are included in the Bill under section 5 which deals with tax on income accumulated under a trust, section 22 and the first schedule to the Bill which restrict tax relief in respect of life insurance premiums to policies of at least ten years, section 38 and the fifth schedule to the Bill which are designed to counter "loss-buying" operations, section 39 which withdraws the right to certain allowances in respect of industrial buildings where contrived transactions between companies of a group can result in the cost of such buildings being written off for tax purposes at a greatly accelerated rate and section 40 which is intended to prevent tax avoidance through the medium of friendly societies.

Sections 41 and 42 deal with benefits in kind. The purpose of section 41 is to stop a tax avoidance device which enables some benefits in kind to escape tax because they are provided, not by the employing company, but by an associated company. Benefits in kind provided by non-trading bodies will, by virtue of section 42, be charged to tax in the hands of the directors or employees in the same way as similar benefits provided by trading bodies.

I now turn to the reliefs provided in Part I of the Bill.

Section 2 increases the maximum earned income relief in respect of a wife's earnings from £74 to £104. The income limit for the purposes of the dependent relative allowance is raised by section 4 to £347 which is the annual equivalent of the maximum non-contributory old age pension following the pension increases announced in the budget. Section 7 enables pension schemes approved for tax purposes under pre-1972 legislation to pay a tax-free death-in-service benefit in lump sum up to four times the deceased employee's final remuneration. Section 11 increases from £350 to £450 the limit for tax purposes on the maximum annuity payable by registered trade unions. The purpose of section 13 is to ensure that the benefit of the tax exemption in respect of non-bedded minerals must be passed on by a holding company when paying dividends out of exempted income. Payments of income to or in respect of Irish thalidomide children from the German foundation will be free of tax by virtue of section 18.

Section 14 is linked with section 19 which extends "charity exemption" to bodies of persons whose objects are the promotion of observance of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Section 14 secures that annual contributions made under covenant by any person to such bodies for a period exceeding three years will be recognised for income tax purposes. This amendment to the law is being made in recognition of the importance of ensuring widespread recognition for fundamental human rights.

Any payment made by a trader to an Irish university for the purpose of enabling the university to undertake research in, or engage in the teaching of, industrial relations, marketing and other approved subjects will benefit from the tax relief provided in section 20.

The following temporary capital allowances are being continued for a further two years up to 31st March, 1975:

(i) free depreciation for new plant and machinery provided for use outside the designated areas— section 16;

(ii) 100 per cent initial allowance for capital expenditure incurred on new plant and machinery—section 8;

(iii) 20 per cent investment allowance for capital expenditure incurred on new plant and machinery within the designated areas—section 15; and

(iv) 20 per cent initial allowance for capital expenditure incurred on industrial buildings—section 9.

Section 10 is complementary to section 8 which also ensures that a trader will not obtain allowances, apart from the 20 per cent investment allowance that I have referred to, of more than 100 per cent of the cost of machinery and plant.

With a view to encouraging Irish research and inventiveness, industrial development and improved competitiveness, section 33 exempts from tax income from patent royalties arising to individuals or companies resident in this country where the work in connection with the devising of the patented invention is carried out here. The exemption from corporation profits tax of certain public utility companies, building societies and the Agricultural Credit Corporation is extended under section 35 for a further year to 31st December, 1973.

The extension of the charge to tax of profits derived from activities on Ireland's section of the continental shelf and to income of employees working on the shelf is effected by section 32 and the third schedule to the Bill. Section 17 authorises the administrator of a statutory superannuation scheme to deduct from refunded contributions the tax due in respect of the refunds. The purpose of section 6 is to remove a legal assessments on the personal representative of a deceased member of a partnership in respect of his share of the partnership profits arising prior to his death, while section 3 provides for the reductions in the income tax child allowances referred to in the budget.

The remaining sections in Part I of the Bill, namely, sections 12, 30, 31, 36 and 37, are consequent on and give effect to the terms of the agreement and protocol, dated 2nd May, 1973, between the Government and the British Government in regard to new arrangements for the avoidance of double taxation of dividends flowing between the two countries. The texts of the agreement and protocol will be found in the second and fourth Schedules, respectively, to the Bill.

Broadly, the new provisions ensure as far as possible that the position of our Exchequer and of residents in this State with shares in companies located in Britain or Northern Ireland will not be adversely affected during the currency of the new arrangements. Under the arrangements the tax credit relating to dividends allowable under the new British system will be paid to all shareholders resident in the State other than direct investors; indirect investors, which means companies with a stake of 10 per cent or more in the company paying the dividend, will be allowed a credit against Irish income tax in respect of so much of the British corporation tax on the profits out of which dividends are paid as cannot be allowed against our corporation profits tax. Persons resident in Britain, on the other hand, will continue to be entitled to exemption from Irish income tax except that, in order to protect the Exchequer, up to 5 per cent of that tax will be retained on dividends paid by Irish companies to direct investors in Britain. Britain will however give relief against corporation tax for Irish income tax so retained, as well as for the Irish corporation profits tax underlying dividends paid to direct investors. The new arrangements will be effective for a period of two years commencing on 6th April, 1973. It will be necessary to negotiate a further agreement to take effect at the end of that period.

Before completing my review of Part I of the Bill, there is one final matter that I want to deal with. In the budget speech I indicated that it was proposed to restrict to the Post Office and trustee savings banks the tax exemption applicable to interest up to £70 on deposits with certain financial institutions. Since the announcement three new factors have entered the area of money supply. In my budget statement I said that my Department and the Department of Local Government were urgently examining the possibility of assisting the flow of funds to building societies. Since then the Government have given assistance to building societies which has enabled them to offer an effective rate of 7 per cent to investors while retaining a lending rate of 10 per cent to their borrowers, the position to be reviewed within six months. Consideration is also being given to conferring trustee status on building societies. On the 26th June last the associated banks reduced the bank interest rate by ½ per cent. Obviously the money flow situation may be fluid for some time to come.

It has been represented to me that I should not proceed with the proposal to withdraw the bank deposit tax exemption on the grounds that it would result in an outflow of funds from the commercial banks involved and possibly from the country. I do not fully accept the claims made that the proposal would cause such an outflow of funds, especially as it was never intended to disturb the present arrangements for the disclosure of interest paid or credited without deduction of tax. However, in view of the comparative changes in building society and bank rates since the budget, the heavy demands by the Exchequer on the banks concerned and the importance of ensuring that they will have adequate resources to meet these needs in addition to those of the private sector, the Government have considered the matter afresh. They have decided in all the circumstances to leave the existing position in relation to the tax exemption unchanged.

Part II of the Bill deals with customs and excise duties. Sections 46 to 49 confirm the budget increases in customs and excise duties on beer, spirits and tobacco. Section 50 permits the use, under certain conditions, of materials other than tobacco in the manufacture of cigarettes for export. Section 51 provides for the confirmation of a number of Imposition of Duties Orders made by the Government.

Part III of the Bill relates to death duties and is mainly concerned with the enactment of the very substantial reliefs announced in the budget. Sections 52 and 53 provide for the raising of the exemption limits in the case of estate duty and legacy and succession duties, respectively, from £7,500 to £10,000. Section 54 increases the rates of legacy and succession duties. Section 55 doubles the estate duty abatements in favour of widows and dependent children. Section 56 raises the limit for the application of artificial valuation of agricultural land from £2,000 to £3,000.

In section 57, which provides for the exclusion from an estate for estate duty purposes of the first £7,500 of superannuation death benefits—at present exempt only where the total amount payable does not exceed £7,500—there is a further improvement not mentioned in the budget. The present concession applies only where the benefits are payable to or for the widow or dependent children of the deceased. The improved concession will now extend to superannuation death benefits to whomsoever payable. This alleviation will, for example, secure that the first £7,500 of a superannuation scheme death gratuity payable on the death of a bachelor or single woman will be excluded from the estate for estate duty purposes. The new relief for insurance policy benefits provided in section 58 —which is similar to the superannuation death benefit relief—will also apply irrespective of who the beneficiaries of the policies are.

There are two further death duties matters not previously announced. Section 59 provides that units of a unit trust scheme whose underlying securities enjoy exemption from estate duty where the owner was neither domiciled nor ordinarily resident in the State will enjoy the same exemption as the underlying securities. This provision will facilitate the establishment of unit trusts specialising in government stocks. Section 60 is designed to extend to all deposit-accepting institutions the restrictions which already apply to banks concerning the maximum amount, £1,000, that may be paid out of a joint deposit account following the death of one of the joint depositors.

Part IV of the Bill, which deals with stamp duties, consists of two chapters. The first of these converts into permanent legislation the stamp duties changes announced in the budget, which were given temporary effect from 1st June last by an order under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957. Section 61, which is a commencement provision, and section 65, which revokes the order, will have the effect of substituting the provisions of sections 62 to 64, inclusive, for the provisions of the order. Section 63 is the section which exempts mortgages up to £10,000 from stamp duty and reduces the stamp duty on sales of houses and lands up to £10,000 in value. Section 62 contains a minor consequential amendment relating to mortgage deeds where the amount to be advanced is not stated. Section 64 increases the stamp duty on office building contracts from 10 per cent to 15 per cent.

Chapter II of Part IV of the Bill provides for the implementation in this country of an EEC Directive concerning stamp duty on the raising of capital by companies. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill describes the main provisions of the sections 66 to 74 necessary to bring the directive into effect.

Part V of the Bill puts into legislative form the value-added tax budget proposals the net effect of which will reduce the consumer price index by 0.5 percentage points. It also includes some provisions to facilitate administration of the tax and to prevent avoidance. The opportunity has also been taken to incorporate in this Part some arrangements already in operation under Ministerial Order and to rationalise some of the penalty provisions in the original Act.

The removal of VAT from the principle foodstuffs and from oral medicines is effected in section 87 of the Bill. Section 79 provides for the revised rates on non-food items which were announced in the budget and which are designed to recover the revenue lost on foodstuffs as well as providing a modest contribution of some £2.6 million this year towards general budgetary needs. As Deputies are aware, the zero rate for food will not extend to certain luxury consumable items and these matters are dealt with in sections 77 and 87.

The exact delineation of the commodities liable to the zero rate was completed after detailed discussions with trading interests and the fruit of these discussions is contained in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the changes involved will take place smoothly and with a minimum of disturbance to business routine. The detailed definitions were already the subject of a recent Press notice for the information of traders. I would like to remind Deputies that the date of implementation has been postponed from 1st September to 3rd September to allow traders a week-end for repricing. This change of date will operate as much to the advantage of consumers as of traders as it will enable purchasers to ensure that food prices will be reduced with effect from Monday, 3rd September.

As regards the effect of the changes on retail prices, my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has already announced a series of price control measures. These will help to minimise any risk that the full tax reductions will not be passed on by traders.

Besides the adjustments I have mentioned, Part V of the Bill also contains certain provisions, mainly of a supplementary or consequential nature and I would like to mention the more important of these now. Under the value-added tax farmers and fishermen are not required to register or to pay tax on sales. Instead they are compensated for tax borne by them on their purchases of, for example, agricultural machinery and fuel, by a 1 per cent addition to their output prices which addition, however, ranks for credit or refund in the hands of a registered purchaser of agricultural produce. Under the revised rates of tax the 1 per cent addition would no longer be sufficient to balance farmers input tax and it was necessary, therefore, to consider measures to restore the balance.

Rather than revise the 1 per cent addition, to which farmers have become accustomed, I decided to extend the zero rate, which at present applies to manufactured fertilisers and feeding stuffs, so as to cover unprocessed feeding stuffs, such as green grains, and to animal oral medicines as well as seeds and plants for the production of food. These reliefs, which are dealt with in section 87, are calculated to be ample to bring down farmers' input tax to a level of 1 per cent of total farm output. The present 1 per cent addition can, therefore, remain undisturbed.

I should mention that this addition by farmers will not, in the normal case, affect food prices at the retail level, because most food wholesalers and retailers are registered and, consequently, they will be able to obtain a refund from the Revenue equal to 1 per cent of their food purchases from an unregistered farmer.

Up to the present, certain intensive types of agricultural production, such as market gardening, did not qualify for the special arrangement for farmers which I have described. In view of the zero rating of food, it is no longer necessary to make this distinction and, consequently, section 89 and the Tenth Schedule provide that persons engaged in these intensive food production activities will be able to de-register if they so wish.

Before leaving the subject of agriculture, I should mention that section 86 provides for the exemption from the tax of horses and greyhounds. It is a necessary part of the operation of the bloodstock and greyhound industries that animals are frequently exported and imported for varying periods, and it was found that the operation of VAT on importation was seriously affecting the smooth functioning of the industries. The exemption here proposed will solve the problem.

Section 86 also provides for the exemption of the natural or artificial insemination of cattle, sheep and pigs. This will remove an anomaly in the present operation of the arrangements for agriculture.

Section 78 substitutes a new and more exact provision enabling the Revenue Commissioners to provide by regulation for the taxing of services provided by a trader for his own business or in connection with it, even if no charge is made for the service. This is necessary to ensure that major differences in tax incidence do not arise as between certain services provided within a firm and similar services provided by a contractor. For example, in view of the removal of the tax from food, firms who provide their own catering for staff canteens would have a substantial advantage over commercial caterers providing similar facilities on contract, because the contract would suffer tax at the rate of 6.75 per cent whereas the firm providing its own catering would escape tax completely on both the food and serving costs. I should mention, however, that, under section 86, an exemption will apply to catering services provided for patients in hospitals and pupils in schools.

Section 79, as well as providing for the new rates to be charged as from 3rd September next, gives the Revenue Commissioners power to determine the rate of tax to be applied in any particular case or class of cases, either upon request by a taxpayer or where the Commissioners are satisfied that doubt as to the correct rate would otherwise exist. A determination of the Revenue Commissioners will be subject to appeal to the Appeal Commissioners and from them to the courts. The section also contains an anti-avoidance measure in relation to catering. It is provided that the person who renders the catering service will be accountable for tax on the value of food supplied by him whether or not he himself purchased the food.

Section 80 provides that newly registered persons who were formerly unregistered traders may obtain relief for the tax element in their stock-in-trade on the date of registration. Such persons will, instead, be liable on their sales. One effect of this provision is that small traders who wish to register on 3rd September next will be able to obtain relief for the tax element in food stocks which they hold on that day.

Section 81 is necessitated by the postponement of the date of the VAT changes from 1st September to 3rd September to which I referred earlier. In order to facilitate accounting for the tax, it is provided, in the Tenth Schedule, as a transitional arrangement, that the July-August tax able period this year will be extended to end on Sunday, 2nd September, and the September-October taxable period will commence on Monday, 3rd September. Section 81 ensures that not withstanding the slight extension, the normal period of 19 days' grace for payment of the tax will apply after 31st August.

Sections 81 and 82 increase the penalties for two offences under the Value-Added Tax Act so as to bring them into line with penalties for similar offences under, for example, the Income Tax Acts. Section 85 provides for the adjustment of prices in existing contracts necessitated by the changes in rates. Section 87, as well as providing for the extension of the zero rate to most food items, oral medicines and the other commodities I have already mentioned, also makes some consolidating changes in the Second Schedule of the VAT Act incorporating the effect of certain arrangements already provided by Ministerial Order. The first extends the zero rate to the life-saving services of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The second provides that the inclusion of a toy or other similar item of insignificant value in a packet of zero-rated food will not render the packet liable to tax.

Section 88 removes from the Schedule of goods liable to the 6.75 per cent rate those items which are being added to the Schedule of goods liable to the zero rate or which are being exempted. It also provides for the consolidation in the VAT Act of certain other Ministerial Orders.

Finally, section 89 provides for various amendments of the VAT Act, as set out in the Tenth Schedule. These are almost entirely of a supplementary or consequential nature, and I think it would suffice if I draw the attention of Deputies to only one of the amendments. It extends the definition of "manufacturer" to include a person who supplies materials to another person for the purposes of having motor cars, television sets or other goods liable to the 36.75 per cent rate manufactured or assembled on his behalf. Of the full 36.75 per cent, 30 percentage points will effectively apply at the manufacturer level only and the balance at the retail level. The amendment, which is intended to take effect immediately on the enactment of the Bill, is designed to defeat certain arrangements between linked companies which could have the effect of reducing the element of value of such goods to which the 30 percentage points will apply.

Part VI of the Bill deals with a number of miscellaneous matters. Section 90 contains the usual annual provisions relating to the capital services redemption account. Section 91 extends to securities issued in this country by the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Investment Bank the same tax privileges as apply to securities issued by certain semi-State bodies.

Sections 92 to 94 deal with the road tax and related measures announced in the budget and implemented temporarily by Financial Resolutions approved by the House on budget day. Section 92 relates to the motor vehicle duties and provides that the proceeds of the variations in the rates of these duties, as well as the new first licensing charge imposed in section 93 and the increase in driving licence duty imposed in section 94, and in the provisional licence duty will not be taken into account in determining the amount to be paid into the Road Fund in respect of motor vehicle duties and related charges.

Section 95 repeals certain stamp duty provisions set out in the Eleventh Schedule. Section 96 is the usual care and management clause and section 97 provides for the short title, construction and commencement of the Act.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Like all Finance Bills, this one is what we would describe as a Committee Stage Bill more than any other Stage. Nevertheless, we will have a certain amount to say on this Second Stage. First, however, I commend the Minister in relation to the second sentence on the first page of his speech which reads:

This Government aims to make Ireland a new and better land.

I commend him because he confined this nonsense to one sentence unlike some of his colleagues who have not yet become aware of the kind of nonsense they are indulging in. For instance, the Minister for Labour yesterday in his Second Stage reading of what was for him a very difficult Bill spent a great deal of time in developing the kind of theme I am referring to. However, that is only a minor point and is not, strictly speaking, relevant to the Bill but rather to the way in which the Minister presented the Bill.

While all Finance Bills are a mass of technicalities this one is by no means the least full of technicalities but, essentially, what the Bill is doing is spelling out in detail some, and only some of the enormously increased burden of taxation announced by the Minister in his budget statement and setting out the exact details of how these new and, in some cases, savage additional taxations will be levied. There are some aspects of the Bill, apart from Committee Stage matters, that I wish to comment on at this time.

