Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 1975

Vol. 278 No. 7

Finance Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

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

This Bill, in the light of the Government's legislative achievement in taxation matters, including the capital taxation proposals currently under discussion, is another milestone on the road to an equitable and efficient taxation system. The process of taxation reform is unavoidably arduous and uncertain but our aim remains constant: the achievement of a tax base which is broad, related to capacity to pay, immune as far as practicable to avoidance and evasion and free as far as possible from unnecessary disincentives and anomalies. We are not so presumptuous as to believe that we can please everybody but we are sufficiently anxious to endeavour to be fair to all.

This year's budget contained fiscal measures designed to provide significant tax relief for industry and also, for the second year in succession, for individual income tax payers. These reliefs will cost about £28 million in the current year. Given further but necessary increases in social welfare benefits and other payments, additional taxation, consisting mainly of customs and excise duties on nonessential commodities, had inevitably to be raised if the borrowing requirement were not to grow to unmanageable proportions.

This year's Finance Bill significantly provides for the abolition of death duties from 1st April next. This is in fulfilment of the pledge of the parties comprising the National Coalition Government to relieve the heavy and unjust burden of estate duties on property passing on death to widows and their children. The other related part of the Government's pledge to replace estate duties with taxation confined to wealthy persons and to property passing on death outside the immediate family is receiving attention in the capital taxation Bills. I will be referring to this later but I think it is pertinent to say at this stage that, as a consequence of the abolition of death duties and the new taxation measures, some 90 per cent of the people now at risk to pay estate duties will pay neither death duties nor capital taxation in future.

Part I of the Bill deals with measures relating to income tax and corporation profits tax. The principal changes in the personal allowances and reliefs and in the rates of personal tax are contained in Chapter 1. Section 12 outlines the new allowances, following the increases announced in the budget, which are to operate for 1975-76, while the reductions in the higher rates of tax—to coincide with the proposed introduction of wealth tax next April—are reflected in section 11. Section 2 provides for the restoration as from 1974-75 of the same cash differential which existed prior to April, 1974, between the tax relief given to higher-rate taxpayers in respect of life assurance premiums on policies with Irish and non-Irish companies.

Section 1 increases for the purpose of the dependent relative tax allowance the income limit of a dependent relative by reference to the budget increase in the social welfare noncontributory old age pension.

The purpose of section 10 is to exempt from income tax the new monthly payments by the Minister for Health to thalidomide children which supplement the already-exempted awards from the West German fund for thalidomide victims.

Certain amendments and extensions of existing capital allowances are also provided for in Part I of the Bill. In my budget statement I announced a temporary increase in the rates of industrial buildings allowances, from 20 per cent to 50 per cent in the case of the initial allowance and from 2 per cent to 4 per cent in the case of the annual allowance. In order to give an immediate stimulus to industrial building, these increases will apply to capital expenditure incurred after 15th January, 1975, Budget Day, and sections 5 and 6 provide accordingly. Section 5 also provides for an increase in the rate of initial allowance in the case of market garden buildings from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, which puts their allowances on a par with those for farm buildings, to which I will refer later.

Sections 4 and 8 extend from 31st March, 1975, to 31st March, 1977, the period of operation of 100 per cent initial allowance and free depreciation for expenditure on new plant and machinery. Section 9 continues for the same period the existing suspension of the shipping investment allowance which is in abeyance while free depreciation and 100 per cent initial allowance are in operation for the whole country. Section 7 provides for the continuance until 31st March, 1977, of the 20 per cent investment allowance for expenditure on new plant and machinery in the designated areas.

I now turn to Chapter II which deals with the taxation of farming profits. Section 13 is designed to remove anomalies that arose from the fact that up to now grazing profits were not regarded as farming profits. Land taken for grazing was not, therefore, included in determining land occupied for the purpose of the taxation of farming profits—although, for example, land taken for tillage was so included. The section provides that as from 6th April, 1975, land taken for grazing is to be regarded as land occupied for the purpose of farming and a grazier in effect will be regarded as carrying on farming.

Sections 14 and 15 contain provisions to remove a doubt which has been expressed about the application of sections 15 and 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, in relation to farmers who have land of £100 valuation or more and who are also carrying on another trade or profession. If these persons were not within the scope of section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, then they would be entitled to marginal relief and to the option of being assessed on the notional basis. Since it was not the intention that they should be so entitled, the amendments proposed in sections 14 and 15, which will have effect as from 6th April, 1974, are necessary.

Section 16 is an amendment to section 17 of the Finance Act, 1974. That section sets out the criteria for determining the occupation of land. It provides for apportionment of the rateable valuation of the land where the land is beneficially owned or occupied in partnership with others. During the passage of the Finance Bill last year it was pointed out that the section as it stood would not cover certain cases of occupation, for example, where an individual occupies land as a tenant-in-common. I have since, as promised, looked into the matter and the amendment proposed, which will be operative as from 6th April, 1974, meets, I think, the type of case mentioned last year.

As I indicated in my budget statement, the option provided for farmers under section 21 of the Finance Act, 1974, whereby they could elect for a notional basis of assessment for 1974-75, is being extended for a further year to 1975-76 and section 17 provides accordingly. This section also extends from six months to 15 months the time given to farmers to opt for the notional basis of assessment in respect of the tax year 1974-75. This extension is being granted as an exceptional measure and means that farmers will have up to 5th July next in which to exercise this option in respect of their 1974-75 liability. I might add that, since the circulation of the Bill, I have decided that it would be reasonable to extend similarly the six-months' period for opting for a current year basis of assessment in respect of tax liability for 1974-75 and I intend introducing an appropriate amendment at the Committee Stage.

Section 18 contains two further valuable concessions for farmers in relation to the annual farm buildings allowance of 10 per cent. In this context I should point out that the "farm buildings" allowance covers not alone capital expenditure on farm buildings proper but also a range of other work of a capital nature such as land reclamation and drainage, the installation of water and electricity, the provision of sewerage, the erection of fences and the construction of walls.

The first concession relates to the operative date of the allowance which, as introduced last year, applied only to expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1974. As many farmers undertook heavy expenditure of a capital nature in the years prior to 1974—at a time when farming profits were exempt from tax—so as to prepare themselves for the challenge and opportunity presented by this country's entry into the Common Market, the Government have now decided, exceptionally, to make the allowance retrospective so that expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1971, instead of 6th April, 1974, will qualify for the allowance.

The second concession in relation to the farm buildings allowance is the new extra initial allowance of 20 per cent which is being provided in respect of expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1974. In deciding to introduce this additional allowance the Government were influenced by the consideration that quite a considerable amount of expenditure on farm buildings nowadays relates to milk-parlours, piggeries and other types of expensive buildings which can become fairly rapidly obsolescent. This should provide a valuable incentive to farmers to undertake further capital expenditure.

Section 23 in Chapter IV of the Bill secures that the farm buildings capital allowances apply for corporation profits tax as well as for income tax.

Chapter III of Part I, covering sections 19 to 22, is concerned with the type of tax avoidance scheme I mentioned in my budget statement and was the subject of a Financial Resolution on Budget Day. The avoidance scheme in question involved the creation of a special lease so as to achieve a substantial tax deferral over a long period of years. Chapter III counters such schemes by tightening up the existing tax legislation regarding leases.

As regards Chapter IV, I have already mentioned the purpose of section 23. Because of the decision, already announced, to defer the introduction of the legislation relating to the proposed new system of company taxation which was to have come into operation on 6th April, 1975, it is necessary to continue for a further year the exemption from corporation profits tax enjoyed by certain public utility societies and other bodies, including building societies, and section 24 provides accordingly.

Chapter V of the Bill deals with a number of miscellaneous taxation matters.

Section 25 is aimed at overcoming a practical defect in existing law relating to the service of taxation notices. As matters stand notices may be served on a company only at its last known registered office and on an individual only at his last known residence or place of employment. This requirement has given rise to difficulties not only for the Revenue Commissioners but also for taxpayers who may find themselves liable to pay interest on overdue tax because of delays in the transmission of demands to them from addresses which have become out of date. It is therefore proposed that documents may also be served at places of business.

In my budget statement I referred to the fact that present interest rates on overdue tax have not been revised for some years and as a result do not constitute an effective deterrent against the withholding of tax or adequately compensate the State for its consequential borrowings. I indicated that I proposed to increase the rate of interest to a uniform 1½ per cent per month. Section 28 implements this intention.

Also in my budget statement I referred to a defect in existing law whereby interest on overdue PAYE tax, which is the subject of a formal estimate, does not apply until some considerable time after the end of the period to which the underpayment relates. Section 26 accordingly provides that interest will be payable on such tax with effect from the end of the year of assessment to the time of payment.

Section 31, together with the Third Schedule, is designed to give effect to the proposals announced in my budget statement to give a measure of relief from taxation to certain classes of companies which, because of the exceptionally high cost of replacing trading stock, have had to plough back into their businesses profits which would otherwise have been free for other purposes. In order to defer the collection of tax on those profits, it is proposed, generally speaking, to allow a deduction in the computation of profits for tax purposes of the amount by which the increase in the value of trading stock and work-in-progress exceeds 20 per cent of the trading profits. The relief will in general apply to corporation profits tax for accounting periods ending in the tax years 1973-74 and 1974-75, and to income tax for 1974-75 and 1975-76—which would normally be based on the profits of those accounting periods. The question of the most appropriate time to recoup the tax so deferred will be considered later in the light of the economic situation and other material factors.

The proposed relief must be regarded as a temporary expedient designed to give immediate help to those companies in need of assistance. Obviously, some companies are more adversely affected by inflated replacement cost than others and deferment of tax is not necessary at all for certain types of business, for example, cash businesses with a rapid turnover. Accordingly relief is being confined to companies engaged wholly or mainly in manufacturing, construction or farming or in the sale of plant, machinery or material to those sectors. It would not be administratively feasible to bring unincorporated traders in the qualifying sectors within the scope of the relief at present but I propose to include legislation in next year's Finance Bill to accord them the same measure of relief. The provisions of the Bill and this announcement will mean immediate significant relief for business.

The remaining sections in Part I of the Bill are of a mainly consequential nature. Sections 3 and 33 provide that in computing the amount of various reliefs and charges, the references throughout the Income Tax Acts to capital allowances shall include the new capital allowances introduced in recent years, for example, the farm buildings allowance, so that the new allowances shall be treated on the same basis as other capital allowances such as wear and tear.

Likewise section 29 provides that in cases where a refund is made of the value-added tax paid in connection with capital expenditure on mining or farm buildings, the capital allowances shall be computed only on the net expenditure. Similar provisions in relation to the capital allowances then existing were contained in the Value-Added Tax Act, 1972, but, as they are regarded as being more properly concerned with income tax and corporation profits tax, the intention is to repeal, rather than amend, the relative provision in the Value-Added Tax Act, 1972, and to substitute a new comprehensive section within the income tax and corporation profits tax code.

