asked the Minister for Finance the anticipated financial benefit to the State of the proposed new mining taxes.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mining Taxes.
12.
The financial benefit to the State from the replacement of the 20 years' tax exemption by the proposed new scheme of capital allowances will depend upon the actual profits made by the mining companies. In turn, these profits will depend upon several factors, in particular:
(a) whether the quantity and quality of ore reserves ultimately prove to be higher or lower than current estimates; and
(b) the level of world metal prices.
In view of these factors, any estimate of the gain to the Exchequer can only be of a very tentative nature and the present estimate is of the order of £125 million over a 20-year period. I might add, however, that, because of the proposed new scheme of capital allowances, the tax yield in the first four or five years is likely to be negligible.
Having regard to the publicity and the PRO job that was done on it, does the Minister not think that figures which appeared as to there being a financial benefit in the region of, according to one or two reports I saw, £60 million or £70 million inside the next few years, might have been denied by his Department?
It is no function of the Minister for Finance to correct or comment upon estimates which are made by others.
On information given by Mr. Mac Conghail of the Government Information Bureau.
Order please. The Deputy must not refer to persons who cannot defend themselves.
No information was given from Government sources as to the estimated income from the proposed new regime of taxes.
Would the Minister repeat that statement please?
No information was given from Government sources regarding the estimated income from the new regime of taxes.
To the best of the Minister's knowledge?
Yes.
Indirectly.
No, indirectly or otherwise.
On the other hand, I am sure the Minister would be prepared to indicate that were it not for the fact that he was optimistic as to what the moneys would be, he would not have introduced the taxation in the fashion in which it was introduced?
I am not quite sure what the Deputy is getting at. As I understand the comments of the Deputy he too, is in favour of some change having been made in mining taxation.
Yes.
So are we all.
In essence, what his criticism amounts to is that he wanted an omelette, a fried egg or poached egg or a scrambled egg but he complains that the Government broke the eggs in order to produce one of these.
He wanted the menu first.
Perhaps the Minister might change places with the Minister who sits beside him because he seems to know more about eggs than he does about mining and about my thoughts.
A supplementary question, Deputy.
I know how to crack the shell.
I would say he could crack them without breaking the shells, he is so cute.
Order, please.
Would the Minister accept that there is general agreement in this House that greater benefits should accrue to the State from mining exercises but that we disagree with the manner in which the whole situation was handled by his incompetent Government?
The Deputy is making a statement.
Does the Deputy want more or less out of the mines?
Would the Minister agree that the main reason for his indecent haste in rushing this in was to facilitate his Labour Party colleagues who were going to Cork for a weekend jamboree?
The studies upon which the decision was made began in 1971.
That is correct.
There was no indecent haste, God knows. It was something your Government did not have the courage to do and should have done long ago.
You caught your own colleagues in Canada. Keating did not even know about it.
Order, please. Question No. 13.