First, there is the decision announced just now by the Minister not to proceed with his proposal in regard to interest on bank deposits. The decision he has announced now is a wise one whereas the original decision was a very unwise and ill-considered opinion. Since the original announcement, it has been made clear to the Minister how unwise and ill-considered was that decision but I congratulate him on having the sense to see the force of the argument put forward, not least from this side of the House, and to mend his hand when dealing with this Bill.

Regarding the overall effect of taxation on costs, particularly in connection with the taxation proposed to be imposed under this Bill, the Minister will remember that when he was winding up the budget debate he challenged the statements that had been made from this side of the House to the effect that tax changes in the budget would raise the cost of living by between one and a half and two per cent. The Minister produced figures in claiming that the increase would be, to my recollection, 0.6 per cent but I notice today that the figure he gave was 0.5 per cent.

I am saying that the changes in VAT rates reduce the cost of living by 0.5 per cent.

I thought the Minister had said before that it would be 0.6 per cent both in regard to the overall effect and to the VAT figure.

The overall effect, including social welfare contributions, adds 0.6 per cent but the VAT changes lead to a reduction of 0.5 per cent.

I am going on the assumption that the Minister gave the figure as being 0.6 per cent but I do not think we will quarrel about the 0.1 per cent. The point I am making in this regard is that the claim made from this side of the House was a correct claim, despite what the Minister said and that all that was made clear from the figures which we extracted from the Minister before was that he really needs a new price index because the present one which the Minister used to back up his claim is giving an incorrect picture.

I would like to spell out in a little more detail where arises the difference between the Minister and ourselves in this regard. In the detailed reply which the Minister gave me some time ago setting out the basis for his claim, there is an estimate of 1.2 per cent given as the increase in prices resulting from changes in taxation on beer, spirits et cetera. That would seem to be a reasonable estimate but the difference between us seems to arise when we come to the alleged consequences of the changes in the rates of VAT. The Minister claimed that the increases in prices arising from the higher VAT rate would be offset by the reduction in prices that would be effected by the exemption of foodstuffs.

(Dublin Central): It would bring in an additional £2 million.

I am coming to that.

It lowers the cost of living.

The Minister said that the net effect of these VAT changes, taking the reduction as against the increases, would be a fall in the price index of 0.6 per cent.

0.5 per cent.

As I understand from what the Minister was saying, if the 0.6 per cent was subtracted from the 1.2 per cent which arises in respect of beer et cetra, then my figure of 0.6 per cent is arrived at. This was based on the figure of 0.6 per cent given by the Minister in the first instance. However, the real point involved is that we know from the budget that the VAT changes will bring in approximately an additional £5 million in a full year. I cannot give the exact figure. The Minister did not give it to us but he did give a figure of £2.6 million for the remainder of this year and on that basis I have arrived at the figure of an approximate £5 million in a full year. That means that people will have to pay more for the overall combination of commodities which they buy and that this extra taxation of approximately £5 million is roughly equivalent to an increase in prices of the order of from 0.3 to 0.5 per cent. That is the basis for our claim that the overall increase in prices will be in the region of from 1½ to 2 per cent because this increase caused by VAT changes is to be added to the 1.2 per cent increase in indirect taxation.

If the Minister wishes seriously to claim that by manipulating the VAT rates he can at the same time both collect more money and reduce prices, then I think all of the problems of Ministers for Finance are solved for evermore. All he has to do is to keep on repeating this mixture until he has brought in all the extra revenue that he needs and at the same time has driven prices down to the level at which they were five years ago and everybody will be very happy. However, one only has to spell this out to see just how absurd the claim made by the Minister is. The answer, of course, is that it is the price index which is wrong and inaccurate. If the people have to pay more to buy things, then overall the price must have gone up. That is just elementary common sense. We know they are going to pay more because the Minister told us so in his budget statement. He said £2.6 million in this financial year. I would suggest if he wants to make the kind of finally calculated claims that he has been making he should not try to base them on the consumer price index which is not alone out of date but making these kinds of claims shows us just how ridiculous the situation is that the Minister can say he is going to collect more money but prices are going to go down. By definition this is not possible.

Part 1 of the Bill deals with income tax, surtax and corporation profits tax. The Minister in his budget statement said that he was examining proposals in regard to a reform which would simplify the tax system and that he hoped in due course to introduce legislation to implement this. Subject to the details, the general aim is naturally very satisfactory to everybody. It would, however, be not ungracious of the Minister to acknowledge that what he was really referring to was a study which has been carried out over the last few years primarily by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and which probably arrived on his desk very shortly after he came into office and that he was not talking about any new initiative on his part or on the part of the Government of which he is a member.

The general position in regard to income tax provisions in this Bill is that with the exception of the minor concession related to the tax allowance for married women there is nothing in this Bill for the average income tax payer but there are some sections which would appear to have something in them for the richer sections of the community. It may be that I have not as yet interpreted these sections correctly and if that is so I have no doubt the Minister will spell out the correct position when he is replying but I do hope in the course of what I am saying to refer to one or two of these sections.

In section 3 of the Bill the Minister is providing for arrangements regarding the clawback of income tax in respect of the increased children's allowances for those, and I am quoting now from the explanatory memorandum, "whose statutory income exceeds £2,500 a year". We will have a great deal more to say about this section later. For the time being I want to content myself with asking the Minister some questions about the wording of portion of it and for the purpose of reference I would refer him to page 9 of the Bill, lines 3 to 5. I am quoting it that way because if the Minister looks at it he will see that it is confusing to start quoting subsections or sections because it is a proposal to insert into another section of another Bill. The proposed new subsection (4) to be inserted reads:

Section 523 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1967...

Maybe my eyesight is defective but I have examined the Income Tax Act, 1967, a number of times and I cannot find section 523 (1) (a). I can find section 523 (1) but there is no (a) that I can find so this makes understanding the meaning of this portion even more difficult.

Secondly, there is the reference on the next line to the Finance Act, 1973. It is peculiar but I think I understand what it is about because it is to be read in another Act although I do not recall offhand ever seeing a reference of that kind to a Bill which the House is dealing with in the Bill itself, as calling it an Act. What has me completely without understanding of this is the rest of the wording. Apart from the difficulty that the original reference to the Income Tax Act does not seem to be correct there is the fact that this says:

Section 523 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1967, shall have effect as if section 141 (1AAA) (inserted by the Finance Act, 1973) had not been enacted.

That reference is to what goes before, in number 2, which we have just under the Bill provided that is is to be inserted in section 141 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, and here we say we are to read section 523 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, as if we had not enacted that. I am sure there is a very good explanation for it but the Minister will appreciate that it is not obvious on its face and we would appreciate a little clarification on that when he is replying.

In regard to section 5, I understand the Minister to have in mind that this is to close a loophole but it is not quite clear on its face and I would appreciate it if the Minister would spell out whether the effects of section 5 is to give a greater or a lesser repayment of tax and the basis for the enactment of this section, as to what is occurring at the moment, and the basis for the proposed change made in section 5.

Section 7 seems to mean that the proposal here could be worth a very great deal to a surtax payer. It is proposing to increase from one and a half times to four times the amount of the maximum lump sum which may be allowed free of tax as a result of a death-in-service benefit. It seems to me that the Minister has certain cases in mind and I deduce this from the fact that it is proposed to operate this as from April 6th, 1972. The Minister in this regard might have in mind cases which would have the support of everybody in this House. If I am correct in this, I would suggest to the Minister that he should have another look at the situation to see if it is possible to give the benefit he has in mind on a much more restricted basis which would confine it to certain cases.

As it is worded at the moment, it seems to me as if it is making a very substantial present particularly to surtax payers. This is tying in with what I said earlier, that there is not any relief in the Bill for the ordinary income tax payer. It makes it all the more necessary that the relief which is proposed in section 7 should not be of general benefit and available to surtax payers.

I understand from what the Minister has said that section 12 is proposed to be enacted in pursuance of an agreement with the British Government, as are some of the other sections surrounding it. I should like the Minister, when replying, to give the House some information as to how many companies are involved or are covered by the existing arrangements. I should like the Minister also to tell the House how many it is estimated will be involved under the new provisions proposed in section 12. I should also like to know whether the effect of section 12 would be to give greater relief for British investors in such things as office blocks. This may not be so but on the face of it it would appear that this is the situation. Perhaps the Minister would spell it out clearly for us.

In regard to section 13 I should like the Minister to tell the House whether this means special relief for sur-tax payers who have shares in a holding company which control a mining company. I ask that because in section 13, a new subsection (4) (c) there is reference to the following:

Where, by virtue of paragraph (a), income tax is deducted from a dividend at a reduced rate, the amount to be included in respect of the dividend in any return for the purpose of sur-tax shall be an amount which bears the same proportion to the amount of the dividend as the rate of income tax deducted therefrom bears to the rate which would have been authorised to be deducted if this subsection had not been enacted.

I would like clarification as to whether the effect of section 13 is to improve the relief available to sur-tax payers in the special circumstances covered by this section.

Section 23, states that in addition to expenditure being wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes, it is also "necessarily" incurred for those purposes. This is, as far as I know, the classic approach of the Revenue Commissioners to problems of this kind. I should like the Minister to explain to the House how this additional provision of "necessarily incurred" is to be interpreted and whether it is likely to lead to a great deal more administrative work in the Revenue Commissioners. If it is, as I suspect it may well be, I should like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to devise a simpler and more straightforward method of achieving the same thing.

Such a matter would cost a good deal less to administer. I am not in a position to produce a readymade answer for the Minister but I feel that there are people in the Revenue Commissioners who, if given the direction, might well be able to do so. It does strike one that some kind of approach in relation to existing companies of freezing the allowance to the average of, for instance, the previous three to five years, might be better. By freezing it, it would be going down in value as time went on. This would not take account of new companies and it is not an unprecedented problem. There are other possible approaches to it.

The point I should like to make to the Minister is that I suspect that what he is proposing to do here may result in a great deal of paper work and additional administrative difficulties with the Revenue Commissioners and consequent cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayers. If the Minister's advisers could devise a simpler method of achieving the same, or substantially similar, objectives it would be worthwhile doing so.

In regard to sections 24, and others onwards, which deal with the proposed restriction of allowances in respect of motor cars costing over £2,500, I should like the Minister to consider whether there is not a danger that by the implementation of these sections in this way efforts might be made to come around the proposals by such a device as the setting up of a subsidiary company in Northern Ireland with the consequential purchase, and registration, of cars which would otherwise take place here. There would be other undesirable effects. I do not know whether this is a likely loophole but if it is I should like the Minister to examine it to see if the objectives of these sections can be achieved without creating pressure to go through a loophole of the kind I have mentioned.

With regard to section 33 which exempts from income tax, sur-tax and corporation profits tax income derived from patent royalties arising to individuals or companies resident in the State where the work in connection with the devising of the patented invention is carried out in the State. I should like to state that this provision is welcome and is one which is to be encouraged. I would, however, again make the point that I know there is ample precedent for this kind of approach but whether the time has not come to reconsider this approach is something that should be considered because the effect of this is, first of all, to complicate the tax structure still further and create one more exemption and one more exception and, secondly, it cannot be costed and is, therefore, a hidden benefit. I know there are many other similar provisions in previous Finance Acts about which exactly the same argument could be made, but the structure has become such now that there probably are substantial hidden benefits involved in the income tax code; I am not speaking now of the generally known and accepted one of exemption from tax on profits from exports; that one is generally known and understood, though not costed accurately. Apart from this, there are now very many what I describe as hidden benefits involved in the tax code and we are proposing in this Bill to add to them. I am not sure that this is a sound approach. I am not sure whether one could not achieve the same kind of objective by way of some form of grant which would at least be measured and open so that people would know what was being given for the particular purpose and what benefit was being derived by the recipient.

In regard to section 38 and the relevant provisions in the Fifth Schedule, I would ask the Minister to give a little further thought to this. Quite clearly the loophole he is trying to close—the one known as loss buying—is a loophole that should be closed and I certainly would not quarrel with that. But I want to sound a note of warning because it seems to me that in what the Minister is doing here he may be interfering with or preventing certain developments which could be of importance to the economy. I have in mind a number of examples of firms which are ailing, not operating very well, and which may not be even making any profit at all; if these firms were taken over by larger and more dynamic Irish firms the mixture of the larger firms' capital enterprise and managerial skill would enable them to thrive. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, of considerable dependence on foreign enterprise, and as a result of the adjustment to free trade, there may well be a strong case for some kind of encouragement to successful and dynamic Irish firms to take over ailing firms and make them work. Of course, this could be open to abuse and it would be necessary to prescribe conditions before the incentives would become available; one condition that immediately strikes one is the maintenance of employment in the ailing firm. There are other conditions which would be necessary and could be applied.

I am aware of some of the difficulties involved, because when I was in the Minister's shoes, I did give some examination to the problem, but that was at a time when it was not possible to give the problem sufficient examination to enable one to come to a final conclusion. The Minister should take care that the provisions of section 38 and the relevant provisions of the Fifth Schedule will not operate to prevent or make impossible or unlikely the kind of operation I have in mind. We all know of examples of this having happened without incentives, but we also know there are cases in which it would be much more likely to happen if there were some incentives. Apart from incentives, I would ask the Minister to ensure that what is being done here will not make the genuine operation I have described such an unattractive proposition that it will never happen.

With regard to section 40, I was under the impression that what I call the friendly societies loophole had been closed some years ago. Would the Minister, when he is replying, spell out for us the kind of cases which have heretofore been exempt and those which will now be caught under this provision? That would enable us to assess section 40 much more accurately.

With regard to Part III, dealing with the increased taxation under customs and excise on beer, spirits and tobacco, I shall not go into this in any great detail at this stage except to say that, viewed in a normal perspective, the size of the increases involved here cannot be accurately described other than as savage. They are absolutely unprecedented. They could be accepted if one were to say: "This is all going on a worthwhile cause" but the fact is that some at least of the additional revenue derived in this way will go for purposes which the vast majority of taxpayers would not approve. I refer specifically to relief from the Exchequer of rates on office blocks and other commercial properties. This argument applies to all the new taxes imposed but it applies in particular to this because, although the increases involved are enormous and, as I say, unprecedented, nevertheless they are substantial, much more so than in the case of other taxes imposed under the Bill on what I describe as luxuries as distinct from absolute necessities. This is an area in which one would expect that, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, although no taxpayer likes to pay more tax, he would be more reconciled to paying more if he were satisfied that what happens to the additional taxation raised is something of which he can approve. I believe the vast majority of taxpayers will not approve of the purposes to which some of this revenue will be put.

With regard to the death duty provision in Part III, we will be going into this also in considerably more detail on Committee Stage. I just want to remind the Minister that, whatever he may say now, he and his colleagues during the general election campaign, gave the people to believe that death duties were going to be abolished. The fact that they have failed to abolish them is a matter of very grave concern to a number of people who voted for his party and the Labour Party. However, the particular matter I want to deal with at the moment is this: I recall what I can only describe as the wild statement in relation to death duties made by the Minister when concluding the debate on the budget to the effect that the president of the Irish Farmers' Association had been misled, which can only be interpreted, I think, as that he had been made a fool of, and that he regretted the public statement which he had made.

I should like to invite the Minister, when replying to the debate on this Stage of the Bill, to confirm the statement he made when replying to the budget debate, if he is prepared to do so. If he is not prepared to do so, perhaps he would say that he is not. If he is prepared to confirm it, it seems to me that the public are entitled to expect and, indeed, do expect in the circumstances, some comment from the president of the Irish Farmers' Association about whom in this House the Minister made statements which could only be regarded as being insulting, to say the very least. One could use stronger language. Of course, that is a matter for the gentleman concerned, but the public will be more than interested to know, and will feel entitled to know, whether the Minister is persisting in what he said in winding up the budget debate and, if he is what comment the president of the Irish Farmers' Association has to make on the Minister's attitude.

I will pass now to Chapter II, Part IV of the Bill which deals with stamp duties. So far as I can recall on a quick check through a copy of the Minister's budget statement, I do not think he made any reference at all to the provisions of Chapter II, Part IV of the Bill. It seems to me from my necessarily cursory examination of these provisions that what we have here is the introduction of a completely new term in Irish company law or, indeed, in English company law, that is, the term "capital company". A definition of "capital company" is provided in section 66. Paragraph (a) of section 66 seems to be fairly clear as to its meaning, although I may regret that statement before I am very much older. I think it is fairly clear, but the meanings of paragraphs (b) and (c) are certainly not clear. It is not clear, for instance, whether paragraph (b) refers to any company whose capital is at present quoted on the stock exchange, or a company whose capital could at some stage in the future, if it were to make application for a quotation, be granted such a quotation.

In paragraph (c) the phrase "without prior authorisation" is unclear and, on the face of it, seems loose. In the articles of association of many private companies there are restrictions on the transfer of shares without previously offering them to other members. Of course, there is the normal right of the board of directors of any private company to refuse to register a transfer of shares. It is the intention in section 66 that the new provisions will not apply to private companies, all of whose articles contain some form of restriction on the transfer of their shares? It is very important that this matter should be clarified. If the intention is to exclude private companies in the manner I have indicated, it would appear that primarily the capital company is what is generally known as a public company whether or not its shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange.

Section 67 defines the meaning of a transaction, the taking place of which will attract stamp duty and will require the delivery of a statement in relation to such a transaction, a statement which is capable of being stamped. Section 68 provides that the rate of duty shall be 1 per cent, which appears to be four times the present rate. I know this is not a major area of concern, and I would guess that the amount of revenue involved is not very substantial. Nevertheless it appears to be a four-fold increase in one particular rate of stamp duty about which we did not hear a thing until this Bill was published.

Under section 69 is determined the sum upon which stamp duty at the rate of 1 per cent would be chargeable. I know these sections are in pursuance of an EEC directive but it is no harm to draw attention to them and to the fact that, in this section, we appear to depart completely from the old conception we had of stamp duty on the nominal or authorised capital of a company. This section refers to the actual value at the date of the transaction of the assets of any kind contributed, or to be contributed, by members of a capital company, after deduction of liabilities assumed by the capital company and of the expenses incurred by the capital company. It seems clear that, in the ordinary case of the formation of a new capital company which, at the date of the transaction, which would appear to be its date of formation, had no assets or liabilities other than the amount of capital agreed by the subscribers to be contributed, the stamp duty would be chargeable on the nominal capital which is the present method of assessment. It would appear, however, that if the company acquired at a later date assets of any kind other than through the capitalisation of profits or reserves, stamp duty could be payable in respect of these assets.