Section 27 ensures that interest paid to the Revenue Commissioners by a principal contractor, because of the late remittance by him of tax deducted from payments to subcontractors, will not qualify for tax relief and will therefore be treated on the same basis as interest on other kinds of overdue tax. Section 30 extends to shareholders' dividends the benefits of the tax exemption on income from patent royalties enjoyed by companies under the Finance Act, 1973. Sections 32 and 34 effect some minor drafting corrections in existing legislation.

I now come to Part II of the Bill covering sections 35 to 44 which deal with customs and excise duties. Apart from sections 43 and 44, the sections confirm the various budget increases. Sections 35 to 39 relate to the customs and excise duties on beer, spirits, tobacco, wine and table waters. Section 40 increases the off-course betting duty from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Section 41 raises by £60 per annum the excise duty chargeable on licences for gaming premises with pro rata increases for shorter periods. Section 42 provides that a new excise duty, at the rate of £50 per machine, will be imposed with effect from 1st May, 1975, on gaming machines in use on premises licensed for gaming under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. The penalty proposed for not taking out a gaming machine licence is £300 in respect of each machine and the machine in question will be liable to forfeiture.

I am satisfied that, in present economic circumstances, it is only equitable that taxation increases to meet pressing economic and social needs should fall on less essential items. The new taxation in this year's budget was introduced with this in mind. As was stated in the National Partnership White Paper, it will assist to maintain employment and living standards if the better-off do not demand income compensation for these additional taxes on luxuries.

Section 43 is a provision which has not already been announced. It increases the rate of the annual dog licence duty from 25p—last fixed in 1925—to £1 and the rate of duty on a general licence, which permits the keeping of any number of dogs, from £10 to £25 per annum. The section also increases the excise penalty for keeping an unlicensed dog from £2 to £10. As Deputies are aware, the Minister for Local Government has tabled an amendment to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973, which is before the House, which would permit local authorities to provide shelters for stray or unwanted dogs and also to assist bodies of persons in providing homes or shelters for such animals.

The section provides that the increases in the licence fees will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Minister for Finance by order. The annual renewal date for such licences is 1st January and it is hoped that local authorities will have the necessary powers to provide shelters by January next which would be a convenient time for introducing the proposed licence increases. The additional revenue yield will enable extra finance to be provided to deal with the problem of stray dogs and for the protection of dogs generally.

Section 44 confirms three orders made by the Government under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957, as amended, details of which are outlined in the explanatory memorandum. Of the three orders, only No. 214, which increased the customs and excise duty on petrol by 13.3p per gallon in December last, need be mentioned in further detail. Deputies will recall that in my statement to the House on 4th December last I proposed to make provision in the Finance Bill, 1975, to convert the extra customs and excise duty of 13.3p per gallon into a value-added tax charge. Following a detailed study of the question however it is apparent that such a conversion would create major difficulties for the petrol trade and unnecessarily add to the complexity of the value-added tax code. In all the circumstances I have decided to allow the extra charge of 13.3p per gallon to stand as a customs and excise duty and accordingly provision is being made in this Bill to confirm the order.

Part III of the Bill provides for the abolition of the existing death duties as from April, 1975, when the proposed wealth tax is to come into operation. As I mentioned earlier, the abolition of death duties and their replacement by the proposed reformed system of capital taxation will mean that over 90 per cent of those people now at risk to death duties will be totally free in the future of death duties and any capital taxes.

Part IV of the Bill, which deals with stamp duties, converts into permanent legislation the stamp duty changes announced in the budget, which are given temporary effect from 1st March, 1975, by an order under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957. That order will be revoked on the Bill becoming law and the new permanent legislation will be as set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. Briefly, the budget changes in stamp duties involve an increase from 3 per cent to 4 per cent in the rate on property transactions exceeding £20,000 and up to £50,000 in value and from 5 per cent to 6 per cent on property transactions of over £50,000 in value.

Part V of the Bill deals with value-added tax. Sections 48 and 49 put into legislative form proposals to counter avoidance of VAT to which I referred in my budget statement and details of which are to be found in the explanatory memorandum. Section 50 suspends for a temporary period commencing on 1st March, 1975, the tax credit of 1 per cent at present available to meat factories and other registered purchasers of live cattle. The purpose of this temporary suspension, as explained in the budget statement, is to provide extra funds to be channelled to small farmers to alleviate their feed problems. The traders affected are being informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the suspension of credit will have statutory effect from 1st March as soon as the Finance Bill becomes law. Section 51 provides for an amendment to the Third Schedule of the Value-Added Tax Act, 1972—covering goods and services chargeable at the present rate of 6.75 per cent— consequential on the VAT changes made by the Finance Act, 1973.

Part VI of the Bill is concerned with a number of miscellaneous matters, of which the most important is the proposed amendment to the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927, as outlined in section 53. This arises from the revision of Dáil Standing Orders and consequential amendments to the 1927 Act last year.

Prior to last year's changes the time available for the passage of the the Second Stage of a Bill confirming budget day Financial Resolutions was 20 sitting days from the time resolutions were approved by the Dáil as a whole. As, however, the Resolutions were passed by the Committee on Finance on Budget Day and not approved by the Dáil until the conclusion of the general budget debates, the number of sitting days available from budget day for the passing of the Second Stage of the confirming Bill was in practice up to 30. However the revision of Dáil Standing Orders in 1974 involved the abolition of the concept of the Committee on Finance and the 1927 Act was amended, accordingly, by the deletion of references to that Committee.

As a consequence of these changes Financial Resolutions moved on Budget Day are now approved by the Dáil as a whole on that day so that the time limit for the passing of the Second Stage of the Bill operates from Budget Day. In practice this means a reduction of the time available for the preparation of the annual Finance Bill if Deputies are to have reasonable time in which to study the Bill. This year, for instance, in order to meet the statutory deadline the Second Stage of the Finance Bill must be passed by the Dáil by next Tuesday at the latest. As this constraint is considered to be unnecessarily tight, section 53 proposes that for the future the 20 sitting days limit will be increased to one of 30 days.

The other sections in Part VI of the Bill are of a routine nature. Section 52 is the annual provision relating to the Capital Services Redemption Account. Section 54 is the usual care and management provision, and section 55 provides for the short title, construction and commencement of the Act. I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

Mr. Colley

This Finance Bill provides the legislative framework for the fiscal policy—if one can dignify what we have with that title: for want of a better one let us call it that at the moment—outlined by the Minister in his budget statement, As a consequence, it has provisions designed to implement the savage taxation which the Minister announced on budget day on such things as beer, tobacco and spirits, wines, table waters, betting duty, stamp duty, gaming and, of course, the notorious 15p per gallon extra taxation on petrol. Not content with that, I see the Minister is now introducing an increase in dog licence fees. I am amused—the lightest word I can use —at the Minister's approach which is outlined in his speech in regard to dog licences. He has used the same approach in other areas. I understood him to say that it was necessary to increase the cost of dog licences in order to provide money for the Exchequer to enable local authorities to make better provisions for stray dogs.

Mr. R. Ryan

Deputy Haughey strongly recommended this about six weeks ago. He strongly recommended it at Question Time, if the Deputy will recall that.

Mr. Colley

Of course, I am not opposed to making better provision in this regard: what I am amused at is that, according to what the Minister has said, we would appear to have reached the stage where we cannot make the relatively small provision necessary to deal with the problem of stray dogs without increasing dog licences which notoriously are not paid in very many cases. The Minister proposes to increase them from what used to be 5/- to £1. Does he really think that this will mean more dog licences will be paid? Does he think the gardaí will devote more time to collecting these licences? We do not have the sublime anywhere in this Bill but this is certainly going to the ridiculous.

Mr. Esmonde

The penalty has been increased. That is the main problem; it was too small.

Mr. Colley

Yes, I saw that.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Minister missed the cats, about the only thing left.

Mr. Colley

He will get around to it yet; certainly there is not much left.

Mr. Esmonde

The farmers have been having sheep killed on their lands. Ninety-two were killed in one night on one farm in Wexford.

Mr. Colley

Does the Deputy think this Bill will help them?

Mr. R. Ryan

I am acceding to the representations in the Dáil of Deputy Haughey. I think Deputy Colley's bark is worse than his bite. We shall let him proceed.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. The Deputy in possession should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Colley

I was referring to this merely to illustrate the depths to which the Minister had to go in order to raise even the small amount of revenue required in this matter.

Apart from the actual content of the Bill, in a way what the Minister does not provide is almost more significant. He has many provisions in regard to value-added tax but none I noticed to reduce, as we, and I think NESC urged, a reduction of 4 percentage points in all rates of VAT, a step which could be justified now because of the economic crisis —in the Minister's own words, the "economic blizzard"—we are facing which apparently crept up on him unknown to him although everybody else was aware of it and was pointing it out to him. I see no provision in regard to VAT in this Bill which would in any way assist either in attempting to break the vicious spiral of inflation or to increase employment. No move in that direction is indicated by the Minister.

There is no provision in the Bill to give even the temporary subsidies that we urged to counteract the effect of the green £ on the cost of living because the bulk of benefits accruing from the green £ were accruing from exports and would not have affected us on the home market. We urged the Minister to take steps to counteract the effect on the home market and, if taken, these steps would have cost a great deal less than the cost involved in failing to take them. If one counts only the cost of the increased sums payable under the escalator clause in the national pay agreement, one finds it would have been a very good bargain from the Government's point of view to have taken our advice in that regard. There is no provision here about assistance by way of VAT reductions or otherwise to old people in regard to the cost of heating and lighting which has now become prohibitive. Many old people are living in the most appalling conditions because of the cost of heating and lighting.

Apart from the increases to which I have referred, the Bill provides for the implementation of certain measures announced in the budget regarding increased allowances for income tax and certain deferred reliefs—relief in the form of deferred taxation—for certain kinds of companies but it must be obvious to most people that the reliefs proposed in both cases are quite inadequate for the purposes for which they are supposed to be introduced.

The reliefs in regard to personal allowances under the income tax code, according to the Minister's own statement, are in the region of 15 per cent. When he announced this on budget day he referred to the increase in the cost of living between May and November. Presumably his reason for taking that extraordinary period was that May was the first date on which there was a cost-of-living figure available after the commencement of the income tax year and November was at that time the last date on which there was a figure available before the budget. But the Minister knows, as does everybody else, that the income tax payer is concerned with a full year, from 5th April to the following 4th April. Taking the nearest available figures at that time in order merely to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living, the increase should have been 20 per cent, but if one were to operate on the basis of 20 per cent one would assume that the rate of increase in the cost of living between mid-February last and mid-February this year would not exceed 20 per cent. I presume the figure for mid-February this year will be available in a week or so and it will surprise me if that figure is less than 20 per cent; the indications are that it will exceed 20 per cent. There is no way in which the Minister can indicate that a 15 per cent increase in the income tax personal allowances is in any way appropriate to the circumstances.

