asked the Minister for Finance the total estimated tax yield from qualifying mines, as defined in the Finance (Taxation of Profits of Certain Mines) Bill, 1974, the working of which commenced on or before the 6th April, 1974.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mining Tax Yield.
14.
It would be contrary to secrecy obligations for the Revenue Commissioners to disclose any information about the liability to tax of a small group of companies. For that reason, I regret I cannot supply the information requested by the Deputy.
In view of the Minister's reply, could he explain why he purported to tell the House some weeks ago that the correct answer to that question was £125 million when he stated that that would be the cost to the taxpayer of implementing the proposed Fianna Fáil amendments to the Bill in question?
Because to estimate tax yield is not necessarily to indicate what actual profits may be, but were I to give the kind of information which the Deputy is now requesting of the number of existing companies, which are only five in number, it could, in fact, lead any person with reasonable information and acumen to a situation where he could calculate the profits of specific mines.
Did the Minister not purport to give the information in the course of the debate on this Bill when he said it would be £125 million?
The Deputy is asking me to give information about mines which commenced on or before 6th April, 1974, but the estimate was based upon what was known of the mineral wealth of the country, but of course there may yet be more information which I should be only too pleased to give the Deputy if the Revenue Commissioners were in a position to give it without breach of the confidence which they must maintain in the interests of all taxpayers.
Did the Minister not purport to give this information when he said it would be £125 million? Is that not what he said?
I gave a general calculation, if you like, a "guestimate", as to what we would expect it to be.
May we take it that the Minister is now saying that the figure of £125 million which he gave to the House was not accurate?
I would say now, on the basis of developments and likely developments of mineral prices over the next 20 years, the figure is probably under-stated; it may be a lot more.
We shall have to pass on to the next question.
On the basis of the Minister's calculation, did he not say it would be £125 million from existing mines, and was it not then elicited from the Minister by way of parliamentary questions that he was including the Navan deposits? Did the Minister not deliberately give a figure which he thought would be helpful to his case and which he now has to admit was totally false?
Is Deputy Colley suggesting that that is not the position?
I am suggesting that it is not an existing mine and that the Minister knew that when he gave the figure of £125 million. In the light of the Minister's estimate of £125 million, would it not appear that the estimated yield of tax from the Navan bonanza is going to be ridiculously small?
That is not so apparent.
It is quite clear now.
It is quite the reverse. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the £125 million was based on the 1973 figures. We are now well into 1974 and the figure is on the increase.
The Minister deliberately misled the House.