Under existing law the position appears to be that, where assets are transferred to a limited company after incorporation, the company as transferee would be liable to pay stamp duty on the transfer to it of these assets at the appropriate rate; having regard to the nature of the assets, that is, if the assets were stocks, or shares, or other property, the transfer which would normally be dutiable at 1 per cent would mean no difference in the stamp duty payable under these conditions and what applies at present, but there would clearly be a difference, and this is not clarified in the section. That is why I am raising it. If the transfer consisted of real or leasehold property to a capital company, on the face of it the Bill would appear to provide that the stamp duty would be only 1 per cent although, as the Minister well knows, the existing rate of duty is considerably higher than that.

I am raising this to ask the Minister to clarify what is intended and to examine the section to see if his intention is being clearly carried out by the wording of these sections.

One other point I want to raise under this heading is that it would appear that the provisions of this Bill would exempt unlimited companies and non-profit making companies. Some of these non-profit making companies do have surpluses on which at present they pay tax and on this basis it would appear that they should be charged tax on the old basis. The position is not quite clear to me under these provisions as to whether the present position will continue or whether such non-profit making companies accumulating surpluses will now be exempt. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that for us?

In regard to Part V the provisions of which deal with value-added tax, I am not going to go back over all of the matters we have discussed before on this but I do want to say again that I believe the Government in their whole approach to this matter are making a grave error, that they have made it, and that this will be demonstrated in the not too distant future.

One relatively minor matter that I would draw attention to is that when the value-added tax legislation was before this House originally a great deal of play was made about the odd rates of tax that were involved, the 5.26, 16.37 and 30.26. I was at great pains to explain that the reason for this was that we were trying to keep as close as possible to existing taxes so that there would be no change in the actual incidence of the tax but only in the matter of collection, in so far as this could be done. That seems to me to be a perfectly good reason for having these odd rates of tax. But, I notice that when the Minister proposes, as he does here, to change the rates of tax, he does not attempt to work out an even rate of tax that would yield approximately the same amount. Perhaps he did attempt to do it but found it was not possible. Certainly, as far as the Bill is concerned, we end up with figures which are almost as odd as the ones in the original value-added tax legislation.

There is no doubt in my mind that the changes proposed in this Bill for value-added tax will add considerably to the administrative complications within the Revenue Commissioners. More than that, I believe that they will add considerably to the administrative complications of shopkeepers because, of course, the zero-rating of food is, in effect, creating a third rate for shops to handle. It is not exemption; it is zero-rating and, for the purpose of administering the tax in a shop, a zero rate is just the same as a 5.26 rate or a 6.75 rate, or whatever. It is another rate requiring exactly the same kind of handling.

I am in the process of meeting deputations from traders who are very concerned not only about this aspect but about other aspects of this Bill. I suppose it is no consolation to anybody to say to him: "I told you so" but we did tell them so many times, that this would add to the difficulties of shopkeepers in administering the tax. There is a fear on my part that, in the case of smaller shopkeepers who have to handle these matters themselves, this may be an insuperable problem and they may find themselves, through no real fault of theirs, in serious difficulty with the Revenue Commissioners in regard to the payment of and accounting for value-added tax.

I should like the Minister to spell out clearly, when he is replying to the debate, that, as a consequence of the increased value-added tax rates on virtually everything except food the price restrictions orders introduced by his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will take account of these increased rates or, if they will not, tell us that they will not. We do not want a recurrence of the situation we had some time ago in regard to the price of cheese where, apparently, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was not talking to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and he allowed increases but the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he knew nothing about it, that application had to be made and a decision awaited in the normal way. If that kind of thing were to happen in regard to the increased rates proposed here we would have chaos, as I think the Minister for Finance well knows. I hope it will not happen. It would be worthwhile for the Minister when he is replying to spell out precisely what the position will be.

We will be dealing in greater detail with the provisions of this Bill in regard to value-added tax. I am merely touching on some outline aspects here. Other Deputies on this side of the House will deal with these matters in greater detail on this Stage and they will be dealt with also in detail on Committee Stage.

There is one small observation I should like to make in regard to this Part of the Bill. I want to express the hope that the Minister and his supporters will be able to explain to the people in, for instance, Ballyfermot and in many other parts of the country, why value-added tax has to be increased on such things as clothing, footwear and fuel while in the same measure value-added tax is being removed from horses and greyhounds.

Maybe the Deputy does not know that horses and greyhounds race and they are imported and exported for races.

I know. I am not explaining. I am saying that I hope the Minister and his supporters will be able to explain it. I certainly shall not attempt to explain it to them because I am not responsible for the provisions of the Bill. The Minister is.

Seán MacEntee will always be with us.

The Minister will be glad to hear that I am coming close to the end of my contribution on this Stage. There are, of course, in the later sections of the Bill very detailed provisions for further increases in taxes and in motor vehicle duty. Virtually every aspect of motoring and motor cycles is being caught in the net. In the debate on the budget I dealt with the Minister's mad scramble for revenue. There can be few, if any, possible items open to him that he left out of the net. I do not propose at this stage to go back over the economic arguments that we had on this because I think events are bearing out what we said. Certainly, I believe that come budget time next year it will be perfectly clear that the policy behind the taxation proposed in this Bill is misconceived economically.

I think it is misconceived politically but that is irrelevant at the moment. It is misconceived economically for a number of reasons but primarily because the Government by deliberate decision and policy have decided to increase substantially the price of virtually every commodity other than food and this at a time when it is vital to create a climate in which there would be a reasonable chance to conclude a third national pay agreement.

The Minister can argue as much as he likes about savings. I have dealt earlier with the fallacy in his argument; he must know that so far as the ordinary shopper is concerned that person is not going to see very much in the removal of VAT from food considering the substantial cost to the Exchequer that is involved. He will see the price of every commodity other than food, whether it is an essential item such as clothing, footwear and fuel or whether it is a less essential or even a luxury item, increasing because of deliberate government action. This is in addition to the increased prices which are coming as a result of what might be called normal inflationary pressure. In those circumstances I cannot imagine any overall approach to our economic problems which could be more ill-conceived or mistaken than that adopted by the Government and outlined in this Bill.

For the sake of the public and of our economy generally, I very much hope I am wrong in that assessment but unfortunately, there are indications already that I am right. I am as sure of this as I can be of anything, that at budget time next year it will be clear to every man, woman and child that this Bill, in the taxes it imposes and the general approach to the problems of the economy which it embodies, was a disaster.

(Dublin Central): As with all Finance Bills, this is a difficult Bill to digest and it is a matter that can be dealt with in more detail on Committee Stage. However, there are some matters to which I should like to refer.

In the Minister's opening statement he pointed out that the Government's aim was to make Ireland a new and better land. I presume he was referring in particular to the Finance Bill and the budget. However, when I look at the Bill and study the implications in the budget I cannot see how the Minister proposes to make this a new and better land. If we separate the social welfare benefits from the budget and the Finance Bill, in my opinion what is left merely complicates our way of life. When we study the explanatory memorandum it is obvious that for people in business life is becoming more difficult and, consequently, I cannot see how the Minister can back up his statement about making this a better land.

Once we separate the social welfare benefits, there is nothing left to promote industries, to curb inflation or to raise our standard of living. It is obvious that the Finance Bill will increase inflation. We all know about the curse of inflation; the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. For people with fixed incomes or with wages that they spend every week, inflation automatically works against them; the people with property or shares will be helped by inflation. The Government have made no effort to tackle this problem and it is vital that we do that if we are to secure full employment. In every sector of our society costings are increasing every day and businessmen will find that the budget will aggravate their problems.

Section 1 of this Bill provides that where interest is chargeable a minimum interest charge of £5 will be payable. This will automatically hit the small businessman; it will not affect the man who has a turnover of £10,000 or £20,000 per month. It is evident that the Government have no policy to help the small businessman. He will not be able to cope with the complicated arrangements in the Finance Bill and he will be forced out of business.

We all know how difficult is value-added tax. I was on the VAT Committee and I thought at the time that I understood many of the proposals contained in it, but theory and practice are two different things. When I had to make returns to the Revenue Commissioners, when I had to separate the 5.26 per cent and the 16.37 per cent, when I had to calculate all the deductions, I realised how difficult it was. I doubt if 10 per cent of the people are able to tackle VAT.

Section I of the Finance Bill is telling the small businessman that, no matter how little he may owe the Revenue Commissioners, he will be charged £5. At this time every help should be given to this section of the community to tackle this difficult problem but instead in section 1 we show our gratitude to the small traders who have to try to figure out this complicated tax. There is also the section dealing with zero-rating——

I think the Deputy is operating under a misunderstanding. This proposed fine relates to failure to remit PAYE tax already deducted. It has nothing to do with VAT returns.

(Dublin Central): This will not apply to late payments of a minimum of £5 in VAT?

Section 1 will not apply to those.

(Dublin Central): This does not apply to VAT at all?

It applies to PAYE.

(Dublin Central): Only, and completely excludes interest under £5 due on that?

There is no proposal in the section to deal with it.

(Dublin Central): I will remember that as time goes on.

There are penalties in relation to VAT but they are not affected by section 1.

(Dublin Central): Does the £5 figure apply? I will keep the Minister's statement in mind during the year if I am under the £5 in relation to VAT.

In section 2 there is relief to the extent of an increase from £74 to £104 in relation to a wife's earnings. This is something I welcome but it does not go far enough. An increase of £30 in these inflationary days is very small. The Minister will lose very little, especially taking into consideration the new wage agreements and so on, by this additional allowance. It is welcome but it is very small and I cannot see that it will be any great help to wives who are working.

Section 3 is joined with the social welfare benefits. It relates to the allowance in relation to salaries over £2,500 and provides for a clawback on the income tax scale. In the case of a person earning over that figure, a deduction will be made of an equivalent amount to that which that person will receive in children's allowances. I said on the occasion of the budget, and I say again, that we must take into consideration the fact that £2,500 is a very small amount today. Anyone in this House who over the past number of years has had to live on a salary at that level knows exactly how difficult it is. This is especially so in the case of these people who are generally buying their own houses, paying voluntary health insurance but who have always contributed to their own upkeep. This section of people have never asked the State for anything and how anyone in this day and age could say that in respect of any amount over £2,500, a person is not entitled to the additional children's allowances is beyond me.

If the Minister, as I believe he should, were to increase the amount to £3,500, I would not be criticising it now. I know well people who have to live on £2,500 a year who are purchasing their houses and in many cases paying between £10 and £15 per week. It is all right for people living in local authority houses. I would certainly prefer to be earning £2,300 a year and living in a local authority house with four children. I am quite convinced that I would then be better off than with £2,000 or £3,000 and buying my house. The Minister was shortsighted in this matter and should have struck a higher figure. I am sure there are many families who, if one went into the mechanics of this, will find that they are definitely at a loss.

The Minister might clarify this matter for me because—I know that there is a clawback in respect of payments for house purchase and the like—if you have over £2,500 a year, even with ten children, you are outside the additional allowance but if you have under £2,500 and have three children, you qualify for it. You are allowed only for such charges as interest payments and insurance policies. Nothing else is allowed and if this is the case, that the man with over £2,500 who has ten children does not qualify while the man who has under £2,500 and has four children will qualify for the increased allowances, with no clawback, it is totally unjustifiable, but reading it as I do, that is the conclusion I have come to. A new look should be taken at it and the Minister in this Bill should concede an additional amount. It is quite wrong that a man with a family of eight or ten children should be brought within the clawback by reason of having over £2,500.

I am glad the Minister changed his mind with regard to bank deposits. In his budget speech he mentioned that the £70 interest allowance which was allowable up to now would be subject to income tax. This, too, was shortsighted and should not have taken place. It has done an amount of damage and I know that it has undermined the confidence of many depositors in the domestic banks. Any bank manager will tell you that for the past two months there has been a continual flow of small deposits from the banks. I have an idea of the thinking behind the decision but it was a bad one and there has been this flow of deposits from the associated banks over the past two months.

Savings are up.

(Dublin Central): They may be, but not in the case of the associated banks, and I know that many bank managers throughout the city with 400 or 500 small depositors will tell you that they were leaving the banks at the rate of two or three accounts per day. That decision should not have been taken because it had the effect of undermining confidence and it is necessary to build up a certain amount of capital in the associated banks. By and large this is where the business community must get their money and if this drain were allowed to continue of deposits from the banks, there would be no funds available for private business. I am glad the Minister saw the light and changed his mind because to continue it certainly would remove from the associated banks a big percentage of the capital they have at the moment.

Section 22 which relates to endowment policies is a section I welcome. I presume all types of policies will be included in these proposals because policies other than endowment policies can be taken out when one is buying a house. The Minister is to be congratulated in this regard but there is one point that might, perhaps, be rectified. The Minister mentioned that in respect of an endowment policy of, say, £7,500, the benefit of that policy would go to the widow and children of the holder. However, it would be a rather unfortunate situation if a man who entered into a ten-year endowment policy of £7,500 so that, in the event of his death, his family would have the benefit of the policy, should die three months after the policy had matured because, in those circumstances the £7,500 would automatically be included in his estate, and, consequently, would not be exempt from death duties. There should be some concessions in such cases so that at least part of the premium would be exempt at least up to 12 months after it had matured.

In section 24 of the Bill the Minister is restricting the wear and tear allowance in respect of motor cars costing more than £2,500. I would not grumble with this but I find it difficult to see how the Revenue Commissioners could make their assessments in this regard. In another part of the Bill it is proposed that certain expenses will have to be concerned directly with the business or company concerned so as to be taken into account for tax purposes. I do not know whether the Revenue Commissioners have adopted some new procedure in this regard but I always thought that, apart from this £2,500, expenses had to be associated with the firm or company concerned so as to qualify for exemption. I can foresee many complications for the Revenue Commissioners in trying to decide what expenses are incurred in connection with a business.

Section 34 provides that interest to be paid under the relevant sections of the Stamp Act, the Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act:

shall be payable without any deduction of income tax and shall not be allowed in computing any income, profits or losses for any of the purposes of the Income Tax Acts or of the enactments relating to corporation profits tax.

Up to now, in auditing accounts, all expenses would be taken into consideration. It would be an auditor's duty to determine what expenses were incurred by a company during the year in question—bank interest and PAYE would be taken into consideration as I am sure would the interest which the Revenue Commissioners would have taken already from the company. I take it now that this would be a deduction from one's net income after everything else had been taken into consideration. Again, this is hitting the people who are acting as unpaid tax collectors for the Government, people who, already, are responsible for deductions under PAYE, for keeping accounts in respect of VAT, who are responsible for deductions of social welfare payments and for their own income tax returns as well as for the distribution census which they must complete. Every provision here would have the result of penalising these people further.

Under section 74 the Revenue Commissioners will say to these people that the interest that has been deducted will not be taken into consideration. That is unfair. There should be some concession to cover this proposal. I criticised it when it was introduced because 2½ per cent was being taken away on the first £100.

Regarding the question of taxes and of customs and excise, it is difficult to understand why when it should be the policy of the Government to encourage tourism in so far as possible, that taxation is being increased to such an extent on tobacco, beer and spirits. I would put good services and high quality goods at a reasonable price at the head of the list in so far as encouraging tourism is concerned. We have been at a disadvantage with some southern European countries in regard to prices. Consequently, many tourists who might otherwise come here go, instead, to such places as Spain and Portugal while a considerable number of our own people also spend their holidays in these countries. There is very little relief in this Bill for anyone engaged in the tourist industry. The extra duty that is being imposed on the items I have mentioned is certainly the most extensive that has been imposed during my time in this House.

It is very difficult to see how this will not have an adverse effect on tourism. I believe it will. I believe that these taxes could certainly have been reduced drastically if not avoided. There has been an increase of 3p in the price of a glass of whiskey, a penny on a pint of beer and a substantial increase in the price of cigarettes. Those increases are bound to have an effect on the tourist trade but apart from tourism it is no longer considered a luxury for a working man to have a pint of beer, a glass of whiskey or his cigarettes. Indeed with the many problems in this life, I believe he is entitled to these things. Surely we do not think for one moment that the wage earner will not take this into consideration in viewing a new national pay agreement which we all hope will be achieved? I believe this will be a factor. I would be the last in this House to wish that the national pay agreement would be upset in any way. I sincerely hope it will not, but these are factors which contribute to making a national agreement very difficult. The Minister will defend these increases and say they were distributed in social welfare benefits but the social welfare benefits could have been given and these increases could still have been avoided. There were social welfare benefits given last year and we did not have these massive increases which we see here.

In part III of the Finance Bill the Minister deals with death duties. We heard many promises before the general election. We heard of the 14-point plan and the abolition of death duties. There is no question here of death duties being abolished but I welcome the concession which is given. Any concession given as regards death duties especially to a widow with children is welcome. Increasing the sum from £7,500 to £10,000 is a step in the right direction. I had the experience five or six years ago of being an executor for a widow who had four children. As we know death duties have been increased in each successive budget.

The allowance?

(Dublin Central): The allowance. I thought it was pathetic that a widow with four children, with an estate of about £40,000, had to try to find £4,000. I thought that death duties in the case of a widow and children should definitely be abolished and I could see no justification for them. At least they should be abolished up to £100,000. It is very easy to find a business today worth £60,000. Under that you get precious little in this city. If a man is operating a business today valued at £60,000 and he has two or three children, assuming that he is getting a net profit of £4,000 to £5,000, when he dies the Revenue Commissioners will come in and assess that at £60,000. We must take into consideration that the widow has lost the breadwinner. After paying a manager she will be left with a profit of about £2,500. She is in a very bad financial state to pay death duties. We all know how a business can deteriorate when the owner dies. I believe that any concession which can be given should be given. This is a step in the right direction and I welcome it but let us hope that death duties in the case of widows with children will be abolished completely. I do not see how death duties could be abolished across the board without replacing them with some kind of wealth tax. Otherwise I could see the wealth of the country being accumulated by a small group of people. I am particularly concerned about properties of £80,000 or £100,000 owned by a widow with four children. I believe we should exempt those from death duty. I would not be so concerned about the other end of it.