This is done in the context of a refusal by the Minister to accept an amendment to last year's Finance Bill which would have built in an automatic adjustment for inflation in relation to income tax allowances, a refusal to accept that amendment which the Minister attempted to justify on the grounds that he was undertaking to reform those allowances regularly.

The clear implication of what the Minister said on that occasion was that they would be reviewed at least annually and that they would be adjusted in line at least with the cost of living. When one remembers that last year the adjustments made did not even restore the position to what it was under the last Fianna Fáil Government, a position which the Minister described as disgraceful, and that this year in this Bill he is proposing to erode the position even further by providing only for an increase of 15 per cent in the income tax allowances, then one sees that a great deal of the talk we hear from the Government and in particular from the Minister for Finance about his concern in this regard is no more than talk.

The Minister will be judged not on what he says, not by the objectives which he professes to be following but by what he does and in particular by what he is doing in this Bill. What he is doing in this Bill in regard to income tax allowances is clearly and unarguably eroding the position of the income tax payer in relation to the cost of living. That is not taking into account any question of whether there ought to be a real improvement in the position of some income tax payers. Leaving that whole area of argument aside and just dealing with the question of the increase in the cost of living, the position of income tax payers in general is being eroded as a result of the provisions of the Bill.

In regard to the proposed relief in this Bill for companies that relief is, it seems to me, doubly inadequate having regard to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The provisions of this Bill are themselves an acknowledgment of the necessity for action but as in most areas in which this Government can be induced to move at all the action is too little and too late because what is provided here is in a limited field to provide for the deferral of a corporation profits tax— not the waiving of it but its deferral when certain conditions are fulfilled. The Minister knows by now, I am sure, what most of us know, that there are many companies which are by reason of shortage of liquidity, shortage of cash, close to bankruptcy. It is an emergency and it requires emergency measures. We suggested the emergency measures required at the very least the waiving of corporation profits tax this year—the complete waiving of it, not its deferral as provided here—plus the adjustment of the income tax code in this Bill to provide permanently for adjustment in relation to the stock problem and depreciation problem of companies in line with inflation. What the Minister appears to have done is provide for a temporary deferral of liability based on the increase in the value of stocks. I can see no provision regarding adjustment of depreciation allowances in line with inflation but the very limited proposals the Minister has go such a short distance on the road that needs to be travelled that it cannot be expected that they will be in any way effective in counteracting the very serious problem which is facing many companies today.

The degree of ineffectiveness of these provisions will be reflected in further redundancies and further unemployment. That is what makes action in this regard, emergency action, so urgently necessary. That is what makes the provisions of this Bill so inadequate and so pathetic in the light of what is required. It seems to me that the provisions of this Bill in this regard are merely an acknowledgment by the Minister that there are problems, just an acknowledgment but no effective action to deal with them.

The consequences of this ineffectiveness will be felt not just by the directors and shareholders of the companies concerned but by their employees as they are thrown out of work. Of course, the consequences of that to the Exchequer and to the economy will be serious, too. On the one hand, it will reduce the takings to the Exchequer from taxes and on the other hand it will increase expenditure by the Exchequer on redundancy payments, social welfare payments and other forms of assistance, which will be claimed by different categories of persons who are unemployed. So, even from the Minister's point of view, the ineffectiveness of these measures is a very shortsighted act on his part.

We have the same peculiar situation in the context of these measures that the Minister for Finance told us in his budget speech that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would participate in the budget debate and in the course of that participation would spell out in detail the steps the Government propose to take in order to ease the problems of business, the problems I have been outlining. By various leaks and statements made by or on behalf of the Government the message was clearly delivered that the line of approach that would be adopted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this regard was to relax price control. He appears to have somewhat retreated from that position since but we do not know because of the peculiar circumstances whereby he did not participate in the budget debate. I hope he will find it possible to let us all know just what the Government propose to do in this regard. We have been hearing about it for a long time, but we have not got any details. While time is ticking away companies are closing down, people are being thrown out of work, and still nothing has happened.

As far as I am concerned, if the Minister approaches it on the basis that the kind of reliefs that I have advocated, and which I believe should be contained in this Bill, are not to be given and instead that the reliefs are to be given by way of increased prices, I regard that as a totally misguided and ill-judged policy which can only have the effect not only of increasing prices still further but of driving more firms out of business, putting more people on the dole. The right approach to this problem should be contained in this Bill and not in the price control machinery operated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I would hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister for Finance would see the economic sense and the economic priority of doing everything within his control and within the control of his colleagues in Government to resist price increases where it is humanly possible and where there is an alternative such as the one I have outlined, that that alternative should be followed rather than permitting further price increases. I hope the Minister will amend this Bill to provide the kind of relief that would solve or go a long way towards solving the problems I have been describing rather than limit the reliefs to what he proposes in the Bill as it is drafted and leave the Minister for Industry and Commerce to get these firms out of their difficulties by allowing price increases.

Some reflection on the consequence of these alternative courses of action should make it clear where the national interest lies. I have expressed the hope that the Minister might see the light in this. I must confess it is a forlorn hope, because neither he nor his colleagues have seen the light very much in regard to most of the economic problems with which we have been faced. I do not detect in their actions or in the contents of this Bill the kind of approach which involves close monitoring of the immediate situation and quick action to deal with problems as they arise, but rather an obsession, with theoretical aspects of taxation, so that more and more the Minister for Finance, in particular, and his colleagues, in general, appear to be removed from the reality of what is happening around us today, so removed that it would appear that they do not realise the necessity there is for emergency action to prevent the situation getting even worse, and God knows it is bad enough as it is.

Could anybody have conceived that it would be as bad as it is, that we would have inflation running at more than 20 per cent per annum, that we would have nearly 104,000 people out of work? Do the Government not regard this situation as an emergency? How bad does it have to get before it is regarded as an emergency requiring emergency measures? There are no signs of emergency measures in this Bill.

The recognition of the seriousness of the position is the first step, which is to be followed, and should be followed, by effective action to deal with it. Despite what has been said by the Minister for Finance in the past and will probably be said by him in the future, I want to place on record once more, as I have done on many previous occasions, that I do not contend, nor does any member of this party that the effect of what is happening in the world around us does not operate to the detriment of this economy. Far from it. We are only too well aware of the effects of outside influences on our open economy. But we are also aware that half of our inflation is generated here at home, and we are also aware that a number of steps are open to the Government which would drastically and quickly improve the employment situation, steps some of which at least should be contained in this Bill, but they are not there.

The outstanding example, I suppose, in this regard is the question of the failure of the Government to take action in regard to the flow of money to building societies. There should be a section in this Bill which would, as we have advocated for a very long time, take away from deposits in building societies up to £5,000 liability for income tax. I know there has been some improvement in the inflow of money to building societies, but it is limited. What is really important is, is there now available a free flow of mortgages to people who want to buy houses? Everybody in this House knows that is not the position, and until it is, then the Government are not doing their job. There could be a provision in this Bill which, I estimate would not cost the Exchequer much more than £2 million but which could have a dramatic effect on the building industry and consequently on the whole economy. I find it difficult, and many people to whom I have spoken find it extremely difficult, to understand, why the Government have persistently dragged their feet in this regard. I know there has been an announcement of another £7 million for local authority housing, half from the Exchequer and half, apparently, in the form of money being printed. I am subject to correction on that, but certainly from the limited announcement we have had it looks like that. But we all know that what has been done so shortly after the budget when the Minister announced his overall requirements and Estimates for each Department, including housing, will have only a marginal effect, and certainly will be nil as far as the private house building sector is concerned. Therefore, I repeat that we have an emergency situation but you would never suspect it from looking at this Bill, because there is no sign in this Bill of emergency action.

Under section 11, as the Minister indicated, it is proposed to reduce the higher rates of income tax to come into effect at the same time as the implementation of the wealth tax. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that under section 11 there is provision that these new rates will operate with effect from April 6th, 1975, that is presumably on the basis of the commencement of the new income tax year. However, section 45, which deals with the alleged removal of estate duty, legacy duty and succession duty, is to operate from the 1st April, 1975.

I wonder why the two cannot conform, in view of the fact that they are supposed to be interdependent. I should also like to ask the Minister if he is serious in his proposal to implement the wealth tax, presumably with the legislation passed, by either 1st or 6th April, 1975.

We are in a most peculiar position in regard to this. The Minister said he was removing death duties and, according to the explanatory memorandum, death duties are being replaced by wealth tax, and we know that in so far as they are being removed they are also being replaced by capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax. We have before the House, partially discussed, at Committee Stage the Capital Gains Tax Bill, the Wealth Tax Bill has been circulated but we have not yet seen the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill. Yet we are asked in this Bill to implement provisions which are supposed to be designed to remove death duties, although they do not do that, and to reduce the upper rates of income tax to coincide with that.

I regard this position as extraordinary and totally unsatisfactory. It is my belief that if we are to tackle this whole problem in any orderly way, then all of the Bills should be published, each one discussed separately and completely before we go on to the next. We should not be chopping and changing from one to the other. At least we should know, when we are dealing with this Bill and its provisions, what the Government's intentions are in regard to the package to replace death duties. We are not in that position at present because the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill has not yet been circulated. That is a totally unsatisfactory position and I hope it will be remedied as soon as possible, certainly before the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Chapter II of the Bill deals with taxation of farming profits. It is of some significance in the context not only of this Bill but of a wider context to note that a number of the sections proposed by the Minister— for example, section 16, which clarifies and alters the position in regard to the apportionment of rateable valuation where land is beneficially owned or occupied in partnership with others—are matters which we urged at some length on the Minister during the discussion on the last Finance Bill but did not get anywhere. Section 17 is another example. That section provides that the notional basis of assessment will be available to farmers for the year 1975-76. In urging that on the Minister we gave good reason why it should be done. In addition section 18, which extends the farm buildings annual allowance to expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1971, was also urged on the Minister by us. I must confess I was intrigued to note what the Minister was saying about that today.

The Minister, in the course of his speech today, said:

As many farmers undertook heavy expenditure of a capital nature in the years prior to 1974 —at a time when farming profits were exempt from tax—so as to prepare themselves for the challenge and opportunities presented by the country's entry to the Common Market, the Government have now decided, exceptionally, to make the allowance retrospective so that expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1971, instead of 6th April, 1974, will qualify for the allowance.

I wonder if these words have any familiar ring in the Minister's ears? Did he hear that being said from this side of the House? I should also like to know if the Minister thinks there is a familiar ring in the following part of his speech today:

In deciding to introduce this additional allowance the Government were influenced by the consideration that quite a considerable amount of expenditure on farm buildings nowadays relates to milk-parlours, piggeries and other types of expensive buildings which can become fairly rapidly obsolescent.

All these things were urged strongly by this side of the House. Amendments were tabled and the Minister argued vehemently against them and used his majority to reject them.

I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Minister, and some of his colleagues, make a habit of speaking vehemently in favour of their own proposals, of refusing to listen to what is said on this side of the House, of refusing to accept amendments which make sense and then finding themselves having to introduce in this House exactly the same ideas after going through the charade of rejecting vehemently the arguments put forward and occupying a great deal of time.

The consequence of this is that only last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach came into this House in connection with the discussion on the Capital Gains Tax Bill accusing this side of the House of filibustering. The Parliamentary Secretary had not heard the discussion about which he was talking—he had the honesty to confess that—but he was quoting what he said happened on the Committee Stage of last year's Finance Bill where we discussed these proposals.

We urged them strongly on the Minister but according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, we were filibustering. The Minister has now introduced these proposals himself. I should like to draw the attention of the House to this deplorable attitude on the part of the Minister for Finance, and some of his colleagues, whereby any proposal, any amendment from this side of the House is rejected whether it is right or wrong, whether it makes sense or not. The fact that the Minister is now introducing these proposals clearly indicates that in his view they now make sense. If they make sense now they made sense during the all-night sitting when they were being argued for before. It is clear now who was doing the filibustering and who was holding up the business of the House. I hope we will not have a repetition of that attitude on the Committee Stage of this Bill.

I want to refer the Minister to the provisions of section 21 which provide that where it appears to the inspector that the determination of any amount on which a person may be chargeable to tax by virtue of sections 83, 84 or 85 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, may affect the liability to tax of other persons he may give notice in writing to those persons. They would then be entitled to come in and participate in the appeal machinery and so on. This is a right provision to make but I want to ask the Minister to look at the position which could arise if through inadvertence or through a mistaken view of the position of the law notice was not given. It seems to me that the rest of the section confers this right of participation in the appeal procedure and so on only to those to whom notice has been given by the inspector. It also seems to me there may well be a case for extending that right to persons who are in fact affected, whether or not they are notified by the inspector.

It is probably not appropriate at this stage so I will not pursue the question I have in relation to section 25 except to say that I assume on Committee Stage the Minister will be prepared to spell out in more detail than he has done in introducing this Stage, the precise differences and the precise advantages he sees in the new provision in regard to the serving of notice as distinct for those which existed heretofore.

I would also like to know—perhaps it could be best illustrated by way of example—the precise need envisaged for the provisions of section 26 in regard to the unpaid amount of PAYE already deducted by an employer who fails to hand over those receipts to the Revenue Commissioners and the effect of interest running on the unpaid amount for the last income tax month of that year. Perhaps the Minister could give examples of what has been happening and how this provision will affect what has been happening.

Section 28 proposes to increase the rates of interest chargeable on unpaid taxes. The taxes concerned, according to the explanatory memorandum, are income tax, whether charged by assessment, deducted under PAYE or deducted from payments to subcontractors, surtax, where it is outstanding, corporation profits tax and VAT. There is a general proposition in regard to interest on unpaid taxes which I, as Minister for Finance, introduced in relation to certain taxes. This section seems to me to be a suitable one where it could be done in relation to all our taxes. When interest is payable by a taxpayer on outstanding tax there should similarly be a provision for repayment of an overpayment of tax with interest at a similar rate. That is a reasonable proposition which has been accepted in a number of areas. I am concerned about applying it across the board, to all forms of tax, in respect of which interest may become payable by a taxpayer. I am also concerned about the increase proposed in the interest rate payable under section 28. It is proposed to increase it, as from 6th April, 1975, to, according to the explanatory memorandum, a uniform 1½ per cent per month. I am not quite sure if that means it is charged on a cumulative basis. I rather suspect it does but even if one assumes it is not charged in that way that seems to put the rate at 18 per cent a year. If it is charged on a cumulative basis it is certainly higher than that. If it is charged at 1½ per cent at the end of the month and that is added on and 1½ per cent charged the following month on the tax plus the interest, it is certainly more than the 18 per cent.

The general principle which should operate in this field is if the Exchequer is deprived of tax to which it is entitled then it should be entitled to interest on that tax at the going rate, no more and no less. This provision about interest should not in any sense be regarded as a punitive provision. There are other provisions under the income tax code which provide ample, and in some cases, dire, penalties for non-payment of tax or for concealment of facts which would lead to assessment of tax. They should be regarded in a different light. When we are talking about interest the two principles that should be involved are, first, as I have indicated, the same liability on the Exchequer as there is on the taxpayer, to pay back money, if it is over-paid, with interest at the same rate as is charged to the taxpayer. Secondly, the Exchequer should be entitled to interest on money which should have been paid to it and was not at what I have described as the going rate. There may be some argument about what is the going rate but it seems to me, even if the rate envisaged here is only 18 per cent per annum—I think it is considerably more—on the face of it this is getting close to usury. The aim should be if a taxpayer were to borrow an equivalent amount as the amount of tax outstanding from a bank the kind of interest he would pay on that.

I know there are different interest rates, depending on the category one falls into and the purpose for which the money is borrowed, but it seems that this proposal in section 28 goes away beyond the amount of interest that would normally be required to be paid by a bank on an ordinary business borrowing or overdraft. If it is, it is not justified. It should be as close as possible to that rate and, since interest rates have gone down somewhat recently, there is all the more reason why this figure should not be as excessive as it appears. I would urge the Minister to rethink the rate of interest proposed in this section.

I want to make it quite clear, lest there be any misunderstanding, that I accept fully and without reservation that the Exchequer is entitled to interest on outstanding tax which should have been paid to it for the period it has been outstanding but the rate of interest should be comparable to that which would have been paid by the taxpayer had he borrowed that money from the bank.

I want to raise also a query in regard to section 30. Section 30 provides for the passing on of relief to shareholders where dividends are paid by a company out of patent royalty income which is exempt from tax under the Finance Act, 1973. On the face of it, that section does not appear to apply earlier than the enactment of this legislation. If it is desirable to provide for this in the future it would seem that it should have been provided in the past. If that is so, I should like to be clear that that will be done and that, from the inauguration of this provision, the relief proposed in this section will apply.

I have spoken already about the deferment of income tax and corporation profits tax from companies which is provided for in section 31. But I should like the Minister to indicate which portion of section 31 actually provides for a deferment, as distinct from a complete waiver, as indicated in his budget statement and, indeed, in the explanatory memorandum. On the face of it, it is not clear where there is the provision for deferment and I would appreciate if the Minister would indicate exactly where such provision is made.

Part II of the Bill deals, in the main, with the increased taxes announced in the budget on spirits, beer, tobacco and so on. As I have indicated, of course, these are savage and unprecedented increases. The Minister will recall that, in the course of the discussion on the financial resolutions in relation to tobacco, he was urged strongly to reconsider the traditional position of hard plug tobacco. My recollection is that he undertook to reconsider that position. He did not, I think, refer to it in introducing this Stage. He might well refer to it, when replying, to indicate whether or not he has reconsidered it yet; if he has, what is the result of that consideration which, on the face of it, appears to be to leave the position as it obtained? If that is the result of his reconsideration, he might indicate why he proposes to do that. On the other hand, if he has not yet reconsidered it, I would ask him to so indicate and urge him to complete his reconsideration before Committee Stage.

I have received certain representations in regard to sections 41 and 42 which impose, in some cases, increased and, in other cases, new taxes on licences for gaming and gaming machines. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the points made. I imagine he has received the same representations himself. I would ask him to consider the points made, some of which seem to me to be quite valid and to indicate his reaction to them. If he is inclined not to accept them, perhaps he would indicate his reasons for failure to do so. Firstly, the sections affect to a great extent quite a number of small operators of amusement arcades in coastal resorts, people who, in the main, operate during the summer months only, most of whom certainly are not in a big way of business. There are some people affected who are in a fairly big way of business and their problems are different. But I am concerned particularly with those who are in a small way of business. These people point out that their members have to pay all taxes on their businesses and substantial amounts in rates, just as any other business, but, in addition, they have to pay a fee on a gaming licence and, indeed, legal costs in applying for the licence. It would appear that these sections introduce, by way of levy, up to £50 per annum on a slot machine.

I understand that, under existing law, small operators in coastal resorts are obliged to have other forms of amusement provided on their premises apart from slot machines. They have to use hire purchase facilities to install the great variety of modern equipment for which their patrons look, including tourists from abroad whom we are anxious to attract. They feel that the imposition of this apparently very high rate of duty may well close down businesses in a number of coastal resorts. They urge that the maximum tax on a gaming machine should be £25 for a full year with a corresponding adjustment for a lesser period. The Bill, as drafted, does not make provision for adjustments of that kind for lesser periods. For instance, where the machines have broken down, or where the premises are closed for the off-season, it would appear, under the provisions here, the owners would have to remove all the machines from the premises. Otherwise, they would be committing an offence. It would be quite impossible for many of those people to find storage space outside their own premises, as required by the section as drafted.

Mr. B. Desmond

I thought the Deputy was going to advocate that slot machines should be banned rather than having the tax element on them reduced.

Mr. Colley

I am talking in the main about bronze coins, about people on holidays going in on a wet day and spending small sums of money and winning small amounts. I am not talking about the big operations that go on too.

Mr. B. Desmond

I thought a political party of the nature of the Deputy's—of Republican culture—would not regard that as a desirable form of holiday entertainment.

Mr. Colley

Is Deputy B. Desmond telling us that it is anti-republican to use a slot machine?

Mr. B. Desmond

Slot machines are not my favourite form of amusement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Colley, please.

Mr. Colley

They are not my favourite form of amusement either. But republicanism involves tolerance: tolerance of people who want to use slot machines.

Mr. Lalor

If we banned "one-armed bandits" the Minister for Finance would have to leave the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Generally one Deputy at a time speaks in this House. Deputy Colley is now in possession.

Mr. Colley

I am advocating that consideration ought to be given to the employment provided in these places, some permanent and some seasonal employment. It may be that Deputy B. Desmond does not care about that, but I do.

Mr. B. Desmond

It is not a very productive form of employment.

Mr. Colley

Does the Deputy wish to close it down? Is that what he wants?

Mr. B. Desmond

I have as much regard for it as I have for the employment provided by bingo.

Mr. Colley

Does the Deputy want to ban it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure Deputy B. Desmond will contribute at a later stage.

Mr. Colley

It will be interesting if he will tell us in his contribution whether he wants to ban it. I want to try to ensure that this harmless form of activity—and I am speaking of what I regard as a harmless form of activity, not the big stake operation because that is a different thing —available in seaside resorts and holiday places should be allowed to operate in such a way as to, if you like, yield revenue to the Exchequer. They should not be closed down. People should not be put out of work. We should not reduce the small amount of amusement provided in these areas, particularly for tourists. One does not have to be for a Mafia-type operation or nothing at all.