The most complicated section in the Bill deals with VAT. I do not know how traders will operate this, with all the different rates. We will now have four rates of tax. We are increasing the 5.26 to 6.75, we are increasing the 16.37 to 19.5, we are increasing the 30.56 to 36.75 and we are introducing a zero rate for certain types of food. We know how difficult it is to operate the present system but it will be very difficult for grocers to separate articles on which there is a 19.5 tax from those which are exempt. I can see great difficulties for the Revenue Commissioners in trying to itemise these articles. At present even in supermarkets they are not altogether separating the two sections at the check-outs. This is certainly going to create an enormous problem. It will be difficult to separate the various taxes, particularly where there is a zero-rate, because VAT does not apply on foods.

I should like the Minister to explain what the position will be in regard to catering. Do I take it that if a caterer, or hotelier, goes to the market and buys various items, such as vegetables which have a zero-rating, and serves them in his hotel he charges VAT on the goods sold, or does he charge VAT on the services rendered? In my opinion VAT cannot be charged for the goods. If a charge is to be made in this regard it is turnover tax. Are we to have two taxes? Will the caterer be charging 6.75 per cent on the entire bill or will he be charging for services only? The caterer has purchased the goods with no value added.

If he does not charge on the goods, but on the services rendered, I cannot see how any Revenue Commissioners could handle that situation. How can one differentiate between a private householder and an hotelier who purchase goods at wholesale price at the various markets? I can take two meanings from this section, one that he should charge for services, and, secondly, that the whole bill will be subject to a charge of 6.75.

Page 8 of the explanatory memorandum deals with that matter.

(Dublin Central): I have read it but I do not understand it.

That explains the matter.

(Dublin Central): For my own information would the Minister say if it is on the entire bill that the 6.75 is charged?

There will be a charge on ready-to-eat food used in the course of carrying on a catering business at the rate of 6.75.

(Dublin Central): From that I take it that the entire bill is subject to the 6.75 rate. That is not value-added tax. It is turnover tax. There will be complications when making out VAT returns under that section. It is not possible, on the VAT forms at present in circulation, to give a return on this basis. I believe that a separate form for turnover tax will have to be sent to caterers and hoteliers so that they can comply with this section; otherwise the whole system will be complicated.

I cannot understand why the Minister and the former Shadow Minister for Finance, Deputy FitzGerald, who is now Minister for Foreign Affairs, could not have levelled off the rates. Deputy FitzGerald, when he was on the Value-added Tax Committee, pointed out the complications that would arise due to the operation of the different rates.

The Deputy will see that it is easy to calculate .75 and .39 or .24.

(Dublin Central): I am only re-echoing the views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Coalition Government had an opportunity of making it easier for traders to make up their accounts but instead they left the traders to cope with 6.75, 19.5 and 36.75. Deputy FitzGerald tabled amendment after amendment at the VAT Committee which he felt would simplify the rate of VAT. For that reason I felt that when the National Coalition Government took office a more simplified method of collection would have been introduced.

Deputy Colley, when he was Minister for Finance, was criticised for bringing in what was described then as irregular and complicated rates by Deputy FitzGerald who suggested that a flat rate should be introduced. This Government had every opportunity of introducing a flat rate and making it more convenient for the traders but yet they came up with these complicated figures.

Section 80 deals with stock and trade to unregistered customers. It is quite obvious that unregistered customers on the 3rd September will be penalised. There is provision made where small traders can register and thereby put themselves in the position of paying VAT. I doubt if this would be possible. I do not know how the Revenue Commissioners would be able to work it. There is a difference in the invoices made out to those who are subject to VAT and those who are unregistered. I am not altogether sure it will be possible for the small trader with £3,000 or £4,000 worth of goods in stock to opt in at this stage. Would this be a short-term registration? Could a trader opt in for one or two months and then opt out? In my opinion it is impossible for small traders with small turnovers to keep continuous accounts. Will these have an opportunity of opting out at a later date?

The return from VAT where food is concerned will be quite small because I am sure that nearly 75 per cent of the average turnover in groceries will be exempt from VAT. That will leave 25 per cent subject to VAT. Of this 25 per cent the Revenue Commissioners will automatically have collected 75 per cent of the 25 per cent because the profit of the grocer will amount to only something like 10 to 15 per cent. The rest will be returned at wholesale level. It is quite obvious that the amount returned will be very small considering there will be certain claims with regard to 19.5 on commodities not for resale, commodities like paper bags and things like that. A case could be made for an extension of the period from two to three months because it will certainly be a bigger problem for the grocer to make his VAT returns now. The amount due to the Revenue Commissioners after the various deductions will be very small and so the period should be extended from two months to three months. I should like the Minister to have a look at that because it would ease the burden on the small trader coping with these very complicated returns.

On Committee Stage we will have an opportunity of going more thoroughly into the Bill. It is a Bill to which the Minister can expect some amendments. It has its good aspects but there are provisions imposing unnecessary penalties. The benefit under the children's allowances in the budget are welcome but, as I said earlier, the drawback to £2,500 was totally unjust and this is something that should be reconsidered in the light of present-day costings. We all know that £2,500 is a ridiculous figure.

I should like the Minister to clarify the social welfare aspect particularly with regard to the abolition of the upper limit of £1,600. This was described in today's Irish Times as no great benefit at all to those who will come into the bracket in the future. I hope people will not be compelled to pay and, at the same time, be debarred from benefiting. The sooner the Minister clarifies the position the better it will be.

The Minister said that the Government aims to make Ireland a new and better land. That is the aim of everyone in this House and in the country. It all depends, of course, on how one goes about it. I am not altogether sure that the proposals in this Bill will help to create that better land. There are certain inflationary qualities in the budget and in this Bill. Anything that can be done to improve the lot of the lower paid sections of our community should be done and I welcome provisions designed to achieve this object. I believe in the proper distribution of wealth. It is of vital importance. There are people in our society who are on the breadline. I have seen no signs of inflation easing off and it is disheartening to see some becoming millionaires through business deals and so forth while others have not even sufficient on which to live. Inflation has been with us now for quite some time and the only criticism I have to make is that the increases in social welfare are not enough in this age of massive inflation. Yesterday we learned how the £ is measuring up against other European currencies and it is quite obvious this is having an impact on the lower paid sections of our community. Inflation always makes the rich richer and this can lead to a polarisation of society. Inflation invariably does this unless it is curbed. I doubt if the budget or this Bill will have the result of curbing inflation.

I am glad to see in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister will not allow losses to run down companies against the profits of others. Because of things like that people have been getting richer. I am glad to see that in the Finance Bill. Many people have become millionaires over the past number of years through business deals. They employ the best brains in the country and it is the poorer section of the community who suffer. A Finance Bill must be brought into this House every year to try to overcome the anomalies we find in our society. There are a few sections in this Finance Bill which I should like to see amended. There are certain good things in the Bill and many bad things too. We will deal with them on Committee Stage.

In his opening statement the Minister spoke of the function of the budget to lift the growth rate capacity and reduce the level of unemployment. He related the increase of £130 million in current expenditure and £60 million in capital expenditure and said:

This outlay will have a notable impact on the economy in the months ahead. Domestic consumer and investment demand will be expanded, with beneficial repercussions on industrial production, productivity and employment.

I hope the Minister is right. Many of us on this side of the House are concerned about the effect on the economy of a very substantial deficit of £40 million in addition to an increase of £60 million on capital expenditure. We should appreciate that, in an economy the size of ours, the injection of such large amounts of money into the economy can have a serious inflationary effect. It can create an artificial demand, or stimulate a demand, for consumer goods.

While one should welcome the increase in social welfare benefits referred to by the Minister, that welcome should be tempered by a caution as to what effect a deficit of £40 million in expenditure is likely to have on the economy and on the fortunes of the recipients of social welfare benefits. In his closing speech on the budget the Minister said nobody was giving credit for anything. In talking about the Finance Bill I shall mention some of the points which merit comment and approval, but my overall feeling at the moment in regard to the Bill is similar to the feeling I had in regard to the budget, that is, that over-inflation, as has been known in the past, can have a damaging effect on the economy.

The most disappointing item in the budget lies in section 2 of this Bill which refers to the increase in the wife's earnings but does not include any increases whatsoever in earned income tax allowance. That is the one item I have heard spoken of as meaning something to the people. The earned income allowance, due to ordinary and increasing inflation, has lost its value. I do not know what the real value of the present £6.50 a week tax free allowances is as compared to what it was a few years ago. I expect it is down to around the £5 mark. That is the one ingredient missing from the Finance Bill which would encourage enterprise and encourage people to work.

Section 3 has already been dealt with by other speakers. It relates to the ceiling of £2,500 for children's allowances. The Minister does a curious juggle because what seems to happen is that, if you are over the £2,500 limit, your income tax allowances is reduced and your children's allowance is left as it is. It has been described as the husband handing over to the wife. I appreciate the necessity to have a ceiling of some kind but there is an aspect of it in our community which does not seem to be right. How just is it when one considers the many people, including farmers who do not come within the income tax net?

I am very glad the Minister decided to abandon the proposal to withdraw the concession to the banks in regard to the £70 interest. It was a foolish proposal in the first place. I believe, from what I have heard over the past four or five weeks, that considerable amounts of money left the State in the weeks following the Minister's announcement in his budget statement. The Minister was very wise to withdraw it. He should never have thought of it.

He was courageous enough to withdraw it.

I appreciate that. Nevertheless, I repeat that the Minister should not have thought of it. Whether we like it or not, what we need here, is capital. We do not want to drive capital out of the country.

I welcome the provisions in section 13 relating to the dividends payable by mining companies which have a concession already. We all welcome section 18 which ensures that any payments which may be made to children suffering from thalidomide will be tax free.

I also welcome sections 23 and 28 which cover business expenses and the use of transport in firms. This is one of the things that we need here. One of the factors which tends to generate resentment in our society is the thought—whatever the facts might be —that business people of a certain kind can get away with it when you and I who are taxpayers cannot. I should like the Minister to define who will decide what is "necessarily incurred" in relation to expenses. We would all probably have our own definitions of that. Deputy Colley mentioned the danger of this leading to considerable correspondence. Perhaps the Minister could spell this out. It is a question that should be reasonably easily resolved between the relevant inspector of taxes and the companies concerned.

The ceiling of £2,500 on cars is a fairly reasonable one. A provision of this kind has been in operation in Britain for some years past. Again it is a matter that affects the public when they see people using what they believe to be company cars which have cost a great deal more than £2,500. From an economic point of view businesses that need transport should be able to provide that transport but, on the other hand, they should not go in for luxury at the expense of the taxpayer.

I welcome also the provision in relation to patent inventions and I welcome also section 38 which is an effort to close a loophole in regard to takeovers of companies that have had severe losses.

In regard to Part III—Death Duties—I am not sure that I can go all the way with the Minister in his remarks in his budget statement on the abolition of death duties. He has spoken of introducing a tax on property in place of a tax on estates because of the evasion by the device of a five years transfer of property. I certainly do not go against a tax on very sizeable properties but I just wonder what effects would stem from the idea that the Minister has in mind of taxing property or what he describes as wealth, particularly if it includes Irish industrial securities or Government securities because the experience elsewhere is that such a tax has caused people to spend their money and anything of that nature would tend to have the undesirable effect of slowing down the economy.

While I welcome the improvement in section 52 in the scale of estate duties I would hark back to something that I have referred to before, that the real injustice in estate duties is not in the ceiling that may be set for the exemption limit but in the fact that the percentage rates are at the higher scale when the estate comes outside the exemption rate. If the Minister is really serious in his idea of abolishing estate duties it is with the upper percentage that he should start by gradual reduction. I accept that socially it is desirable that the ceiling on estates should be raised but one is constantly coming up against the situation where, if the estate goes above £32,000 or £33,000, the level of duty suddenly shoots from zero to whatever the percentage is on the whole of the estate. This is socially wrong and unjust, socially wrong in the sense that if it involves a small industry or business of any kind, it can have a most serious effect.

I do not find in this Bill any additional encouragement to save. Such encouragement is needed in the society that we have. The level of spending of ordinary income by a large section of our community is far too high. The Minister should think along these lines. We have an imbalance in our society. Quite recently the Minister for Local Government put up another £2 million in order to try to get people to pay rents and has not yet succeeded. The position, as I understand it, in regard to local authority housing now is that the taxpayer is paying £15 million and those renting will be paying about £8½ million. I do not think that is a healthy thing in any society.

The concession in question was not made just in order to get people to pay rents.

I appreciate that. The emphasis should be on encouraging investment in the first place and, secondly, on the saving of earned income in order to buy a house.

The tenant purchase scheme does help in that way.

The more it does the better but I am sure the Deputy will appreciate the feelings of very many people who are paying high rates and taxes when they read of the level of subsidisation of local authority houses.

The underprivileged sections require it and the better-off in our society should contribute.

I would not altogether dispute that but it is not the better-off who are paying to that extent.

I do not want to go back unduly on what was covered in the budget but the value-added tax situation, as Deputy Fitzpatrick explained, is going to cause endless complications. The change in the system, having decided on one system, was something that should have been avoided, but as the Government promised to remove this tax from food and at the same time did not indicate that there was to be an increase in the tax throughout a very wide area, they should have arrived at something simpler than the increases involved here, 5.26 to 6.75 per cent and 16.37 to 19.50 per cent and so on. To those engaged in business and trade, it is rather depressing to find that right across a very wide area value-added tax has been increased. When one turns to section 92 and tries to read through all the pages relating to increases in taxes on everything, from motor bicycles right up, it becomes a bit depressing and it is difficult to find any area in which the Minister has not increased taxes. In the case of motor cycles, we have an increase from £9.50 to £12 on the higher level and from £1.50 to £2 on the lower level. There are very many people nowadays in our changing society who need these for transport to work, or as students going to lectures, and again one finds that prices are increasing for ordinary people.

The Minister has increased the take, so to speak, in so many areas that I feel that overall the budget is something in the nature of a record for increases in taxes throughout such a wide area and on so many items. It leaves out of consideration a reasonable approach to the principle of earned income although our economy depends on our energy and enterprise, and it creates a record in the form of a deliberate deficit of £40 million for expenditure which is not on capital goods but rather on consumer expenditure. While this Finance Bill contains some sections which can be approved, it is to me a pretty depressing document. I hope it is not going to lead to considerably higher inflation, with all the attendant consequences.

This budget is aimed at stimulating our economy and this is being done by a rise of £130 million in current expenditure and £60 million capital expenditure, a combined rise of over 20 per cent. This is intended to raise the employment content and I have no doubt that this it will do. The overall effect of the budget on this Bill is to bring the less well-off in our society up to subsistence level. The previous Government, unfortunately, showed very little concern for this section. The last speaker mentioned local authority housing and its subsidisation. This is very important and I may add that as a result of planning, the imbalance in the overall social structure in our urban areas is wrong and tends to create a wrong type of society. Anything that we can do to alleviate the problems in local authority areas should be done and this is being done by the Minister for Local Government by his announcement last week.

With regard to value-added tax, we have a very big concession which will be a great help to our economy because what we are concerned about in this Government is the improvement in the quality of life, as the Minister said. It is not to improve the quality of life for the few, to make the rich richer, but to bring up the less well-off to ensure that their lot is improved. The concern for the upper middle class on the Opposition benches does not surprise me because they governed for the upper middle class. We have now come into Government and it is our policy to govern for all the people.

I hope the Deputy can demonstrate that. I do not see it in the Finance Bill.

It may not be printed there but it is to happen from 1st July when our social welfare recipients are to get increases. The family man, the backbone of our society, is to get a big increase to ensure that he can give his family what they are entitled to. Whether section 3 or section 4 is quoted, the facts are the same: our budget ensured that the family man is looked after.

The Government have made provision to curb tax evasion. We are ensuring that the burden will not fall on the regular few every year. When people earn money and when the Government tax them, they have an obligation to pay that tax. It is regrettable that certain sanctions must be imposed but they are necessary to ensure that people do not evade their tax obligations.

In the Finance Bill there is provision to change the tax date from 1st to 3rd September. In the last few weeks we have seen the Government's intentions in regard to this matter. I do not know why the Opposition have criticised the removel of VAT from food. We have stabilised prices and we will see the real effect when VAT is removed. This is an indication of the real concern of the Government that when national wage agreements are negotiated the negotiations are carried our on the basis of a real wage increase.

In the last number of years we have had rapidly increasing prices and no attempt has been made to regulate them. It has taken the Government three months to bring in these measures, to make sure that the value of the £ is protected as far as lies in our power; in this connection there are outside circumstances that must be taken into account. We did not come into office to govern for the 5 per cent as did the previous Government; we came in to govern for all the people. Today at Question Time the Minister for Labour spoke about employer and worker participation. This is typical of the approach of the Government, to have a just society where social barriers are broken down.

The people spoke in the Presidential election.

This budget is only a start for the just society——

The Seanad selection by the Taoiseach proved that.

The Seanad selection proved a lot of things—it was across the board. I am happy with the kind of opposition the Finance Bill is meeting—it is meeting no opposition. The Opposition are in favour of it and I am glad about that. Naturally they have to put on a charade, they have to put up a pretence, but we know it is only a pretence. We look forward to this Government being in office for years and producing this kind of budget in order that we may lift up the less well-off section to a decent living standard of which they were deprived by the last Government.

It is obvious from the remarks of the last speaker that he cannot back up his case with facts and figures. The Opposition have provided speakers this afternoon at the rate of four to one and I cannot understand how Deputy O'Brien can say we are accepting this budget in toto.

Previous speakers have not dealt with a number of items which affect particularly the rural community and I should like to comment on these matters. In the budget the Minister for Finance increased road tax on certain types of motor vehicles from 50p to £50. The people affected are obliged to buy diesel which they previously bought at 8p per gallon but now they pay 32p per gallon. The people considerably affected by this high rate of tax are contractors who are engaged in bringing milk to creameries for local farmers. In my part of the country these contractors had an arrangement with farmers to take in milk at 1.75p per gallon but when the increases the Minister has imposed are taken into account they will be obliged to raise the haulage rates by five or six times the amount agreed with local farmers.