Those of us who are reasonably in touch with what is happening here know there are a number of holiday places where the kind of operation I have been describing goes on. I do not want to see such places close down or people put out of work. The Minister might give reasonable consideration to the representations being made in this regard which seem fair and reasonable. A number of these places open only on a Sunday during the off-season. It might be a fairer arrangement to provide for a limited licence for a defined period, not exceeding a month, at a smaller licence fee to cater for that kind of activity at certain seaside resorts. On such a licence the days and the dates involved would be stamped. They could be provided in exactly the same way as the monthly licences under the Public Dancehalls Act, 1935.

I wish to refer to section 18, which extends the farm buildings annual allowance to expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1971.

Mr. Lalor

As Deputy Colley is now discussing farming, we do not seem to have a representative of the farming community on the Government side. Therefore, I call for a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Colley

I was referring to section 18, which extends the farm buildings annual allowance to expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1971. The point to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is this. It has been represented to me that the section, as drafted, does not provide any allowance in respect of expenditure on buildings used for the intensive production of livestock where the activity is not carried on as part of the trade of farming farmland. The effect of the section would appear to be that an initial allowance of 20 per cent and an annual allowance of 10 per cent would be provided in respect of expenditure on farm buildings after the 5th April, 1974. That has been the position. In addition, under this section the same allowances would be given in respect of expenditure incurred between the 6th April, 1971. and the 5th April, 1974, or at least that the earlier expenditure will qualify for the annual allowance of 10 per cent.

As I indicated, there appears to be no allowance in respect of expenditure on building used for the intensive production of livestock where the activity is not carried on as part of the trade of farming farmland. If this is so, there seems to be no logical reason why such producers should not get the same allowance as that proposed for farm buildings. I understand market gardeners have been getting this type of allowance for many years. Therefore I would urge the Minister to look into that aspect of the allowances provided for in section 18.

I referred briefly at the beginning of my speech to the Minister's shock announcement when introducing this Second Stage to what is provided in section 43: an increase in the annual rate of dog licence duty from 25p to £1. He also proposes to increase the rate of annual licence, which may be given as an alternative to individual licences, to be held for any number of dogs from £10 to £25. I wondered first when I read this section whether it was done for revenue purposes. Then I thought it really could not be, but I found from what the Minister said today that it is. It is designed to raise revenue in order to assist local authorities in making better provision for stray dogs. I do not know if the Minister could tell us what is the estimated revenue from this, but it seems to me to bode ill for the future of the revenue if we have to do this in present circumstances.

Section 44 confirms the number of orders under the Imposition of Duties Act but, in particular, proposes to confirm the now notorious order whereby the Minister increased the tax on petrol by 15p per gallon shortly before Christmas. There was, of course, subsequently an increase in the price of petrol but that was not due to increased taxation.

This order which we are now asked to confirm was, as indicated at the time, a very ill-thought-out order. Not alone was that ill-thought out from the point of view of the consequences on the economy and on individuals, but, as it now transpires from what the Minister has said, the announcement at that time that it was proposed to transform this additional tax into value-added tax was also ill-thought out. Apparently he now cannot do that. I wonder if the consequence of his failure to transform it into value-added tax means that people, which, in the terms of drafting the legislation, includes individuals and companies, who might otherwise have been entitled to claim relief in respect of value-added tax paid on such petrol will now be deprived of the benefit of being able to claim against their value-added tax liability. I would ask the Minister to clarify that point when he is replying.

We in Fianna Fáil opposed that increase of 15p per gallon in taxation on petrol in so far as we could do so at the time in the House. We are still opposed to it. We believe it was illconceived and misjudged, that it was based on a misconception of what it was necessary for the Government to do, and that the major effect of it was simply to impose hardship and increase the cost of living but not to have any noticeable effect in the longer term in doing what the Minister claimed he was trying to do, that was, to reduce consumption.

In fact, in the 12 months prior to the imposition of that taxation, petrol had been increased for one reason or another by something in the region of 20p per gallon, but the effect on consumption was nil. There may be other factors such as the continuing recession in the economy which may affect the consumption of petrol since that 15p a gallon was imposed, but one can be reasonably sure that this increase in taxation will not to any noticeable degree, affect consumption of itself. The whole approach of the Minister in this regard was wrong and misguided. What he should have been concerned with mainly was the actual reduction of consumption. He should have been concerned with that primarily because of the effect of the increase in oil prices on our balance of payments. Therefore, if he could devise a method whereby consumption would be reduced and still leave petrol at the price at which it was or not increase the tax on it, he would have been doing a far greater benefit to the economy than by putting on this taxation.

The Minister has argued that we were virtually obliged to do this because the other countries in Western Europe, and particularly in the EEC, were doing something similar. I do not accept that argument for one moment, and if the Minister could show the EEC and anybody else who is interested or concerned with this that effectively we were reducing consumption, he would be in a much happier position than if he has to show that consumption has virtually not been affected at all. Of course, he has increased the cost of living very effectively. If that is the result, it is not one of which he can be proud, and there was no obligation in the EEC or otherwise to have done what the Minister did. It was a grave mistake, and it was done primarily for the purpose of raising a substantial amount of taxation, probably in the region of £30 million in a year, and it was done shortly before the budget because the Minister did not have the nerve to come in here to face the House and the public and impose that £30 million on top of all the rest of the taxation he was imposing and which is provided for in this Bill.

There have been few actions in relation to the imposition of taxation by any Government that I recall which received such widespread condemnation as that action of the Government which we are now being asked to confirm under section 44 of this Bill. To this day people resent what the Minister did, and they will continue to resent it. There is a normal reaction to any taxation, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the reaction of people to the attempt by the Minister to, I can only use the word, "con", an attempt which was singularly unsuccessful, because he did not succeed in conning anybody. All he succeeded in doing was annoying them because of the low level at which he assessed their intelligence. If people were convinced that this tax increase on petrol had been necessary in the national interest, some would have grumbled, but people generally would have accepted it. But they were not so convinced and could not be so convinced, because it would not be true. I assure the Minister that we are still opposed to what he did, and in particular we are opposed to section 44, if only for that reason.

According to the Minister section 45 provides for the removal of death duties as from 1st April, 1975. I have referred already to the fact that this Bill, both in this section and in another section, proposes certain measures on the basis of the removal of death duties and of their substitution by other taxation, one form of which is capital acquisitions tax but that we have not seen yet the Bill dealing with that tax.

It is misleading to talk of abolishing death duties in the context of what it is proposed to substitute for them because, on the assumption that the capital acquisitions tax will follow to some extent what was announced in the White Paper—I say "to some extent" because we know of some changes and have discovered others in the Capital Gains Tax Bill—there will be a form of inheritance tax on property passing on death. The Minister may say that the limits will be different, that the liabilities will be different but that does not constitute the removal of death duties. It should be made clear to everybody that in that sense there is no proposal in this Bill to remove death duties. It may be a coincidence or it may be of some significance that when the Minister speaks in this House on this Bill he speaks of the removal of death duties but that he has not produced the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill. That Bill would reveal clearly that in certain circumstances duty or tax will be payable on property passing on death. Furthermore, because it is proposed to have capital acquisitions tax, capital gains tax and wealth tax, it is very difficult to assess the consequences of those three taxes applied to a particular set of circumstances or transactions and to compare them with the existing position. Contrary to what was said in the White Paper, we know that in some circumstances both capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax will be applied to the one transaction, but it is impossible to make this assessment when we have not the Bill. I urge that nobody be taken in by the statement regarding the removal of death duties.

In regard to section 45, there are what appear to be rather complex provisions. I wonder why, in so far as the removal of legacy and succession duties are concerned, it would not be possible simply to provide that, where legacy or succession duty would be but for this section chargeable, they shall not be chargeable as from 1st April, 1975, rather than to have the very detailed and complicated provisions which refer back to a number of previous enactments. Perhaps the Minister would explain why it is not possible to frame the provision in that way. I have a suspicion why it is not possible but I should like the Minister to tell us the reason so that we might pursue it further.

Subsection (1) of section 45 states that:

Estate duty shall not be levied or paid in respect of any property passing or deemed to pass on the death of any person dying on or after the appointed day.

Normally where a section refers to an appointed date there is a provision, either in that section or subsequently in the Bill, stating that the appointed date shall be the day fixed by the Minister by order, which order is usually laid before this House. However that is not what this section provides. Subsection (6) says that "the appointed day" means the first day of April, 1975. Can the Minister tell me the reason for this very unusual procedure in this instance? If the appointed date is to me spelled out in subsection (6) as the first day of April, 1975, why not spell out the date in subsection (1) instead or referring to "the appointed day"? If the use of the phrase "the appointed day" is intended to provide for the possibilty that the necessary legislation might not be enacted, the specifying of the appointed day as meaning the first day of April, 1975, does not meet that purpose. It does not make much sense to leave it as it is in the Bill.

Section 50 provides for what is intended to be a temporary removal of the right of registered purchasers of live cattle to claim a credit for VAT of 1 per cent of the consideration involved. Also, it suspends for a period the liability of unregistered farmers and the right of cattle dealers and cattle marts to issue invoices which rank for the 1 per cent credit. In his speech today the Minister said this was being done for the benefit of small farmers and he referred to his budget speech. The mechanics of the operation involved are not clear and have not been made clear in the House. I should like to be convinced that the provision involved here, which is taking away the rights of farmers in regard to the ability to claim relief in respect of VAT, in respect of their inputs—a right which was worked out with a great deal of difficulty and discussion—is being taken away ostensibly to benefit small farmers in certain circumstances.

I want to know precisely how the small farmer is to benefit from this, how it will pass through the machinery. We have experienced too many schemes purporting to be for the benefit of the smaller or medium farmer but particularly for the benefit of the producer not operating for the benefit of the producer. The benefits find their way into the hands of middlemen, and the producer, particularly the small farmer, suffers all the time and does not get the benefit of something which in this House he has the name of getting. I want to ensure that that will not happen in this case. I want to be convinced that, if this measure, which was introduced for the benefit of farmers, is taken away even temporarily, it will be of some practical use to small farmers. To do that we must have an explanation of the precise machinery involved and how it is intended to work it. Therefore I would ask the Minister in his reply to spell that out in as much detail as possible.

Section 53 proposes to increase from 20 to 30 sitting days the time limit for the passing of the Second Stage of a Finance Bill—that is, 30 sitting days after the budget resolution has been passed. I do not object to this provision; in fact, I think it is necessary and in his speech today the Minister gave the reasons why it is necessary. However in the context of this section I would refer to a matter I mentioned recently in the House, namely, that the Minister may find it necessary to have another look at the statutory requirements in relation to this Finance Bill. One cannot regard the passage of this Bill totally in isolation from the Capital Gains Tax Bill, the Wealth Tax Bill and the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill. They must be viewed in the one context because there is an interdependence between them. I am not prepared, and I do not believe my party are prepared, to allow ourselves to be railroaded into having this or any of the other three Bills rushed through the House without adequate examination. I would remind the Minister that if he is trying to get these Bills through, as I believe he is, by the end of March, the date of production was far too late if there is to be any reasonable examination of them——

Mr. B. Desmond

We could have sent them to a special committee but the Deputy's party would not agree.