It is difficult to understand how the Minister could be advised by anyone to impose this type of taxation which is hitting not only those people engaged in this type of work but the farming community also. The latter are faced now with two alternatives— either to pay the increased rate which the hauliers must ask for or to go back to a system whereby they will use their own cars as traders to deliver milk each day to the creameries. A third option open to them would be to revert to the use of the tractors which they used before the cutaway truck was brought into operation by contractors for the purpose of taking milk to creameries. There is now much emphasis on standards but if we go back to systems that were used in the past the result will be that much more time will be involved in the collection of milk and the quality of milk will be of a much lower standard that at present. Perhaps this is what Deputy O'Brien likes to refer to as making the rich richer but, in fact, what it will mean is that a number of small farmers who are engaged in this type of work as a sideline will find themselves unemployed. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in this regard and to endeavour to modify this very severe tax.

Regarding income tax there is no relief whatever except in the case of a married woman. We have now reached the point where the middle income group are paying for everything while they are the group that cannot benefit in any way. For example, a man earning a salary of more than £2,000 would not qualify for a Local Government loan in respect of the building of a house. Even if his basic salary is less than £2,000 but is brought beyond that mark as a result of overtime earnings, he is disqualified from eligibility for such loans.

I wonder if it is correct at all to say that a person earning between £2,000 and £3,000 a year is in the middle income group. At any rate, such a person is not eligible for health services or any of the other benefits that apply to other sections of the community.

Regarding value-added tax, I cannot see what the Government expect to gain by changing the present system. Certainly, it will not result in any extra revenue and neither will it result in any saving to the consumer because already he is paying much higher prices for food than he paid six months ago. The prices which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has decided on in respect of some commodities are not at all realistic because some small traders down the country tell me that they cannot even buy the commodities at the prices fixed by the Minister. How, then, can they be expected to conform to the prices laid down? Therefore, the proposed changes will not help the consumer who is the person they are supposed to help.

Much has been said in relation to the increases in social welfare payments but we all know how little one can purchase today for £1. Looking at a shopping bill recently I noticed that it cost 98p for 1lb each of rashers, sausages and butter. In considering the increase given to social welfare recipients, we must take into account the purchasing power of the £1. If we do this, we see that the increases of ten shillings which were given ten years ago were, comparatively speaking, greater than the £1 increase that we hear so much about today.

The Deputy will appreciate that on this Bill we are dealing with taxation measures.

That is the question that the Deputy is dealing with. He is bringing Fine Gael back to reality.

The increased taxation will have a crippling effect on that group of people who are asked to pay all the time. The small grocer, for instance, has a very hard time in trying to keep his books in order so as to comply with the requirements of the VAT system. He is not in a position to employ staff to do that work for him but his task is being complicated further by the proposed changes. He cannot know from day to day where he stands. The whole business is very confusing to everybody concerned. Even the tax people are not sure of where they stand in relation to VAT.

Again, to refer to a specific case in the west of Ireland, there is a small industry in which 20 men are engaged on coffin making. This industry will now have to meet VAT on sales at the rate of 16.37 per cent at a time when they are in competition with people who import what are known as coffin sets. These coffin sets can be sold to people engaged in the business at a rate of only 5.6 per cent value-added tax. This small industry must face competition in the first instance from large suppliers and now they have to face this added burden of trying to compete with people who can put their commodity on the market 10 per cent cheaper. It means that there is only one avenue open to them and that is to close down and there are 20 or 25 men in a rural area out of work. These are the complications of the set-up which the country is facing with regard to the new measures that have been introduced.

If you get a do-it-yourself coffin kit and make your own coffin it is tax free.

(Interruptions.)
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

There is just one other point which I should like the Minister to clarify and that is in relation to VAT for farmers and fishermen. I do not think it has been explained very clearly and I would ask the Minister to explain exactly what is meant.

I do not think there are any benefits in this Bill about which the Government can boast. With all the taxes and all the extra funds which were available to them as a result of our entry to the EEC it should have been possible for them to do a much better job.

This Bill imposes increased taxes, particularly VAT, on the weaker sections of the community. In the debate on the budget we dealt with the taxes that would be levied and where they would strike hardest. The zero rating for food and oral medicines has been acclaimed by members of the Government parties but there has been no comment from them on the severe, vicious increases on a variety of items. The items on which VAT has been increased include tobacco, petrol, clothing, footwear, books and newspapers, non-oral medicines, soft drinks, sweets, building materials, laundry services and a variety of other services. Surely footwear is one commodity that is used by old and young alike? The increase in tax on footwear and clothing must increase substantially the outgoings of the average or large family. There is to be an increase in VAT on furniture, cleaning materials, furnishings, kitchen equipment, kitchen ware and hardware. Some of these items were sneered at by members of the Government parties. One would think that the average householder did not purchase or would not purchase in the future cleaning materials, kitchen equipment or hardware.

The Deputy appreciates that on the Finance Bill there is not the same latitude as on a budget debate and details should be left over to the Committee Stage.

It concerns it though.

The Chair understands what it concerns but the Chair is laying down what is within the scope of the discussion.

I am merely pointing out that the savage increases in taxation are striking the weaker sections of the community, mainly the large families, and that the Government have failed to indicate that there are two sides to this story. We have yet to see the consequences of this removal and if they will meet with the desire of the Minister. In his brief the Minister indicated that he aims to make a new and better Ireland. There are many references to the credits but it is important to make it clear that there are two sides to this story. There are vicious increases in VAT as well as the reductions.

Reductions have only taken place on a few commodities and there is no elaboration on the items that will be affected. We are positive that there are other items earmarked which will affect the large families in no small measure. The concessions that are given to other sections by the imposition of other taxation are far outweighed by the increases that will take place on other items, particularly fuel, clothing and footwear.

Fuel covers a variety of items and, no doubt, a large section of the community will suffer as a result of the increase. Fuel covers such matters as electricity, coal, turf and gas. One can see that the Finance Bill, despite all the efforts that have been made to project it as a fine piece of legislation that will only bring relief, will bring hardship. It is necessary, and desirable, that these hardship points should be highlighted.

The dancers were untouched in this Finance Bill. They are quite happy that there will be no increase in the tax charged on dancing but the housewife, and the large family, will have to pay through the nose for the essentials of life. Clothing, fuel and footwear are, in my book, essentials although they may not be so in the view of the members of the Government who indicated that essentials would be given a zero rating. However, the zero rating only applies to a few items but the increases apply to a substantial number.

We heard a lot about price stability but I read in the paper of increase after increase in the variety of items which are necessary for families.

The Chair has already informed the Deputy of what is within the scope of the discussion on the Finance Bill; it is taxation.

The Deputy is covering taxation.

Does the Deputy wish to challenge the ruling of the Chair?

I do not, but I feel that Deputy Dowling was covering taxation.

The scope of the discussion on a Finance Bill is well settled in this House by tradition.

Surely the imposition of tax to offset tax on another score is valid in a discussion on taxation.

A discussion on taxation is relevant, but already the Chair has reminded the Deputy that if he wishes to go into detail he must reserve his remarks for the Committee Stage of the Bill.

It is the increases in taxation that I wish to deal with. There is an increase of 28 per cent in one section, from 5.26 to 6.75. This is a substantial increase that the weaker section of the community will have to meet for the essentials of life. It is important that when we speak of aiding the weaker sections we take every factor into consideration. The increase in VAT from 5.26 to 6.75, which is an increase of 28.23 per cent, is very substantial. The sooner the better that the Government Party understand what is meant by the essentials of life, and design their budgets and bills accordingly. If they do that they will see that such items as the necessaries of life will not be subjected to an increase in taxation.

Taxation has been applied to a variety of items in the 16.37 rate. This increase of 19.12 per cent brings the rate to 19.50. Again, we see that where the increases take place they are very substantial, and vicious, and strike at the section of the community that the Government claim the budget is assisting. We have the whole situation negatived by these substantial increases. It is only when VAT will be applied in the new form that we will be able to measure the extent of the increases and the hardships caused by them.

The 30.26 rate has been increased by 21.44 per cent to 36.75. There are increases of from 20 per cent to 30 per cent on the commodities involved. The public should understand that the removal of VAT from some items means that there will be substantial increases on other items which are necessaries of life. The dancers will be free of any increases, but the weaker sections who have not time to dance and are merely concerned with family life, will have to pay for the dancers.

The increase in VAT from 30.26 to 36.75 brings with it a variety of hardships and a variety of increases. The price of cars and motor cycles will increase and this will lead to an increase in the cost of transportation. The increase in the price of petrol, of road tax and of driving licences, will also lead to an increase in transportation costs. These costs, which are rising daily, also strike at the weaker sections of the community.

Increases in transportation hit, in particular, the ordinary worker who must travel long distances to and from his place of employment. I view this as an effort to push him off the road and this Finance Bill will certainly achieve that objective. With the rise in the cost of the upkeep of cars and the cost of purchasing cars it will be very difficult for a person who has to commute to and from his place of employment. With the development of housing estates on the perimeter of the cities more people will have to commute many miles to and from work. We will find the number of cars on the road dwindling. This may assist the Government because it will push the people off the roads. It will also deprive the people of something that has become a necessity in a great many cases.

These are vicious increases. Road tax and driving licences are affected and that means that a very large section of our community will have to meet an additional burden by way of taxation. Postal charges and telephone calls are increased. These increases will put an extra burden on the business community and that increased burden will in due course be passed on to the consumer. Relief is given to one section of the community and, at the same time, substantial additional burdens by way of taxation are imposed.

A rather peculiar situation has developed here on the Government benches. As was pointed out by an earlier speaker, the Government had at their disposal £30 million in EEC funds for the purpose of giving concessions to the weaker sections of our community. Of course, the Labour Party vigorously opposed our entry into the EEC, our entry into an organisation which made it possible to have finances available to give these concessions.

The Deputy is long enough in the House to know that the budget debate and the debate on the Finance Bill are two different things.

There is not a great deal of difference. It is fair to say food prices will go up as a result of the budget. So will other costs notwithstanding that the Deputies on the Government benches argue that the removal of VAT will be the salvation of the nation. But the increases in taxation will in turn mean increases in the price of foodstuffs and the other items I have mentioned. There is a variety of items to which increased taxation will be applied as a result of alterations in the value-added tax. The Minister should have a re-think especially in relation to medical appliances.

The Deputy may not proceed on that line. The Chair has allowed the Deputy to go a certain distance but the Chair will not allow the Deputy to go any further.

The budget has been vicious in relation to disabled persons.

We are not discussing the budget. We are discussing the Finance Bill.

The tax increases are vicious where the disabled are concerned. These will now have to pay more for artificial limbs, teeth, hearing aids and other items. We must make it known that the Government have deliberately increased the cost of items which are necessaries for certain sections of our community. The increase will be in the region of 21 to 22 per cent. No doubt Deputies on the benches over there may laugh at the fact that there have been increases in taxation on the disabled. We hear Ministers talking of the necessity to ensure everything possible is done to assist this particular section but, when it comes to the Finance Bill, the picture is painted differently. Vicious taxation is applied which will no doubt result in depriving people of appliances essential to them in their ordinary day-to-day lives. It is important the people and the disabled should know what the situation is.

Again, additional taxation is imposed on the farming community. The equipment the farmer uses will cost more and the increase will naturally be passed on by the farmer and ultimately the consumer will have to pay more. In the daily papers we have read criticisms of many of the taxes outlined in this Finance Bill. It saddens me to see an allegedly enlightened Government taxing the disabled. The necessities of life are many and varied. They do not stop at the food table. Footwear and clothing are necessaries. This Bill will ensure that many children may well have to go barefoot in the near future because of value-added tax. The price of children's clothes will increase.

They will be nude.

Fine Gael Deputies may well laugh at the fact that there will be an increase in the price of footwear and clothing. The Deputy will not be barefoot. He will have plenty of clothes. He will not worry about the increases of from 20 per cent to 28 per cent applied in VAT to these essentials. He will not be concerned about the disabled who have to meet substantial increases in prices. It may be very funny from the Fine Gael point of view that these taxes are being applied. The disabled person in a wheelchair and the disabled person who needs appliances will not think it funny. One would have thought that if value-added tax were to be removed from some items, it would have been removed from these items.

It is difficult to understand the statements of Ministers who spoke long and loudly about what this section of the people should be given. Now that the Government need money they strike at a section who are unable to defend themselves. Nobody in this House is disabled to any great degree so this section cannot make their voices heard. I should like to speak on their behalf to show the country that the provisions in the Finance Bill and in the budget will probably wreck the lives of many people and make life more difficult for parents with large families and for the disabled. Because of the increases in the road tax, in the price of cars, in the price of driving licences and in the price of petrol many of the workers who use a car to travel to and from work will probably have to give up their cars. Perhaps the Government are trying to force people to use public transport, the cost of which will soar again as soon as they get the cars off the road. Recently a Minister decided to abandon an increase——

The Deputy must not go into details like that. He has already been warned by the Chair about this matter. As the Deputy is well aware, what is involved in the Finance Bill is taxation.

I will not detain the House very long but I want to say——

The Chair is not picking on the Deputy but endeavouring to keep the discussion on this Stage of the Bill away from details which can be dealt with on Committee Stage.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle can understand my feelings for the weaker sections of the community, the disabled, and the housewives with large families, who will be faced with substantial increases in prices as a result of the vicious increases in value-added tax in this Finance Bill. If they are still there next year I hope they will have learned some lessons from the budget this year. When the public see how the taxes are being applied and who is being affected, they will show the Government what they think of their roundabout tactics in removing taxes and applying taxes, with higher taxes being applied than those which are being removed.

This Government will go down as the Government who had nothing to say.

We are too busy doing things.

Or maybe they do not want the record quoted at them in years to come. They must be punch drunk from the last time and that is why they are afraid to speak and go on the record. It appears to me that the Minister for Finance did not know what he was doing when he introduced this budget. This is borne out by the fact that he announced a tax exemption applicable to interest up to £70 on deposits with certain institutions and then went back on it. For this he was told he had great courage. Subsequently it was obvious that he had no alternative but to go back on it. He did not know what he was doing. The Minister said:

In section 57, which provides for the exclusion from an estate for estate duty purposes of the first £7,500 of superannuation death benefits—at present exempt only where the total amount payable does not exceed £7,500—there is a further improvement not mentioned in the budget...

He did not know the answers to any questions we asked in relation to children's allowances. He also said:

The social welfare concessions in the budget have made possible a striking betterment in the quality of life of the many thousands of people in this country who are dependent on social welfare benefits to sustain their standard of living...

This is untrue. The facts are that the people have been hit by an increase in the cost of foodstuffs amounting to just over five per cent since this Government came into power—and they were to stop all that. The increase on materials, other than foodstuffs, is somewhere in the region of 4 per cent, plus the increase when the extra VAT is introduced on 3rd September. As I said at the time, this budget is a confidence trick and that is borne out by this Bill.

The Minister again refers to what he calls a modest increase of £2.6 million when levying VAT on non-food items. I asked him the week before last how much income tax per head of the population was paid last year and the estimated increase for this year. The answer was that a net increase of £11 per head of the population would be levied. Many newspaper commentators asked more realistically what was the actual figure for the working population, since this figure which has increased from £235 per head of the population to £265 this year, affects every man, woman and child. If one were to get the figure for the working population this figure would be substantially greater. When I put a question down to the Minister asking him what the increase in taxation would be for the working population the figure was not available. We can well imagine what it is. In any case, this represents a 15 per cent increase in taxation. A Government who are urging restraint in wage demands et cetera, are increasing direct taxation by this amount.

Another part of the confidence trick which they played on the people is in relation to those whose net income exceeds £2,500. These people have to repay any increase in children's allowance. It was not stated at the time but it emerged subsequently that while repayments on mortgages or loans would be taken into account for income tax purposes the allowance given for a man and wife would not be taken into consideration. In order to purchase this year the equivalent amount one could purchase last year for £2,500 one would need £2,750. Inflation has made that kind of difference. The people are being hit in a year when they should not have been hit. There was £30 million from agricultural subsidies for distribution in social welfare. All the parties were committed to spending that £30 million on social welfare although they differed as to the method of distribution. Despite that, increased taxation was levied.

One thing that worries me is that when the value-added tax comes off food and goes on to non-food items, packaging will be affected. Most of the foodstuffs purchased in the shops today are packaged. I do not know how many Deputies are aware of the fact that in many cases the cheapest part of a package is the contents. There may be a decrease in the price of food by the removal of VAT from food but there will be an increase in the existing rate on the packaging.

Reading the Minister's speech introducing the Second Reading one is struck by the attempt to lull people into a sense of being well-off. The Minister told us that section 2 increases the maximum earned income relief in respect of a wife's earnings from £74 to £104. She is no better off on that than she was last year when the relief was £74 because inflation has taken care of the difference. The increase merely maintains the status quo. Deputy Lemass is the authority on this. If I am correct, it is still more profitable to live in sin than to be married.

That is if she works.

Providing she works. The Government are assuring the women of Ireland that they are entitled to equal treatment and at the same time they give an increase of £30 in the earned income relief in respect of a wife's earnings, which means absolutely nothing.

It is something they did not get before.

They got something before also.

They did not get an increase of £30.

Could the Deputy tell me why it means nothing?

It is given as an increase. In fact, it amounts to nothing.

Because of the various increases in the cost of living.

Inflation, the Deputy means?

Inflation.

So, inflation would affect that by some peculiar Fianna Fáil logic but inflation would not affect the £30 million that we were supposed to have.

The Minister for Finance was talking about it for years but he did not get into the papers until he got into office.

I am sure we would love to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary.

You will.

Good. I am delighted to hear that at last we are going to get some Member from the Government side of the House to say something.

You have heard from us and will again.

We are not going to hear from you again? Enough is enough? The Minister said:

Part V of the Bill puts into legislative form the value-added tax budget proposals the net effect of which will reduce the consumer price index by 0.5 percentage points...

I do not agree with that at all. I think the consumer price index will indicate that the cost of living has gone up even more.

The problem of packaging must be watched very carefully by the Minister for Finance and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce because packaging will suffer a big increase of VAT.

In relation to section 78 the Minister said:

... in view of the removal of food from the tax, firms who provide their own catering for staff canteens would have a substantial advantage over commercial caterers providing similar facilities on contract, because the contract would suffer tax at the rate of 6.75 per cent, whereas the firm providing its own catering would escape tax completely on both the food and serving costs. I should mention, however, that, under section 86, an exemption will apply to catering services provided for patients in hospitals and pupils in schools.

I imgine the word "only" is missing from there. In other words, firms who provide canteens in their factories so that their workers will get a cheap meal, or a cheaper meal—and these canteens are very often subsidised by the firms concerned—will find that they have to pay a tax on the service. The excuse will be given that otherwise catering firms would be faced with unfair competition.

I hope I am wrong in this matter. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Minister to comment on this point. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is as concerned about the working man as anyone on this side of the House and that he would not like to see the worker having to pay a service charge of 6.75 per cent for his canteen meal.

There has been an improvement with regard to the allowance for estate duty purposes. The situation could arise that a man could own his house although he might not have any money. The rate of inflation has been such that a house bought for £6,000 or £8,000 a few years ago could be worth nowadays in the region of £20,000, and in a few years time its value could be more. If the owner of such a property dies and has no liquid assets, his wife could be forced to sell the house in order to pay the estate duty. It would be desirable if a system could be devised whereby half the value of the house would be assessed for estate duty purposes. The Revenue Commissioners might take account of the fact that the family live in the house, that the late owner was without liquid assets, and assess the house at half its value for the purpose of estate duty. I know that this problem can be overcome by asking a solicitor to put the house in the name of the wife also so that half of it belongs to her, but I think the suggestion I have made should be considered. I would be interested to learn if it is possible to do this.

Does the Deputy realise that the widows' and the dependents allowances would bring it up to approximately £30,000?

I am glad to hear that because frequently relatives have had to sell the house when the owner died in order to pay the estate duty. With regard to the new taxation laws, I do not think they will act as a stimulus to the economy. At the end of the year we will see if improvements have taken place. I hope there will be improvements but I do not think the Bill will act as an incentive. There is a tremendous disappointment among the people about the budget; they were told about the wonderful provisions but when they study all the figures and the facts their disappointment is great and they feel cheated. The Government had a good start because they came into office when we were not "bust"—to use the words of James Dillon.

Just overdrawn.

Financially, the country was in good shape. I hope that in subsequent years the Government will have an opportunity of improving social welfare benefits, that they will not say that things have gone sour on them and they cannot do certain things. We admit this is a budget which we could have introduced although we maintain we would have done so without any increase in taxation. We do not think that in a time of inflation it is necessarily a desirable thing to increase taxes.

There is no doubt that taxes have been increased; they have gone up this year from £235 per head of the population to £265 per head of population— an £11 increase per head. We do not know what is the figure for the working population. I hope the Government will bear in mind that the sections paying most in this country are the lower middle and middle income groups. We should not confuse these groups with class—a mistake made by many people is that they mean middleclass. We should be thankful we have a classless society here; many people who came from humble beginnings are doing very well and long may this continue.

The lower middle and middle income groups are being hit by taxation on cars and petrol. If there is another increase in the price of petrol I hope the Minister for Finance will implement the suggestion he made when in Opposition, that the Government remit part of the taxation to offset the increase. We know there are applications at the moment before the Minister for Industry and Commerce for an increase in the price of petrol. It would be desirable if the Minister for Finance implemented his own suggestion made in 1971 in connection with this matter.

I had hoped not to contribute to the debate on this Bill until next week because, although I spent some hours trying to examine its implications, I am afraid there is much more in it than appears at first sight. When the Minister decided to have a £40 million deficit, obviously he was taking a chance not only on the budget but with the economy generally. He was gambling on greater buoyancy and on many other things that may not happen. Should we find ourselves in a situation where there is no national agreement in the autumn, if the Bill we discussed here yesterday falls down and if we have a bank strike, if the Irish Congress of Trade Unions lose confidence in the people whom they consider to be their representatives in this House, if there is a break up of the economic development and in the question of pay increases within the next 12 months, that chance will not come off. I expect that the Minister was encouraged in his decisions as a result of the good government that preceded him. The previous Administration left the Minister £27.8 million better off than was forecast this time last year. There was a further saving of £31 million in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as a result of our membership of the EEC. Despite the fact that no Government in the history of this State have ever taken office with an amount in pocket of £58 million, £59 million or £60 million——

Make it £70 million, for laughs.

Would the Minister like to read his own Estimates? There is a saving of £31 million in respect of agriculture. I have it here even on——

The back of cigarette packet.

The Confederation of Irish Industry confirm that as do the ICTU.

Confirm what?

That there is a saving of £27.8 million.

The Deputy is being so inaccurate that it does not matter whether the amount is £27 million or some other figure.

I reaffirm that the income to the previous Government was increased over and above the Estimate presented here 12 months ago by £27.8 million. Despite all these advantages we have had a budget——

Let me remind the Deputy that the budget has been debated already in this House in great detail and that we are now dealing with the Finance Bill and, in accordance with the tradition of the House, the Chair, cannot allow the same scope on a Finance Bill as is allowed during a debate on a budget. The Chair would wish the Deputy to confine his remarks to the Finance Bill as such.

I was interrupted, Sir, but I assure you that all my remarks will be related directly to the Finance Bill although you might find that some of them will be out of order.

He is giving the Chair due notice.

Having made it clear that there was much scope available to the Government to facilitate them in introducing this Bill and without going into the early sections, it seems that they have been out of office for so long, perhaps because of our PR system, that they could not be aware of how best to use the moneys available to them. When this Government took office the rate of expansion in the economy of the country was going forward at such a great momentum that it had to continue at that rate for some months. Perhaps, now, those months are up and we will have to find out what the Government have to offer. Maybe in framing the Bill, the Minister for Finance was looking forward hopefully to a repetition of last year's situation when taxes brought in a sum of £36.7 million more than the Minister forecast the previous year.

Is the Deputy criticising the former Minister for overtaxation?

No, he is criticising the present Minister.

He is talking about last year.

We were better than we even pretended.

The expenditure was only exceeded by £12.3 million. For the sake of the people of this country I hope sincerely that the Minister's forecasts are realised. It would be a great tragedy if we were to fall back into the same sort of situations as those of 1948 and 1954.

It seems to me that the Deputy is making a speech that would be more appropriate to a budget debate.

The budget appears to me to be a gambler's budget, a budget in which the Government have taken a chance on certain events happening during the next year but without any guarantee that such events will occur. Yesterday we discussed the question of the pay of bank officials. Perhaps we have taken a gamble on that which will not come off.

Would the Deputy like to bet on that?

From research I have done it seems to me that the present Government are doing exactly what the Government of 1948 to 1951 did.

The Chair would ask the Deputy to relate his remarks to the Finance Bill.

We must compare this Bill with the Finance Bill of 1948.

It seems to the Chair that the Deputy is making a general speech that would be more appropriate to a budget debate.

That debate was curtailed. I could not get in on it.

There was no curtailment of the budget debate to my knowledge.

I offered to contribute to the budget debate. I understood that the Whips agreed on a curtailment. In the Finance Bills of 1948 and 1951 there were certain similarities with the Bill that is now before us. These similarities are apparent to anyone who has been involved in politics. It seems that the present Bill was designed originally for the purpose of trying to give credibility to the new Government, to bring about the greatest national support possible for this Government. I should like to say to the men who are sitting over there on the Front Bench at the moment that the Bill may have been designed for the purpose of having a snap election in the autumn so as to get rid of those two gentlemen. I know that the media have been making excuses for this Government before they even act on anything. The Government were so confident of winning the Presidential election in which the Labour Party were supporting Fine Gael——

The Deputy is straying very far from the matter under discussion.

The result of the Presidential election was an indication of what the people think of this Government.

We ought not refer to matters appertaining to the Presidency in this House.

There will not be another Presidential election for 14 years.

The Chair would prefer if the Deputy would relate his remarks to the Finance Bill.

I have been a Member of this House since 1956. This is not my first time to serve in Opposition. Indeed, I first took an active interest in politics as long ago as 1948. I remember exactly what happened then and what sort of Finance Bill was introduced in that year.

We are discussing the Finance Bill of 1973.

Surely, the Finance Bill of 1948 is relevant. Admittedly, the Coalition Government of that time had a certain difficulty because it was then sacrosanct to have a balanced budget but now there is a gamble involving £40 million to £50 million. Despite the fact that the Coalition Government of 1948 introduced a Finance Bill that was similar in many respects to the Bill now before us and that they tried to gain popularity, they also tried to cut out any worthwhile scheme that the previous Fianna Fáil administration had put in. Thank God in the 1950's they had more sense but they did exactly as they are doing now, introducing policies and programmes. Indeed we have millions of pounds committed already before the Finance Bill is even passed, millions of pounds in promises. It is probably a criticism of the democratic system. Perhaps Fianna Fáil were too long in government. It is certainly true that those boys have been out of government too long because they do not know what it is about.

All we had to do was to reverse what you had done. We could not go wrong.

You did that in 1948. All you are doing now is introducing our legislation. You have not introduced one bit of legislation yourselves except this Bill that is before us now. It is the only one and that was prepared for you before you came in. I can even tell you where the cuts are in it because I know about it. I was in the Department of Finance, and do not forget that.

Some of the promises have been spent. They have been cashed by the old age pensioners.

Deputy Lemass on the Finance Bill, 1973.

The present Government may not realise that the forces that were at work in 1948 and in the 1950's are not dead. They are at work again today.

The Chair is very anxious that the Deputy would relate his remarks to the matter under discussion.

These forces are still at work and the Government must recognise them. Otherwise this Finance Bill cannot have any effect. In 1948 the then Minister for Agriculture, the late Mr. James Dillon, a man for whom I had great respect——

Deputies

His is not the late.

The former Deputy James Dillon. He not only had plans for land reclamation but he was going to put every brick in Connemara into the Atlantic Ocean. Each coalition came up with these ambitious ideas. Everything was going to be great until Mr. McGilligan, a former Minister for Finance——

Surely these matters are quite irrelevant.

Mr. McGilligan found out he had a Bill. On our side of the House it was termed the "McGilligan Axe".

Could we get down to Richie Ryan's Bill, please?

Richie Ryan, I am afraid, is less credible than Mr. McGilligan was. Of all the first Finance Bills I have seen introduced by Coalition Governments this is probably the poorest attempt.

The Deputy said not ten minutes ago that it was Deputy Ryan's predecessor who prepared that Bill.

I said that this is the first bit of legislation the new Government have brought in. Deputy O'Leary yesterday was at pains to explain that the Bill he was introducing was prepared by his predecessor, with one amendment. This is the first thing we can get our teeth into, if the Ceann Comhairle will allow us.

The Deputy spoke of so many things conceived but never delivered. It was incredible.

I am trying to warn the Tánaiste, not the Parliamentary Secretary, that the same forces that were at work in 1948——

What forces?

I suggest the Tánaiste goes and has a chat with Matty Merrigan or Noel Browne, or someone.

They used to call them Reds before.

Alien influences.

I would ask the Deputy again, please, to relate his remarks to the Finance Bill.

The experience we had of Finance Bills from previous coalition governments is that they have been designed to ensure the extension of reclamation of land, the extension of house building, road building and anything at all that would get the new government quick, popular support and give them the reputation of a government that could work. I regret that I see these same tactics again today. If the Labour Party are going to succumb completely to Fine Gael that is their business, it has nothing to do with me, but I see the same tactics. Perhaps we are to have an election in the autumn. We have the quick introduction of measures that have not been fully thought out. Any item put to this House by the Government should be thought out and they should ensure that it will benefit the people as a whole.

When Mr. McGilligan was Minister for Finance balanced budgets were absolutely sacrosanct. Now, we can have a deficit budget. Indeed, I think it was a Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced the first one. The deficit in this Bill is such that it cannot be fiddled with any more. We have gone as far as we possibly can. What happens if there is a national strike, if there is a breakdown in international co-operation, if we cannot export our products? What happens? The Government are in trouble. They cannot do it again next year and the "McGilligan Axe" comes down again. What happened the last time? Who paid the piper? The ordinary worker who lost his job. I saw ordinary workers who had been in jobs for 40 years being put out of work because of the sort of gambler's budget we have before us now. The Minister for Finance pays the piper and he calls the tune. The Minister for Finance has spoken off the cuff a few times here without checking the record. I would warn the Tánaiste that no Minister, particularly a Minister for Finance, should speak off the cuff without checking the record. The Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Education come second and third in that regard. I tabled many questions to find the weaknesses and the biggest weakness in this Government is the Minister for Finance because he is not prepared to check his record. He is prepared to speak off the cuff any time he takes it into his head. Neither you, nor you, will be consulted. He does it when he takes it into his head. I am sorry, I should address the Chair.

The Chair dislikes intervening, but if the Deputy continues to make a wide-ranging speech going back over a considerable period of time and utterly unrelated to the matter under discussion, I shall have to ask him to desist from making any further comments.

Even if you rule me out of order, Sir, I have something else to follow up. I believe it is relevant to refer to the first Finance Bill introduced by three coalition governments. I will hand credit to the Minister for Local Government in 1948 who set an all-time record in local government housing. I do not think the Fianna Fáil Government were able to catch up on that. At the same time the "McGilligan Axe" fell.

There is nothing appertaining to housing in this Bill.

There is. There is £3.5 million. Indeed, we were promised in The Irish Times of Thursday, 15th February, that there would be £15 million for housing.

The Chair is concerned about the Deputy going into the matter of the housing policy.

I am only mentioning that in a general way as a warning to the Government not to do what their predecessors did in the last Coalition. I am pleading with the Government to check their facts and not to make statements until they are sure of what they are talking about. They are not doing that now and are apparently speaking as individual back-benchers. If my plea has any effect on them I believe I am doing the nation a service.

If one goes back to the Finance Act of 1948 and studies it, and then studies the present Finance Bill, one will see that all the great promises, which were not thought out, cannot be financed. Then we will see this great image, this great project, starting to crumble. What will happen? The Government will break up and they will go to the country to try to salvage any support they have left. Then, naturally, it will be left to Fianna Fáil to clean up the mess.

The latest example of what I mean is the concession given by the Minister for Local Government in an effort to try to settle the very serious dispute in relation to differential rents.

That is completely out of order. The Deputy cannot refer to that matter at all. It is more appropriate to the Estimate for Local Government which will be introduced in this House shortly.

I should like to make a general remark. It is obvious that the Minister for Local Government has not checked out what it is going to cost. He has given a figure, and I know, from the checks I made, that he knows less about what it is going to cost than any commissioner he has appointed to the Dublin Corporation.

We are faced again with another nice, rosy first Coalition Government Finance Bill. It is probably the worst first Coalition Finance Bill we have ever seen. I know that because I have been at this thing since 1948.

It seems like that.

I have served in Opposition too, which is more than Deputy Cluskey has done.

How long will you remain in Opposition?

I am sorry Deputy Cluskey was not here when we were in Opposition.

I believe the Deputy will be in Opposition for a long time to come.

That depends on the Government's revision of the constituencies.

Back to the Finance Bill, 1973, please.

I would describe this Bill as the Bill of a gambler. That accusation was made against my father when he was a Minister by James Dillon. It is absolutely a gambler's budget, and a gambler's Finance Bill, and if certain things happen it will work. It is only being introduced with a gambler's instinct, no doubt the Taoiseach gave his approval because I know he is keen on that sort of thing, because of the great growth in taxation that took place as a result of the impetus given by the previous administration.

Since this Bill was introduced we have had promises, not only about differential rents, but promises across the board which could involve millions of pounds of expenditure. Nobody states where that money is going to come from, they are just promises which gives me the suspicion that we may be going to the country again before Christmas, much to the detriment of the Labour Party. Is reference to differential rents completely out of order.

I am very anxious to help the Deputy but he is roaming away from the subject matter on this question altogether. He should get back to the Finance Bill.

It appears to me that the Minister for Local Government is trying to gain short-term personal popularity at the expense of long-term national interest.

I would like to remind the House that we have a commitment from the Government not only to declare a national emergency in relation to housing but in the first year to increase expenditure on housing by £15 million. The increase, however, only amounts to £3.5 million.

We cannot have a debate on housing at this juncture. It does not appertain to taxation. The Estimate for the Department of Local Government is about to come before the House, possibly tomorrow, certainly next week. The Deputy can make a speech appertaining to differential rents and housing during the debate on that Estimate.

Can anyone explain to me how it is that we have a commitment from the Government to spend £15 million on housing and to declare a national emergency but the Bill only provides for £3.5 million?

The Deputy will have a chance of dealing with that matter at the appropriate time.

This is very difficult because surely the whole basis of our political thinking, and programming, is dependant upon the Finance Bill which is the Bill which brings in the money. It is not going to bring in as much as the Government think. When the £15 million which was promised was reduced to £3.5 million the Minister for Local Government gave as his excuse for doing this the fact that plans had not been made. As far as I am aware, the biggest owner of building land in the country is Dublin Corporation and if the city medical officer were to approve of drainage systems such as septic tanks, which are acceptable in every country in the EEC, there would be no difficulty in increasing the building target to what was promised before the election.

The Deputy must know that what he is speaking about now is more appropriate to the Estimate for the Department of Local Government.

I have said it anyway.

The Deputy is continuing to circumvent the advice, and the rulings, of the Chair. If he persists in that I shall have to ask him to sit down.

I spent about five hours preparing this.

I have given the Deputy every latitude. Almost all of what he is saying, and has said, does not relate to the Finance Bill. I would ask the Deputy to forget about whatever brief he has and to get down to the Finance Bill.