Mr. Colley

I do not know if we were asked but I will tell the Deputy this for nothing: this kind of legislation is too important to be shoved under the carpet, as Deputy Desmond would like to be done in a special committee——

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy did that with regard to the legislation dealing with value-added tax——

Mr. Colley

At the request of the Opposition. We had a full discussion in the House on the matter.

Mr. Lalor

How can we send a Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill we have not got to a special committee?

Mr. B. Desmond

The Opposition have wasted enough time.

Mr. Colley

Earlier I adverted to this matter but perhaps Deputy Desmond was not here at the time——

Mr. B. Desmond

I heard the Deputy.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy heard me speak on the sections dealing with farming which represent the amendments we put down to last year's Finance Bill, that were opposed by Deputy Desmond, by the Minister and his colleagues. Within the past week we were accused by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach of having filibustered on those sections which the Minister is now bringing into this Bill. Let us have some realism on this——

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy's party are still opposed to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Desmond will have an opportunity of speaking later. He should allow the Deputy in possession to speak without interruption.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy is the one who voted against the amendments and he is the person who will vote for the things he rejected on the last Finance Bill. The Deputy should have a little sense. I am sorry if he cannot understand what I am saying but I can do nothing about it. I wish to make it quite clear that as far as we are concerned we do not propose to filibuster the Finance Bill, the Capital Gains Tax Bill, the Wealth Tax Bill or the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill. We have not done this and anyone who checks the Official Report will find that is so, that where on the Capital Gains Tax Bill the Minister was prepared to give an explanation, even if we did not agree with it, we proceeded in a reasonable way. There was no filibuster, nor will there be, but we are not prepared to go along with the railroading of this legislation through this House. It will get adequate examination so far as we are concerned.

Therefore in the context of section 53 I am saying to the Minister that he may find it necessary to take another look at the statutory requirement with regard to the passing of the final stages of this Finance Bill. If it is necessary to make a temporary change this year, because of the other Bills that have to be taken in conjunction with this Bill, our party are prepared to give full consideration to any proposal the Minister may want to make in that regard.

So far as we are concerned the overall consideration is that the Bills should get full and adequate examination. I repeat we have not filibustered and we do not intend to do this, but we intend to examine the Bill fully. In the context of the time limit and the non-availability, as yet, of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill it is important that consideration be given now to this point. That is why I am making the point to the Minister so that he can consider it. I repeat that, if he has proposals in that regard, we will be as co-operative as we can with regard to such proposals.

We regard the framework of fiscal policy represented by this Bill as pathetically inadequate in our economic circumstances and in the economic emergency in which the country is plunged. Many of the provisions of this Bill are so far removed from the reality of what is happening outside this House to Irishmen and women that it just is not true. We are not responsible for this legislation and the irrelevance of many of its sections to the requirements of the situation. We are not responsible for the absence of a section that would have real relevance in the sense of dealing with the economic emergency, with the unemployment problem of 103,000 people and with inflation at the rate of 20 per cent or more. The provisions to tackle these problems are not in the Bill but that is not our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Government who, under the rules of this House and our Constitution, are the only people who can sponsor financial legislation. All we can do is to deal with the legislation before us and to point out the inadequacies as we have tried to do. We will do our best to make it a better Bill and certainly it can be improved in a number of areas but, as it stands, no improvement will tackle the real economic problems of the country unless the Minister is prepared at this stage to introduce new sections, which he could do, and which would have a radical effect on our problems. Of course we will do our duty but, so far as I am concerned, the duty we have to perform in relation to this Bill as drafted is largely irrelevant to the real problems of the people.

Mr. B. Desmond

Before commenting on the Bill, I want to assure the Minister of the support of my party for this essential piece of moderately reforming legislation. Recently I have taken to reading the Official Report for the years 1948 to 1951 and 1954 to 1957 for the purpose of putting this National Coalition Government into perspective. Those were the last periods during which Fianna Fáil were in Opposition. What struck me in my reading was that the late Deputy Seán Lemass and the other front bench members of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time veered somewhat to the left. They made progressive noises, presumably for the purpose of trying to capture the Labour Party vote, such as it was at that time. They also wanted to make sure that Clann na Poblachta would not appear to be the only party of the Left. The lifetime of the present Government is just approaching the two years, the minimum time in which one can assess an ideology of a party in Opposition. It is becoming clear now that Fianna Fáil have taken a lurch to the Right, a disturbing lurch, and this is a unique development consequent on the change of Government in the early 1970s.

Fianna Fáil violently opposed the 1974 Finance Bill. Deputy O'Malley, a young man of 36 who epitomises what I describe as reactionary policies, judging by his recent proposition in regard to mining taxation, a proposition one would not even find in the most Right Wing Banana Republic of South America, speaking on 10th July, 1974, at column 784 of volume 274 of the Official Report said:

I wish to refer to a very sinister section in this Bill, section 57, which proposes to impose for the first time ever in the history of this State, as far as I know, an obligation on solicitors to give information to the Revenue Commissioners about their clients. I am shocked to see such a section in any Bill introduced here but particularly shocked that the person introducing it is himself a solicitor. Does he think our colleagues will meekly accept this? I fervently hope they will not and I, for one—speaking for myself only— can assure my fellow solicitors opposite that this sinister, wrong and bad provision will be resisted all the way and that resistence to it will not end if and when this section is passed by the Oireachtas.

In the past 12 months Deputy O'Malley has eaten his own words. Essential information in relation to financial transactions is now being passed on under the 1974 Finance Act and will continue to be passed on to the Revenue Commissioners so that they will know who is indulging in financial hanky-panky in trying to avoid tax; and now we have Deputy O'Malley mewling and puking against the Capital Gains Tax Bill.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy cannot know much about it. He did not come in except to waste time one morning. I am sorry; he voted against the 50 per cent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. B. Desmond

The levels of taxation here are quite moderate in comparison with those in Britain. So are the various exemptions and the thresholds. These will encourage those who want to invest here. How is it proposed to approach the wealth tax? I ask that question of Deputy Colley's retreating figure. Fianna Fáil were alleged to be the great reforming, republican party, the people's party. They prided themselves on keeping a middle course. Are they reaching the stage at which they will be the exclusive defenders of the 5 per cent who own 72 per cent of the wealth of the nation?

Fianna Fáil have definitely lurched to the Right. We have a taxation policy propounded by Deputy Haughey, who is regarded by many in the Fianna Fáil Party as the real financial genius. In actual fact the only provision of merit for which Deputy Haughey was responsible as Minister for Finance was that in regard to the Arts and he will probably go down in history as a perfect manifestation of what I describe as neophilantrophic capitalism. Deputy O'Malley, the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Industry and Commerce, has adopted an extremely Right Wing attitude in relation to taxation affecting mining and capital gains. Side by side with that, we have Deputy O'Malley desperately attempting to reflect the kind of confused centrism within the party. Fianna Fáil really should consult their think tank and take the advice of people like Martin O'Donoghue and pay less attention to the pressures being exercised on the party by the new industrial rich who found themselves on the Fianna Fáil gravy train in the 1960s and early 1970s and who are trying to hold on to that party now and swing it to the right in terms of taxation policy. I hope the Fianna Fáil Party will not find that they have more in common with Sir Keith Joseph or Margaret Thatcher than they have with the very moderate policies of somebody like Denis Healy on taxation policy. If they do, we will hang it around their necks at the next general election that they are a party of promoters of tax avoidance, a party who seemingly resent any effort to reform our taxation system.

This is a strong plank in the Government's policy. During the past two years we have made progress in taxation reform which is, perhaps, the most difficult piece of political progress which any country could undertake. We are committed to reform the taxation system to ensure that it is related to capacity to pay, to no avoidance, no evasion and the elimination of unnecessary anomalies. We are proceeding with that policy and we will not be diverted. We are not in any way comforted by the support which we need from Fianna Fáil and which we certainly have not got in the past two years.

Deputy Colley accused us of being obsessed with theoretical aspects of taxation. In fact, we are introducing practical detailed measures. A further instalment is now contained in this Finance Bill to ensure that the burden of taxation is spread equitably throughout the country. There is a very narrow base of income taxation, and that we are broadening. There is a very wide area of evasion in relation to death duties, estate duties and so on, and that we are reforming. There is a very wide area of evasion in relation to farm profits, and that we are reforming. We will ensure that the system is much more egalitarian.

I challenge Fianna Fáil on the wealth tax. It has long been notorious that very many devices are still open to the wealthy to avoid payment of duty. That is why we are bringing in this reform. Fianna Fáil made no effective contribution to the redistribution of wealth. In all their 16 years in office, I do not know of any major taxation reforming measure introduced by them which could be said to be in the vanguard of, or even approaching on a moderate basis for, an effort towards redistribution of wealth, or putting forward a fair alternative system of taxation. We have made that effort on this occasion.

I want to deal with some of the criticisms made by Deputy Haughey. He said that the budget increases were savage. I knock around a good deal. I smoke and I take a drink like most Deputies. I have not noticed any dramatic reaction by a savage electorate attacking me violently and publicly for the increases in the price of beer, spirits, tobacco, wine, table waters and of course betting duties. A fair element of the electorate were surprised that the Minister was so moderate on this occasion. I did not notice any dramatic decline in the number of cars I saw last Sunday evening in front of the pubs in Galway in the middle of a by-election campaign. The owners were not all politicians. They belonged to the local population for the most part. If there has been a decline in consumption, I would submit that it is because overtime has dropped off due to the economic situation and the fact that there is less surplus cash around. It is not because of the increase in prices.

Deputy Colley criticised the 15 per cent improvement in income tax which we gave. I have met a large number of trade unionists and others who are genuinely far more preoccupied about the maintenance of their employment, and being in a job, rather than expecting massive reductions in income tax. There was some surprise that there was any reduction in income tax in this year's budget at all. If a worker were offered the alternative of maintaining his job and making his normal earnings, or a 15 per cent reduction in income tax, I have no doubt which he would opt for.

Undoubtedly, there has been a reaction to the increase in the price of petrol. The fact that very many motorists, including myself, are exerting considerable vigilance about the mileage clocked on our cars has been very noticeable. When we are faced with putting £6 or £7 worth of petrol into our cars we become very circumspect. As politicians, we burn up a lot of petrol, very often on a useless basis, but such is the nature of the job. We become very circumspect about wasting the scarce energy resources. If I sound rather moralistic, I have been forced to adopt a conservative approach to my own expenditure of petrol.

These are the Fianna Fáil criticisms. I do not think they are very strong. One should not delay unduly over those criticisms because they lack substance. They do not merit a lengthy response from the Government. Therefore, we must come to the alternatives proposed by Deputy Colley. He was very perturbed about the increase in the cost of dog licences. If Fianna Fáil have nothing to worry them in the Finance Bill except dog licences and slot machines, as an Opposition they have reached an all-time low. It was necessary to put the record right.