I should now like to refer to a copy of The Irish Times of February 15th which carried the following headline: “Coalition Plans Tax On Capital Wealth”. I wonder can Chapter II of this Bill justify the headline? In that Chapter we have “Interpretation,”“Charge of stamp duty,” and “Statement to be charged with stamp duty.” If one goes through all of this section one will find that this pre-election headline was completely unjustified. We had a statement from the Minister for Finance yesterday and a statement from many Ministers about the new Government's intent. The first time that it appeared, The Irish Times again turned around and said that at last they have to hold their own buck— that is, their own legislation. The Minister for Labour came in here and said that that legislation was prepared, with one amendment, by the previous Administration.

Coalition plans, a tax on capital wealth: I listened to all the promises and statements made by the new Government and I got worried about things and I decided to put down a question. I have here a letter signed by the Ceann Comhairle:

I regret that I have to disallow this question as it contains argument—

I do not think it contains argument; I just wanted a "yes" or "no".

The question addressed by you to the Taoiseach regarding action the Government proposes to take other than issuing statements of legislative intent...

That is all we have had—statements of legislative intent, no action.

Again in The Irish Times of 15th February we read that the Coalition parties announced that, if they were elected with a majority, they would abolish the means test. Where is that in this Finance Bill? I cannot see it anywhere. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Cluskey, and I know each other well and he knows that this is not a fulfilment of that commitment. We read of a promise of the total abolition of estate duties. This has not happened in this Bill. This was what we were looking for in this Bill. We had a statement from the Minister for Finance yesterday telling us he was going to do away with surtax and God knows what else. I do not know who will pay the bill.

Then we read in the same paper about the rates on houses and taxes and so on and no mention of castles and office blocks and factory premises. These are going to be reduced by half. On the rates question we were led to believe we would get the devil and all. The rates on my house went up by 1p in the £. They could have gone up more if health charges had not been removed. All these frauds are being put across on the public and, when I take all these frauds into consideration, I can only call the Minister for Finance by the same sobriquet as is applied to a much more illustrious person at the moment and call him "Tricky Dicky". Is that out of order?

Appendages of that kind attached to a Minister are certainly not parliamentary.

The Deputy should not continue in that trend.

It is on the record anyway.

It is a long-playing one.

There is one thing very clear in this Finance Bill. We find that the rich are getting richer and those less rich will be lucky if they are able to hold their own. I have been associated with the Minister for Finance for a long time, since before he won the by-election in Dublin South West. When one thinks of his statement in the last week about sur-tax and when one examines the budget and this Finance Bill before us today one can only come to the conclusion that the Labour Party have been completely absorbed by the right wing thinking of the Fine Gael Party because this Bill, to my mind, confers very little benefit on the lower paid in our community. If sur-tax is abolished, as was announced by the Minister, though it is not in the Bill, who will pay for its abolition? It will be the lower paid worker. It will be part of value-added tax. This is traditional Fine Gael thinking and I hope the Labour Party have not been swallowed up by it completely.

The Minister for Finance has seen fit to announce a basic change in taxation policy. I assume he did not consult his Labour colleagues; he just went out on a limb and announced this basic change in taxation policy in relation to sur-tax. It seems to me the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Education, and others I could name but they are not relevant to this Bill, are going off half cocked, without checking up on their statements and checking out the ultimate result.

The Deputy has repeated these sentiments before. The Deputy is indulging in repetition.

I am trying to relate my remarks to the statement of the Minister for Finance last week. The Minister has come out now and made statements and, before this Bill is passed, he is changing the content of the Bill. Surely that is relevant.

I was pointing out to the Deputy that he was engaging in repetition.

I have got trick-of-the-loops and gimmicks here which you, Sir, ruled out of order before. I do not know whether you are trying to knock me off or what. I have the stuff written down here. I will get back to it. Basic changes planned in our income tax: again this seems to be a hasty commitment. Is that repetition? I do not think so. Not thought out in full. That is not repetition. A gimmick, a trick-of-the-loop directed at courting short-term popularity rather than the long-term welfare of the State.

The Chair heard that expression before from the Deputy.

Yes, but it was in relation to something else. I will go back to The Irish Times of February 15th in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, says that £30 million will be available through membership of the EEC and this money will be used for social purposes. There is, of course, no need to remind the House that this commitment was first made by the Fianna Fáil Party. The Minister for Finance in his financial statement, which I have here, suggested that this was a misleading situation and that this £30 million was not available and, if it is in order, I would refer the House to Vote No. 37, Agriculture, 1972-73, where £86.4 million was allocated for that year and for the year 1973-74 the amount was £59.5 million and, in anyone's language, that is a saving of £31 million. I do not care how you add it up, it must be. It is very difficult for people on this side of the House to analyse out fully. When I was on that side of the House I could ring up and ask: “Could you give me a few notes on this or that?” Now I have to do it all myself. I spent five or six hours reading this Finance Bill and the more I read it the more I was inclined to come back to the description given to the President of the United States—“Tricky Dicky”.

No one has to go further than section 3. When we come to section 3 we can best understand the devious mind of the Minister for Finance. I have just given my wife a rise because I am anticipating one myself. Under section 3, if I earn £2,500 a year plus, there is a direct transfer from my income to my wife by way of children's allowances. I know the Minister. We stood in the same constituency until the last revision. I now represent Ballyfermot, Inchicore, Drimnagh, and so on. Most husbands give children's allowances to their wives. What the Minister has done in section 3 is to take £1 per week from me and give it to my wife. Nothing more and nothing less. My wife is probably delighted. Do you not think that "Tricky Dick" is a good name?

The Deputy should not apply appendages of that kind to any Member of the House.

It is applied to the President of the United States.

The Deputy should leave the President of the United States out of the debate also.

However, I think it is a good title. Section 4 is also peculiar. This is probably the first chance we had of saying something without the Minister for Local Government asking: "What did you do about it in the past 16 years?" I am getting a bit sick of that. The record is getting worn out. To me politics is an evolving situation. A Local Government Bill can be brought in this year which will be outdated next year. You are very strict, Sir.

I have been very kind to the Deputy tonight.

I should like the Minister to explain fully to the House exactly what he means about his amendments to the national taxation code, particularly in relation to sur-tax. This is a very serious matter. I have dealt with it lightly tonight but it is not a matter that should be dealt with lightly. I am very concerned about what the Minister has in mind. I am concerned to know if he has collective Government support for his announcement. I am very concerned to know if this is his only budget for this financial year.

When I decided to speak on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill I had hoped that I could come into the House and listen to speeches made by members of the National Coalition parties. It is a pity that we are getting a walk-over tonight and that only two members of the smaller Government party are in the House tonight. Perhaps at this time of the year, when the ground is hard, we can understand the field being small but a walk-over is something we were not expecting. I intend to confine my remarks to the speech made by the Minister for Finance when he moved the Second Stage of this Bill. The Minister's opening remarks give us a clue to his ideas about this Bill. He said:

This Government aim to make Ireland a new and better land.

By "new" I presume he meant that there would be new thinking by this galaxy of talent which we were told was available and the new Cabinet who would provide an antidote for all ills. We were expecting that and, because it was new, we were to presume that automatically it would be better. The Minister also said that this is one of the prosaic but essential steps he had to take to legalise the measures in his budget. The word "prosaic" to me indicates that the Minister felt it a pity he had to make use of this old vehicle which proved so very cumbersome when he viewed it from this side of the House. I should like the Minister to let us know what is new in it and what is better. The Minister indicated, when he presented his budget, and all the items included in this Finance Bill, that he had three aims in view. He said:

... first of all, its central fiscal action was designed to lift the growth rate appreciably, thereby taking up the slack and underused capacity in the economy and helping to reduce the level of unemployment, which is a serious social and economic problem....

I should like to compliment the civil servant who framed that beautiful sentence. To me it is simply a hackneyed phrase. I hope it will be achieved. More about that anon.

The second aim of the Minister's budget was that it should provide worthwhile improvement in the social welfare sphere. I must admit that it provides some worthwhile improvements but, as already stated, all these improvements were envisaged by our party and announced, not before the general election, but exactly a year ago during a campaign in west Cork. We announced that £30 million would be spent on social welfare improvements and I am glad the Minister has abided by that decision and honoured the promises made by his predecessor. The Minister also said:

... finally, the first stage of the implementation of a comprehensive tax reform programme.

I have looked at the different sections of the Bill and have yet to find evidence of any major or worthwhile tax reforms. The Minister goes on to state how his action will help to stimulate the economy and strengthen the infrastructure and provide a higher level of employment, and forecasts that there will be a rise of £130 million in current expenditure. He has high hopes that during the year our industrial production will increase and domestic consumer investment demand will be expanded. He thinks many beneficial results will accrue to our economy and he ends on the hopeful note that all sectors will benefit from the increased activity which will be generated.

In the Minister's case that is wishful thinking but, for the sake of the people, I sincerely hope the Minister is correct because, as our previous speaker said, he is playing with the economy of the nation and the jobs and the means of livelihood of our people. Since a forgiving electorate forgave the two parties opposite twice before, I do not think they deserve to be duped a third time. I hope for the sake of the people, more so than for the sake of the Government, that his forecast will prove correct.

I note that there are increases in pensions and allowances and we are all glad of that. It should be mentioned that those increases will only do the good they were expected to do if they keep pace with price increases. I saw recently that the £ in May, 1972, was worth only 89.6p. If the rate of inflation increases it is unlikely that the good we had hoped would be done by social welfare increases will accrue to those most in need. The fact that the Minister for Finance was in a position in Government to bring in the budget possibly can be attributed to the fact that his party promised to stop the price rises.

I would remind the Deputy that we are dealing with the Finance Bill which deals primarily with taxation. The Deputy's remarks would be more appropriate on the Budget. I feel that the Deputy did speak on the budget and I would prefer if the Deputy would keep his remarks to the Finance Bill.

I regret if I have strayed. There is a link between the price increases people on social welfare have to pay and the increases in benefits that they have perceived. I had hoped that one would counteract the other. Now I am doubtful.

When the increases were first forecast it was mentioned that all the recipients would get the increases in July. The Tánaiste made great capital of the fact that the increases would be implemented in July, a month earlier than they had ever been implemented in our case. I hope everybody has got the increase. I am doubtful if they did.

Again, the Deputy is referring to policy matters appertaining to social welfare. It is not in order.

I am dealing with page 2 where the Minister states that in a full year the increase in existing expenditure on social welfare will be 44 per cent. When the Minister makes such a statement one would expect that social welfare recipients would be delighted. I do not see any great sign that they are very thankful. It would be wrong of me to suggest that the electorate are a thankless people. Are we to conclude, then, that they do not appreciate the benefits?

I should like to know why the Government found it necessary to spend a lot of money on very expensive press advertising to tell the people how well off they were and how well off they would be and to indicate that they are the "greatest". It is generally accepted, I think, that they are the "greatest". Such publicity suggests the lady doth protest too much. One wonders if the publicity is true.

The Minister has made provision in this Bill for penalties for employers who do not keep their books and do not submit PAYE payments up to date. I suppose this is as it should be. He now intends charging interest in respect of delayed payments. I suppose that is as it should be. I wonder what reaction there would be to the suggestion that interest should be paid in respect of delay in payments on the part of the Government. I have in mind social welfare payments that are delayed for quite a long time. I venture to suggest that the amount of money waiting to be paid to social welfare recipients would offset the amount involved in delayed payment of tax. My sympathy is with employers, in particular small employers, who have to keep their own books and who, in fact, are unpaid tax collectors and who are in for a very difficult time because of the varying rates of tax.

The Minister again found it necessary to refer to the yacht and the motor car, as he did when he was presenting his budget. I welcome this because a person who can afford to keep a car worth more than £2,500 deserves to be taxed on it. Very few of us can afford to have a yacht. We might aspire to getting a spin in one occasionally. It is only right that yachts should be taxed. I compliment the Minister on that. I would not agree with Government speakers who have tried to suggest that it is only persons on this side of the House who are fortunate enough to have yachts. If this suggestion is to be pursued it should be substantiated.

I am happy to note that the Minister had a change of heart and has allowed small investors to get interest of up to £70 free of tax. I compliment the Minister on that because when he first indicated that he was going to tax these persons it was an indication to me that the small investor would be taxed and also persons or companies who have saving schemes. I have in mind Bord na Móna and other concerns whose employees were encouraged to save. If these small investors were taxed there would be no encouragement to save. If that policy had been pursued it would have had a detrimental effect on the economy. Small investors who, perhaps, had sold property and invested the proceeds in the hope of securing a modest living for themselves would have been in a bad way. I realise that the Minister has some difficulties. There are persons who deposit in various banks amounts small enough to ensure that the interest will not reach £70. If that is done on an extensive scale by an investor, say, investing in ten or 12 banks, it can lead to considerable tax evasion. In general, the Minister is to be complimented on choosing the lesser of two evils. By this means he will help to keep money in this country and that money will be available to building societies and the banks. The Minister refers to the fact that an effort has been made to encourage the giving of loans by building societies.

I realise that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government are very concerned about the need for housing. A great deal of money will be required. I calculate that if the target indicated by the Coalition parties in pre-election promises of 25,000 houses a year is to be reached it will require £100 million. I do not see any provision in the Finance Bill for that £100 million. I hope it will appear. I know that an earnest effort is being made by the Minister for Local Government to provide houses. This was one of the planks in the pre-election campaign. When I mentioned on a former occasion that this promise was made, the Chief Whip of the Government party asked me to substantiate that. I am now prepared to do so. I have here a document issued by his party.

This does not arise on the Finance Bill.

He did offer to contribute £1 to our election fund in my constituency. I would just like to bring that matter to his notice. If he cares to contact me I will be very pleased to accept that £1 and put it to very good use. I have the evidence here to indicate that I was right and the Chief Whip was wrong. I shall compliment the Minister on any effort he may make to ensure that this £100 million will be available to build the 25,000 houses this year. Whatever Government succeed in solving the housing problem will be doing a great day's work.

I am not so happy about the increase on beer, spirits and tobacco. When the year is over I wonder if the increase will mean we have crossed over the thin line of diminishing returns and that we will have less revenue from these items than we had last year. Will it mean that it was not worthwhile increasing the prices? I have in mind the old age pensioner who has received an increase in his pension but finds he must pay more for cigarettes and tobacco. I am not sure the Minister made a wise decision in this matter.

I am not happy with the manner of dealing with estate duty. Admittedly the changes that have been made are welcome but not enough has been done. It is not in keeping with the promise made by Fine Gael that when they came into government they would abolish estate duties on property. Deputy Lemass used an expression I shall not use, but perhaps the phrase "Risky Richard" might not be too bad to use. I hope that the Minister will raise the limit with regard to estate duty to £10,000.

Much play has been made of the effect of the removal of VAT from food. We have been told that great benefits will accrue to the consumer, although I wonder what the consumer thinks about it. Some months ago we forecast that the removal of VAT from food would not have the considerable effect on the household budget as stated by the Government and we maintain that what we said was correct. The Minister mentioned that the £30 million we forecast would be available for increased social welfare benefits had been swallowed in a sea of inflation——

I would remind the Deputy that taxation may be discussed but not expenditure.

I am satisfied that when VAT is removed from food the effect will not be as forecast by the Minister; it will be smothered by galloping inflation and no benefit whatever will accrue to the consumer. I am sure that anyone who has to keep to a tight budget every week will agree with me on this. Even at this stage, I wonder if it would be any use in prevailing on the Minister, now that he has decided to remove VAT from food, to remove it also from footwear, clothing and fuel? I mentioned this before but the Taoiseach did not appear to consider fuel as an essential and said it was only a seasonal item. I consider it is essential and, seeing that measures have been taken to remove VAT from food, I am sorry fuel was not included also. With the removal of VAT from food, shopkeepers will have to cope with different taxes and they will have more trouble with their book-keeping. These unpaid tax collectors will have more trouble and possibly will get less money.

The Minister paid tribute to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with price control measures. We were promised as an immediate measure that price increases would be curbed immediately. I appreciate it is not easy to do this and I hope the recent measures taken by the Minister will have an effect. He delayed some time in taking them but I hope he will be in a position to tell us that price increases are under control. It would be pleasant to know that this was one pre-election promise that was kept and honoured. Up to now statistics have shown that prices have increased much more in the last few months than in the previous year.

However, all is not on the debit side so far as the budget is concerned. I should like to compliment the Minister for exempting horses and greyhounds from tax. This will be welcomed particularly in my constituency. These two industries have made much progress, they have achieved a high place in the world market and we can more than hold our own with any other country. Both industries give plenty of employment and it is nice to know that whether a bloodstock breeder decides to sell at Ballsbridge or Newmarket he will get the same opportunity in either place. I hope the measure taken by the Minister will ensure that both industries continue in their present buoyant state.

When the Minister was dealing with the amendment of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act he skipped rather lightly over the matter. I was sorry he did not tell us more about it; he should have told us more about the £50 tax on cut-down trucks. It was scarcely mentioned on budget day and the Minister got away with it very lightly now. I note that tractors are now taxed at £50. I know of many farmers who have supported the Minister's party in the past who are perturbed about this, who consider this measure should not be taken and that it will be detrimental to farmers.

The Minister concluded his speech by commending the Bill to the House. The effects of the Bill cannot be judged now—they will be judged in April or May, 1974. Will we have the new and better land the Minister promised? Will the Bill ensure protection for the individual? Is the Minister happy that this Bill gives a fair chance to the middle income man whose means are known? Will the man earning more than £50 per week suffer because of this Bill? I think he will because he is the person who is paying the piper but is not allowed to call the tune. Will this taxation be used to cure the housing ills that exist? Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce be able to halt the spiralling price increases? This is something about which everyone is concerned and I hope the efforts he will make will be effective.

However, when they were framing policies that appealed to the people and which resulted in their being elected, there seemed to be no difficulty in promising that prices would not be increased. I hope they can now honour such promises. I hope, too, that the economy will remain as buoyant as the Minister expects it to remain. It is a pity that on this occasion ex-Deputy, Dr. O'Donovan, who was always so brilliant when speaking on either the floating or the sinking of the £, is not with us because I am sure he would be able to give us a lot of information about the present state of the economy.

I notice also that the Labour Party promised to increase the level of the personal tax-free allowance. I do not see any evidence of any such increase. The promise was one that could be forgotten easily. All we can do is wait and hope that we will be proved wrong in some of our dismal forecasts. Only in a year's time will we be in a position really to judge the merits or demerits of this Bill. Perhaps, then we may have an indication as to why that brilliant and loquacious team who have been telling us for so many years what we should do have remained sullen and silent while this Bill was being debated.

Deputy Power opened his speech by referring to a sentence in the first paragraph of the Minister's brief. The Deputy remarked that this sentence seemed odd to him. Perhaps if I quote the sentence concerned, people other than Deputy Power and I will detect something either odd or naïve in regard to the Minister when he said:

This Government aim to make Ireland a new and better land.

This hypocritical philosophy is being used to keep the citizens happy while the Government are testing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the budget. Lest the Minister should think that any such philosophy might cheer us up, we must tell him that his help will have to take the form of something more firm and not be as prosaic as that put forward.

This Bill has a kind of schizophrenic outlook in the sense that the Government are claiming credit for anything that is good in it while blaming the ineffectiveness of the previous Government for anything that is putrid in it. The Government cannot have it both ways. The Minister, in his wisdom or otherwise, has set out on a false premise in regard to this Bill because the greatest problem of this country today is that of inflation, but one can find nothing but inflationary tendencies in every line of the Bill Indeed, the lot of many people will be worsened greatly by this time next year as a result of it. To give an indication of what I mean, I shall refer to a letter sent by Dublin Corporation to an old age pensioner in which he is told that he is being granted a waiver of rates in accordance with the policy of the Government but that his rent, which had been £2.05 per week, is now being increased to £2.62. At the top of the letter there is a note reminding the recipient that the increased social welfare benefits must be taken into account in assessing his new rent. Consequently, this man will now have to pay an extra 57p per week in rent. That sums up the effectiveness of this budget.

The Finance Bill proposes no fewer than 17 amendments to existing legislation. I do not wish to decry the Finance Bill in all its aspects but it is the duty of every Deputy to point out the wrongs that are inherent in the Bill and why it will not help in bringing about a new or a better Ireland. As Deputy Lemass pointed out earlier, even the increases that are being given in respect of children's allowances will be subject to a clawback in so far as one section of the community are concerned. I expect that the Minister did his best in preparing the budget; it may be said that the time available to him to do so was not sufficient but we must remember that no Minister in the history of this State has ever had such advantages in preparing his budget as had the present Minister. We know that there was a large saving available to him in respect of agricultural subsidies by reason of our membership of the EEC and that there was a large saving also as a result of the thrift of the previous Government. Admittedly, some good increases are being given on the social welfare side but there was no relief whatever in respect of income tax apart from the provision in relation to a wife's earned income.

How long has it been since income tax relief was given in a budget?

Fianna Fáil gave such relief in several of their budgets, including the last one they introduced.

What reliefs were given?

The Deputy is on the losing side if he wishes to compare the last budget with Fianna Fáil budgets. The whole fault of this Bill is that it proposes to impose much greater taxation. The Government may say that there is £140 million on current expenditure and £60 million on capital expenditure but I wonder whether, at the end of the financial year when the £60 million capital investment has been exhausted—I remember the last Coalition Government voting huge sums towards national development but——

Expenditure is not an issue in this debate.

I was helping Deputy Dunne.

The Deputy must refer only to what is contained in the Finance Bill.

I am only referring to the Minister's mention of £140 million expenditure.

I would not wish in any way to question your ruling, Sir, but I think that in his brief the Minister set the headline for some of the speeches that are being made here, because he referred very much to the budget and to expenditure.

The Chair must point out that the scope of the debate on the Finance Bill cannot be of the same latitude as that of a budget debate.

I understand that, but if the Minister deals with all those other matters, Deputies on this side should be entitled to follow his brief.

Surely it is in order to quote from the first page of the Minister's brief, if not, the Minister should have been ruled out of order. I shall quote from the Minister's brief. He said:

The budgetary action to stimulate the economy, strengthen the national infrastructure and thereby raise the level of employment is clearly evidenced by the rise of £130 million in current expenditure and of some £60 million in capital expenditure or a combined rise of over 20 per cent.

The Minister takes £130 million plus £60 million and rounds it off at a combined rise of over 20 per cent. The Minister may be right, his experts would probably find that he was right, but I am saying that even though the Minister has this in his brief there is no guarantee that by the end of the current financial year there will have been a combined rise of over 20 per cent. The weakness in this Finance Bill is that it is inflationary. The Minister boasts of £190 million being given out. If we accept what he states as true, and I am not saying it is not, this must be taken back in taxation. He does not elaborate on how this will increase employment. Unless we can increase the growth rate we will not lessen the incidence of unemployment. If I go on quoting, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, from the Minister's brief, you may find it very boring but you can blame the Minister. Even assuming that the Minister's figures are correct, it is no guarantee that the Bill will be effective in the way he wants it to be.

The Minister spoke of the growth in social services. He said:

The social welfare concessions in the budget have made possible a striking betterment in the quality of life of the many thousands of people in this country who are dependent on social welfare benefits to sustain their standard of living.

The Minister was quite correct in giving the increase but the inflation is evidenced by this Dublin old age pensioner who because of the budget has had his rent increased by 57 pence per week. I have here the official document. Therefore, after only a month or six weeks we can see what is happening. Perhaps in the autumn the Minister may have to have a second budget and Finance Bill in order to counteract this kind of suffering inflicted on the old age pensioner.

The Minister went on to say:

An indication of the extent of these improvements can be had by considering the amount of additional outlay involved: in a full year, the increase over existing expenditure on the social services will be 44 per cent.

I know that comparisons are often odious and I do not intend to refer to previous Finance Acts or budgets. I am convinced that there are some good things in this one, as, for instance, the relief to be given to the parents of thalidomide children if and when they get money from Germany.

The Minister said:

The purpose of section 13 is to ensure that the benefit of the tax exemption in respect of non-bedded minerals must be passed on by a holding company when paying dividends out of exempted income.

That may sound strange but it is connected with payments of income to or in respect of Irish thalidomide children from the German Foundation which will be free of tax by virtue of section 18. I do not think anybody in the House would cavil at any help given to these unfortunate children or their parents. I accept the Minister's good faith in doing this though I think he could have gone much further. I hope that in future budgets this provision will be made.

The Minister mentioned the "charity exemption," something we have needed for a long time but the Minister was very selective. He said:

Section 14 is linked with section 19 which extends "charity exemption" to bodies of persons whose objects are the promotion of observance of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Section 14 secures that annual contributions made under convenant by any person to such bodies for a period exceeding three years will be recognised for income tax purposes.

This in itself is good but why not extend it to any established charity in the country? This would encourage people to bequeath far more money to charity. They could be given some recognition, as they are in other countries, by way of tax exemption. This, in effect, would be anti-inflationary because the money would be used well by the charities and the person giving the money would have his good deed recognised by a tax reduction.

The Minister also said:

Any payment made by a trader to an Irish university for the purpose of enabling the university to undertake research in, or engage in the teaching of, industrial relations, marketing and other approved subjects will benefit from the tax relief provided in section 20.

This, again, is praiseworthy and is a step forward. The "charity exemption" should be widened and, perhaps, on the next Stage of the Bill we could consider widening this provision so as to include all contributions given at regular times or for a stated period. In a small way this would have an anti-inflationary effect. Unless the Minister can by this Finance Bill try to curb the inflationary tendencies there will be chaos before the financial year is out. We have a very high rate of inflation for which we cannot entirely blame the Government but we can blame them for not taking all possible steps to curb the upward trend.

The Minister also continues for a period of a further two years relief given on depreciation for new plant and machinery provided for use outside certain areas and 100 per cent initial allowance for capital expenditure incurred on new plant and machinery. This is praiseworthy but it is not original. It has been contained in budgets and Finance Acts for many years past.

Section 33 exempts from income tax, sur-tax and corporation profits tax income derived from patent royalties arising to individuals, or companies, resident in the State where the work in connection with the devising of the patent invention is carried out in the State. This is, to an extent, an extension of the tax relief given to authors and dramatists by a previous budget.

Having examined the budget, and the Finance Bill, I do not think that anyone of us has any confidence that this will lead to the "new Ireland" referred to by the Minister in his speech. I noticed that in one or two Estimate briefs introduced in this House by Ministers that we get the same preamble, a kind of do-gooder outlook. I am afraid that in this hard world something else is expected.

Section 1 of this Bill gives us the great news that if we do not pay our income tax on time we will pay a penalty. That section informs us that section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1967 is being amended by an addition which provides that if the amount of the interest calculated is less than £5 the amount of interest payable will be £5.

As Deputy Power remarked, supposing the Government owes a citizen money or they do not pay a citizen promptly money that is due to him, can this citizen claim against the Government for the interest due on the amount owed? Very often people approach public representatives about pensions and social welfare payments that have not been paid when due. It often happens that a long time elapses before the recipient receives the money due to him. I am tempted the next time such a case arises to write to the Minister for Finance and point out to him that as he is charging interest on income tax due he should pay the interest for the period the social welfare benefit or other payment is overdue.

The question of interest should apply in both directions. The old age pensioner is entitled to claim interest from the Minister if payment is overdue just as the Minister is entitled to claim against the tax-dodger. No one will defend a tax-dodger. All of us have to pay our taxes but the charging of interest should work both ways.

The Minister has certainly gone after the men with the expense sheet. Nobody will quarrel with that or with the fact that the motor car used by firms or their staff will have to be within a certain price range. That is all on the State side. I believe that every payment which is overdue from the State should be subject to an interest charge in favour of the citizen. It may be a vicious circle that having taxed the State to pay the pensioner the pensioner will have to pay a further tax to make up for what the State paid out. That may sound confusing but there are many parts of the Finance Bill which are confusing.

While this Finance Bill is meant to stimulate the national growth it may well act in the opposite way and stunt that growth. In the last three months we had a 3 per cent increase in the cost of living. If we had a 3 per cent growth in the gross national product we would be doing well but this Finance Bill is not going to encourage that.

Subsection 1 of section 2 of the Bill is almost incomprehensible. Unless one is a financial wizard it is impossible to understand it and I do not see how any employer will understand it.

The amendment of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, which increases the amount of earned income relief in respect of a wife's earnings from £74 to £104 is the only reduction in income tax given in this Bill. The remainder of the taxation is increasing, in some way, the tax payable by all of us. It also puts a penal tax on us if we do not pay on time. I do not think that by fining people the Government are going to make things any easier. Some people will try to avoid paying. The vast majority want to pay on time but are prevented from doing so because they have not the money.

It may be said that this system operates in other countries but we should frame our own budget to suit our own circumstances. By saying that I will be told by some of the speakers on the Government side that it is our budget. If it is our budget, then we must take credit for what is good in it. I have admitted that the social welfare payments were very good but they have been eroded by the matters I have referred to.

At the time the National Coalition were campaigning on the basis that they would remove VAT from food it seemed a very wise decision but the people now realise what it means and they are not keen on it. When VAT is removed from food we will have to see if prices will fall. I do not believe that they will. Shopkeepers, even with the best will in the world, may not be able to separate the prices. It will take more than the extra weekend which the Minister has given them to make up their minds. Talk about The Lost Weekend. Value-added tax comes off food but, in order to meet the deficit created by its removal from food, footwear and clothing will have to bear increased rates of tax.

The Minister says this change will operate as much to the advantage of the consumers as to the traders as food prices will be reduced as on and from 3rd September next. We should all make a note of that date because this will be the operative date on which alleged reductions will take place in food prices. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is in the House at the moment. I wish him the best of luck in his efforts to keep down prices but I doubt if the Minister for Finance will be much help to him in his efforts. Even if he sends out inspectors to check, I doubt if shopkeepers will be able in the week-end from 1st September to 3rd September, even with the best will in the world, to reduce prices because prices are increasing all the time. I doubt very much that there will be any reduction in the price of food. It is not something to which we can look forward and we have a duty to remind people that, even though a benevolent Minister for Finance gives the shopkeepers a long week-end in which to reduce prices, they will not be able to reduce prices unless they happen to be financial geniuses. But even the Gnomes of Zurich cannot settle money matters and I doubt if our shopkeepers will be able to effect a reduction in food prices on September 3rd. It is an historic date. It is the date on which World War II broke out. The disappointment of the housewives will be understandable when they find the prices they expected to topple have not toppled very far at all.

The Minister says:

As regards the effect of the changes on retail prices, my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has already announced a series of price control measures. These will help to minimise any risk that the full tax reductions will not be passed on by traders.

The Minister for Finance and I, and others, know that 3rd September will just not be the day of days. The measures taken by his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will help to minimise, not prevent, any risk that the full tax reductions will not be passed on by traders. Only last week there were certain price increases and prices will go on increasing despite the best efforts of the Minister. We import certain foodstuffs and the exporters of these cannot be prevented putting on another 5 or 10 per cent, if they feel like it. If we are not prepared to pay their prices, then we will have to do without the commodities. I do not think this is the right way to tackle inflation. I believe the Minister has the same uneasy feeling that all the rest of us have that prices will not fall on 3rd September. There are too many adverse factors operating, some of which the Government have allowed to operate, and these will prevent any decrease in food prices on 3rd September.

The Minister also states:

Besides the adjustments I have mentioned, Part V of the Bill also contains certain provisions, mainly of a supplementary or consequential nature.

He says he would like to mention some of them.

Under the value-added tax farmers and fishermen are not required to register or to pay tax on sales. Instead they are compensated for tax borne by them on their purchases of, e.g., agricultural machinery and fuel, by a 1 per cent addition to their output prices which addition, however, ranks for credit or refund in the hands of a regular purchaser of agricultural produce.

I have a certain sympathy with the unfortunate farmer trying to elucidate how he will obtain his 1 per cent addition. He does not register. He would be far better off registered because he would save himself all that trouble about the 1 per cent addition.

The Minister goes on to say:

Rather than revise the 1 per cent addition, to which farmers have become accustomed, I decided to extend the zero rate, which at present applies to manufactured fertilisers and feeding stuffs, so as to cover unprocessed feeding stuffs, such as green grains, and to animal oral medicines as well as seeds and plans for the production of food.

We are always very keen not to tax anything that is used for animals. That may be because we are a predominantly agricultural country and animals generally are so many sacred cows, but playing around with value-added tax as the Minister is doing may well mean that we will not gain the benefits other countries will from the application of value-added tax in our general system of taxation.

One criticism made of the Minister's policy was that it went a bit of the way with everything but pleased no one. Section 87 proves that the Minister tried to spread whatever jam there is over too wide a surface and has ended up by pleasing no one. I can visualise the Minister a couple of months hence having to introduce a supplementary budget or amend this Finance Bill. Whether it is that the Minister did not have sufficient time to frame his budget or whether it is he lacked experience what we are offered here is a Finance Bill which will be ineffective. Worst of all, it will have an inflationary effect and make the position worse than it is at the moment.

The Minister goes on to say:

Before leaving the subject of agriculture I should mention that section 86 provides for the exemption from the tax of horses and greyhounds. It is a necessary part of the operation of the bloodstock and greyhound industries that animals are frequently exported and imported for varying periods, and it was found that the operation of VAT on importation was seriously affecting the smooth functioning of the industries.

The bloodstock industry is very important to the country. The Minister bent backwards to ensure that VAT is not paid on greyhounds but VAT must be paid on footwear and clothing.

The Minister said:

Section 78 substitutes a new and more exact provision enabling the Revenue Commissioners to provide by regulation for the taxing of services provided by a trader for his own business or in connection with it even if no charge is made for the service. This is necessary to ensure that major differences in tax incidence do not arise as between certain services provided within a firm and similar services provided by a contractor.

Somebody some day will write a Finance Bill which will be capable of being read by a young person leaving primary school. If we are to become a fully Irish speaking nation I suggest that it would be far easier to read the Irish language than some of this English. If the intention is to keep from the people what is contained in the Finance Bill, that would serve some purpose, if not a very worthy one. Surely it is possible to write these Bills in readable English. Civil servants and Ministers who have to live with this Bill day after day and try to decipher some of its provisions have my sympathy.

The Minister said:

Section 79, as well as providing for the new rates to be charged as from 3rd September next, gives the Revenue Commissioners power to determine the rate of tax to be applied in any particular case or class of cases, either upon request by a taxpayer or where the Commissioners are satisfied that doubt as to the correct rate would otherwise exist.

Surely every previous Finance Bill must have contained that clause. I do not see why it should have been written especially into this one. I do not know if this is new legislation.

I suggest to the Deputy that he might reserve that for Committee Stage.

Because of your ruling I am sticking strictly to the Minister's statement. I am not disputing your ruling in anyway.

Details can be dealt with on Committee Stage.

I do not want to argue with the Chair but the Minister read all this today. I will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to discuss this in more detail. The Finance Bill is so late this year that anything which would expedite its acceptance or rejection would be worthwhile. If Committee Stage is a replica of Second Stage we will be here until 3rd September.

I must refer to the postponement of the changes in VAT from 1st to 3rd September. The Minister said:

In order to facilitate accounting for the tax it is provided, in the Tenth Schedule, as a transitional arrangement...

The Minister is being so magnanimous as to give the shopkeepers an extra weekend in which to bring about price reductions. I wish them well in doing that over a weekend. I am sure there will be many a headache for the shopkeepers and also for the people who will want to buy cheaper food the following day.

The Minister has been generous in extending zero rating to the many articles to which I have already referred. I welcome the fact that zero rating is to be applied to life-saving services of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The Minister said that the inclusion of a toy or other similar item of insignificant value in a packet of zero rated food will not render the packet liable to tax. The British Government were criticised for their lollipop budget some time ago when they brought in a tax on ice cream and sweets. Children are lucky that the Minister has not taxed their bags of fizz which contain a little toy. They should thank the Minister for being so magnanimous. This makes me wonder if we are all joking about this. Could not the time spent on drawing up this provision have been given to some more worthy provision in the Finance Bill?

I hope that the Minister on Committee Stage will amend section 87 in order to make it less of a joke, because even if one needs a sense of humour to accept this Finance Bill, it is stretching it too far to ask the national assembly to discuss that provision in section 87 of the Finance Bill, 1973. Deputy Power mentioned Richie's mints. I am sure some greater financial brain than mine will some day sort out the effect of not taxing a toy or similar item of insignificant value put into a packet of sweets for a young child.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share