On 7th March, 1974, as reported at column 2447 of the Official Report, Deputy Haughey asked the Minister for Finance if he would increase the dog licence fee to £1 except in the case of blind persons and old age pensioners and make the receipts from the increase available to the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Minister replied:

Consideration is at present being given to improving the means by which the problem of stray and unlicensed dogs can be dealt with. The possibility of increasing the dog licence fee is one of the matters being considered.

In fact, there has been a demand from all sides of the House for an increase in the price of dog licences. On 12th December, 1974, as reported at column 1810 of the Official Report, Deputy Esmonde asked the Minister for Finance whether, having regard to the injuries and loss being suffered by farmers in relation to their stocks and to the injuries being suffered by young schoolchildren from stray and uncontrolled dogs, he would consider fixing a realistic sum for dog licences and allocate part of the revenue to assist in the collection of stray dogs. The Minister indicated that consideration was being given to that approach. This might be of particular interest to the House and to the public. The Minister indicated that the number of dog licences issued in the years ending 31st March, 1972, 1973 and 1974, were 197,200, 165,929 and 170,732 respectively. That is a substantial number of dog licences and I do not think it is unduly onerous for any taxpayer to have to pay the increase, bearing in mind that there is nothing more disastrous as I know, living in South County Dublin where there is a fair number of stray dogs—than to have to brake violently for a stray dog on the road. They cause a number of accidents and many owners care nothing about allowing their dogs out to attack other animals. Therefore, this is a normal increase, the last increase being in 1925 when the licence cost 25p. The Minister will gain an extra £100,000 per annum. I would urge him to allocate a portion of the money to the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. An additional subvention to that body might well be considered by the Minister.

In short, Fianna Fáil have no case against this increase which is sane and sensible and will not be an undue imposition on any taxpayer. My sympathy rests with gardaí having to collect sums of 25p. The cost of administration must be phenomenal. The penalty at present for keeping an unlicensed dog is £2 but by the time the gardaí have processed the prosecution they would be as well off asking the Minister to put a couple of pounds into the local poor box—it would be more effectively spent. The increase from £2 to £10 is not unreasonable.

The Fianna Fáil protest regarding the increase in dog licence fees is not likely to be shattering or affect the economic situation seriously. One may come then to their other suggestion of a 4 per cent reduction at all points in VAT. I challenge Fianna Fáil to say if the Minister did give that 4 per cent reduction where the £67 million is to come from to make up the loss in revenue. Deputy Colley did not answer that question today. He came here and blandly said he wanted a 4 per cent reduction in VAT and, logically, he should have given some indication of how the revenue loss of £67 million, not an inconsequential sum even in the context of the gross budget of the State—is to be met. The Deputy seems to be under an illusion that this 4 per cent reduction in VAT would automatically mean a major reduction in the cost of living. This is a favourite Fianna Fáil ploy; they are flogging it to the death in Galway at present.

A 4 per cent reduction, one must point out, means a reduction in the cost of living, in consumer prices of about 1½ per cent. That, in the context of an annual inflation of 20 per cent last year—I would not dispute unduly that it looks like being 20 per cent again this year—is not very significant. In terms of Fianna Fáil economic strategy it is only peanuts. That is what they are talking of in their reaction to the Finance Bill on this occasion.

Deputy Colley has also come up with the major proposition of temporary subsidies to meet the effect of green £ changes. Would he please spell out what is meant by the term "temporary subsidies"? Deputy Gibbons is flogging it in Galway at present. What do they mean by temporary subsidies? Could they cost, even to the nearest £10 million, what they wish to have and what they propose to meet the Exchequer cost of such subsidies? I would refer, with due respect, in regard to food subsidies to Denis Healy and to the very circumspect and cautious reaction of the British Ministers regarding the effect of many of their subsidy programmes. They are finding that these proposals have not been as good as they thought they would be.

A further suggestion by Fianna Fáil—I am trying to deal with them as objectively as I can—was in regard to subsidies for heating and lighting. Deputy Colley suggested this. I share the view that there are in this country a number of old people living alone who may well need substantial personal subsidy in relation to their heating and lighting costs but, essentially, this is a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. Again, apart from a vague suggestion that there should be such subsidies, we have not heard very much from Fianna Fáil on this proposal. A great deal more work on costing, for instance, would be required of the existing subsidy in relation to electricity. One would have to cost an additional subsidy which might be paid through home assistance to elderly persons living alone. We have no indication of any background work done by Fianna Fáil in regard to that proposal and, in its absence, I believe this is just thrown in as a sop but not very seriously proposed.

The other aspect of Fianna Fáil policy is the proposal, very glibly put forward, that for 1975 corporation profits tax should be abolished. Already, in accordance with Fianna Fáil strategy we have taken off £67 million to meet the 4 per cent reduction in VAT. Now they propose to abolish corporation profits tax. Where can they find the £28 million which that change would cost? I challenge Fianna Fáil on this point. It is an indication of shoddy Opposition homework to come here and say: "We want a 4 per cent reduction in VAT at a cost of £67 million and the abolition of corporation profits tax at a cost of £28 million" without saying how this can be achieved. If I interpret their attitude correctly, they are also talking about income tax on business. I infer this from their approach and I would strongly point out that income tax on business totals £33 million per annum.

Deputy Colley made a global statement that corporation profits tax should be abolished for 1975. Is he seriously suggesting that corporation profits tax should be abolished in the case of the banking and other commercial institutions? Is he suggesting its abolition in the case of the large retail stores? If so, I wish he had let us know where we can find the £28 million under the corporation profits tax heading and the £33 million under income tax on businesses. There is an innate contradiction here on the part of Fianna Fáil. What they are suggesting is a package of something in the region of £130 million in tax relief between VAT, income tax, profits tax, tax on the first £5,000 of building society mortgages—a sum of money equivalent to the total deficit budgeted for this year. Power without responsibility is the prerogative of Fianna Fáil on this occasion and I certainly am not impressed. Their alternative financial strategy in relation to this Finance Bill is rather anaemic and does not contain a single constructive proposal.

I am not quite sure, not being an expert in the field and not even having a very detailed knowledge of it, what the Government intend to do in relation to the meat processing factories but I will throw out a suggestion to the Minister. It is about time we set up an effective State-sponsored corporation to take the meat factories under their aegis. It could be a body comparable perhaps with An Bord Bainne, the Sugar Company or the agriculture based State-sponsored bodies. I have been hearing many very serious allegations about the profits made by most factories, by some of the individuals involved and by some of the groups involved. It is about time the farmer woke up and brought serious pressure to bear on the Government to take into State-sponsored ownership what I would call the major meat processing sector. I adamantly oppose the vast profits made at the expense of small farmers in the past 12 months by some of the more shady but very sophisticated middle-men buyers who cashed in on farm prices and who, as of now, seem to be engaging in yet another profiteering rampage. I do not profess to know that much about the structure of that industry but from my trade union background when that industry began to get off the ground I had the greatest reservations about the way in which Fianna Fáil allowed what I would call an explosion of speculative free enterprise. It was the Fianna Fáil Party who allowed it and we are now stuck with it. We must come to grips with it.

I have been saying that various Ministers in this Government are the best Ministers in the history of the State. One should be careful about that because some of their predecessors were so abysmally awful that it may appear to be a very backhanded compliment. However I do say that Deputy Clinton is a very good Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and perhaps the best to hold that portfolio bearing in mind that he does not indulge in any flamboyant public relations exercise. His operations are essentially quiet but very effective. I would urge him and the Minister for Finance to get together and to come to grips as rapidly as possible with the situation in the meat factories.

I know the Minister for Finance will have a very onerous and difficult time in the next 12 months in piloting through this House perhaps in one year the single greatest number of taxation reforming Bills in the history of the State. He has succeeded in bringing forward those Bills in the face of the most obdurate opposition in many areas. It is important to point out that most of the criticism of the capital and wealth tax proposals have come from those who have considerable wealth or who in the mid-1960s speculatively made a lot of money aided and abetted by the Fianna Fáil Party in power. Those people made that money by the use of evasion loopholes and they enjoyed a very special sense of exemption under the Fianna Fáil Party in the context of their financial statutes. The ordinary people, those who might feel somewhat discriminated against because they will never have to pay capital gains tax or wealth tax should be very much on their guard against the extremely conservative Opposition front bench at present who are being mischievous in their opposition to this Bill. I would suggest that the ordinary income tax payers should not be pressed or in any way terrified into fighting the battles of the tax avoiders for them. This is what Fianna Fáil are endeavouring to do in relation to the Capital Gains Tax Bill and the Wealth Tax Bill. They are endeavouring to terrify people who will never have liability under these Bills into fighting the battles of the millionaires. In the recent beet dispute, very happily resolved, a certain element of that went on. The Government faced up to that, overcame it and, I am glad and proud to say, that a substantial settlement was reached between the Sugar Company and the beet growers.

To my surprise—I had serious personal misgivings that it might not happen—in Government we, the Fine Gael and Labour Parties, have been able to work together in introducing these measures. There have been very few recriminations which is, perhaps, an indication that the Labour Party are much more conservative than people think, a point which worries me, but nevertheless we have managed to get these measures on the statute book. We will see in the next month a Capital Gains Tax Bill, a Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill, a Wealth Tax Bill—for the first time in our history—and a Finance Bill, 1975, allied to the progressive measures contained in the Finance Bills for 1973 and 1974. In these Bills there are substantial advancements in the reform of the system of taxation here.

While I would wish to see more stringent measures incorporated into many of these Bills my main preoccupation, as a member of the Labour Party who has taken a deep interest in this area, is to see the principles of the Bill accepted and in operation at least in the lifetime of this Dáil. If we can do that we will have made an advance. Then we will be able to see, in the light of experience, what further developments are necessary in the national interest.

I am sorry to say that Fianna Fáil in Opposition have not measured up to their responsibility. It is a tragedy that a party in Opposition which should have been refuelling and regearing their policies and bringing forward the best of the taxation reform measures taking place in Europe and other progressive countries, should have become a more introvert party. It is a pity that the conservatives within that party should tend to dominate and reflect what I believe to be a very narrow base of public opinion in terms of taxation reform. That is a matter of regret particularly since the Fianna Fáil Party still claim to be the largest political party in the State. I concede that until the next general election, but I regret that they should adopt that attitude. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House and the Minister may be assured of our support on this matter. I hope Fianna Fáil rise above the level of dog licences and slot machines for the remainder of this debate.

Major de Valera

I should like to rise above the level which the Deputy has talked about but if one analyses the contribution of Deputy Desmond one will find that he said practically nothing about the Bill or about finance. I should like to comment on a few things the Deputy said and to try to make them relevant to what is before us. I wonder if the Deputy would contemplate moving into 1975 from the polemics of ancient days— conservative, "right", "left", "centralism", doctrinaire abstractions tried out long ago and found wanting. The Deputy talked about wealth, generalities and millionaires but did not utter a word to get down to business. That was all right at one time and, perhaps, it was the fashion but these things get us nowhere. To me they indicate a blinkered approach that is not only futile but dangerous in distracting people away from reality. That is why I call it doctrinaire abstractions, no matter how good the intentions.

Far be it from me to inpugn anybody's good intentions; it would be much better if we gave people credit for good intentions we should believe people have while at the same time facing the facts of the situation. The Deputy has been concerned to castigate this party for details specified, dog licences and betting machines in particular, but speaks in such broad generalities that one does not know what he meant to talk about except to suggest that the Opposition were irresponsible. These generalities are old hat. It is marvellous how the view of the situation changes as somebody crosses the House. Deputy Desmond accused the Fianna Fáil Party of not doing their homework and when he said that I thought that if I went to the Library and made note of quotations from Deputy Desmond and others when they were in Opposition I would have plenty to throw back. Frankly, I would consider that a gross waste of the time of the House.

That kind of thing would not help in a situation such as we are faced with now. We have to face a deteriorating economic situation. I shall try to be objective in this, but every Government which faced periods of depression, periods of recession and difficulty have pointed out the difficulty they were in and stated that part of it was outside the immediate control of the Government. It is perfectly true that in periods of recession they are broadly spread over the environment. Let us all face this debate in all honesty with an appreciation of what difficulties the country has to face and the difficulties of our Government. Though it may seem a strange thing to say for an Opposition Deputy, I would like to see the Government doing well. It is in the interest of us all that the Government do well and do the right thing. It is everybody's duty to help the Government of the day to do the right thing.

The help an Opposition can give is to put up constructive opposition, to give the Government useful criticism, advocate the other side, help a balanced view to prevail, to counteract a particular view that may be taken by groups in the Government and, between the two sides of the House, to express the climate and atmosphere of the country as a whole. It is in that spirit I would like to approach this Bill. I hope I am not straying now into the generalities that I accused Deputy Desmond of indulging in. I think the last statement is an essential guideline. I ask the Minister to take me as approaching it from that point of view. Let us take some incontrovertible facts at the moment. In the current period of recession there is a strong tendency for unemployment to rise, there are less opportunities for employment, there is short-time and all the things that go with recession, which on a last analysis are socially and economically undesirable and involve hardship for the community and individuals. Unfortunately this is a type of situation which tends to generate itself once it gets under way rather than mend itself. That is the first fact.

I want to try to see this objectively and I hope the Minister will regard me as being objective. The second fact is that we have inflation. This in plain language to the ordinary citizen means increased consumer costs. If anybody listens to a very popular radio programme in the morning and has his ear to the ground he will know there is the creeping difficulty where the cost of essential commodities are increasing. This is another progressive trend like that in unemployment. The increased costs are mirrored on the other side by the pressure this puts on the agencies from which the individual citizen gets his remuneration to meet his living costs, the costs which he, his wife and family have to incur during the year. The ordinary man or woman earns wages and has living costs to meet, which are going up because of a number of factors.

I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, in case he misunderstands my approach, that I have already pointed out I am approaching this matter objectively and not in perhaps a customary way. There are things happening outside the country. We have no control, for instance, on the pressures on rising prices of raw materials, or imported essentials. Standards of living are related to both remuneration and cost of living and vice versa.

This is the reality of the present situation and this is what the Government and this House have to face. I know when I say this I am saying nothing more than what is common knowledge. However, this calls for the realisation not only of these facts but also for an appreciation of where something can be done and where something cannot be done. The economic environment in Britain and elsewhere is not favourable. It cannot be directly controlled and therefore there are increased costs from outside over which we have no control. These may be one of the root causes of the difficulty but there are local areas where local factors operate. I hesitate to summarise because there are so many qualifications but I will still attempt to do so.

Mr. Esmonde

Because of the multipliers which go into it.

Major de Valera

Yes. If anybody wants to pin me down and contradict me on detail it is very easy to do so but for the moment I want to try to take a general process with the view of coming to see what we are doing here with regard to finance. Let us take an ordinary company employing people. The pressures initially come from two sources. If the company is dependent on outside raw materials and the costs go up then the cost of their products goes up. The management may not have any other way of recouping so they have to tighten up. More or less simultaneously you have demands for greater remuneration because the pressure that company is feeling is felt elsewhere. Therefore, the workers in that company want more money to compensate for the impact on them. These are the first two things that happen.

Mr. Esmonde

The second one would not occur for a while.

Major de Valera

It would not happen at the very beginning but it would happen after a while. Then the State sometimes has a hand in it. I will be commenting later on the impact of petrol in that kind of situation. This situation grows so that consumer demand drops for that company's products. Before one knows where one is, because of a drop in consumer demand, insolvency or the threat of insolvency, that company either has to lay off people or even fold up.

Mr. Esmonde

But one cannot look at that company without looking at others facing the same situation.

Major de Valera

I agree. I am taking that as an example. If an attempt to explain this in detail is going to cause that kind of reaction from the Deputy, let me get back to the simple statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair desires that the Deputy in possession be allowed speak without interruption.

Mr. Esmonde

I apologise to the Deputy.

Major de Valera

There is no need to apologise because I understand that Deputy Esmonde's interjections are meant to be helpful rather than the reverse and I accept them in that spirit. May I, then, cancel the explanation that may lead me too far away from the Bill? Rather let me say in the spirit in which I said at the beginning we have factually a situation where there is growing unemployment and a serious employment problem. A serious inflation problem is showing itself in two major ways —consumer prices with all that they mean and the demand for money to run the State or to run business. Without attempting to put blame, credit or responsibility anywhere else, that simple statement can be accepted on all sides of the House as a basis for proceeding to this Bill. Perhaps the Deputy was not present when I said I acknowledged that there are large factors of a situation like this not under the control of any Government, that I am conscious that all Governments and all Ministers sitting where the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting have had to make that explanation from time to time in periods of difficulty.

Mr. Esmonde

I would accept that from the Deputy. I would understand that that would be his honest approach, as always on these matters.

Major de Valera

Thank you. But it is essential that this be understood.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I am impressed by this Mandarin-like exchange of politenesses.

Mr. Esmonde

Deputy de Valera and I know what we are talking about.

Major de Valera

At this stage it might be as well to request that Deputy Esmonde allow me to proceed without interruption.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the Chair's continuous desire.

Mr. Esmonde

If the Parliamentary Secretary will remain quiet, we will get on all right.

Major de Valera

I was a little severe on Deputy B. Desmond for being too abstract and doctrinaire in his approach. To hold up the present state of the British economy as an ideal hardly seems appropriate to me because I think a lot of the Government's difficulties stem from the state of the same British economy.

Mr. Esmonde

Hear, hear.

Major de Valera

Therefore, Deputy Barry Desmond's admiration seems to me to be slightly misplaced.

Against the background of the realities of the situation, what can this House do? Where are we with this Finance Bill? I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty here because, strictly speaking, this Finance Bill should be a stage in doing the financial business of the House. There was some merit in the point made by Deputy B. Desmond when he talked about detail in the Bill, a point worthy of answer. This should be the detailed Bill implementing the budget but here I am discussing something on a broader basis. I feel I should offer the Chair and the House an explanation for so doing. Before I came into the House a very eminent correspondent said to me: "Now you will have a chance of making your budget speech you missed last week." I can assure the House that that is not the spirit in which I want to deal with this at all. In fact, I do not want to make a budget speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy does not have the same scope at all on this measure.

Major de Valera

If the business of this House—again the Government are not responsible for this—were conducted over the year in the progressive fashion in which it should, we would be focusing on what is in this Bill, with cogency and effect, to the advantage of the Government, the Opposition, the House and the country. But because of the way in which we have gone about our financial business, we are unable to do so. If, for instance, we had, as we used, first of all, something like the Vote on Account—where one could deal with Estimates and one knew for what one was providing—that was a stage that could be kept within order, could deal with many things and avoid repetition of the sort that inevitably enters into all financial business. Then there would be the budget. Then there would be the Finance Bill and, finally, the Appropriation Bill. But where are we? We have no Vote on Account. Not only have we no Vote on Account but even the Estimates were rushed through before Christmas in ten minutes without discussion.

Mr. Esmonde

We had the egg before the chicken.

Major de Valera

The Deputy may put it any way he likes. We had no discussion on the Appropriation Bill. In fact, the last printed and published Appropriation Accounts are for the year 1972-73. Those are the last available even to the Committee of Public Accounts, those on which we are working at present. They do not get discussed. After the mistakes of last week—perhaps some people did not get in on the budget but, even so— perhaps there was some merit due to critics who may have thought that the budget debate was not focused closely enough on the financial business. The reason it was not was that the prior analysis did not exist. I shall have to seek the Chair's indulgence for going a little wider than I should.

This Bill, if it was in its proper perspective, as it used to be—with the proper voting of the moneys first, at least globally on a Vote on Account, with a full budget debate which would really correspond to the Second Stage of this Bill and traditionally did correspond to the Second Stage of this Bill—the present Bill should be the Committee Stage of the budget. I do not know if Deputies will disagree with me on that. I do not think the Government Whip would disagree with me from the point of view of economy of business. Finally, the House has every right to have the Appropriation Accounts brought before it and have the Government and the Administration as a whole render an account of how the moneys were spent in a year.

Mr. Esmonde

With the permission of the Chair may I ask the Deputy a question? How far should resolutions cover the effects which follow? This came up in the House of Commons two or three years ago and has been under discussion here. I know the Deputy knows a good deal about this. Has he any comment?

Major de Valera

This is only a personal view because it has not been tested. The resolutions are law once passed and cover the Revenue Commissioners, the Government and the service. In implementing the budget obviously one cannot give warning of budget intentions even three or four days in advance in case of evasion. In my view, the resolution is law until the law is perfected. In other words, it is provisional law. I am trying to think of an analogy in court proceedings but I cannot think of one offhand. In order that things be rite esse acta they are tidied up and put into the Finance Bill. Occasionally in the past there were complaints that more went into the Finance Bill than went into the resolutions. That is fair enough. The House must still pass the Bill. If there is something in it beyond what is in the resolution, it is not law. Only what is in the resolutions is law. We would need a judge and a long argument on this, which would be more appropriate to a court than a parliament.

Mr. Esmonde

It is part of our business.

Major de Valera

Yes, it is very much our business, but perhaps in a committee. In my view one cannot pursue that point usefully here because we would have to go into too much detail.

In view of what I have said already about the state of the economy I must make this next remark. This Bill, implementing the budget, does very little to help the economy. I was struck by the fact that Deputy B. Desmond sheered away from that point. He said that the levels of taxation here were quite moderate— again, the conversion that is effected by transfer across the floor of this House can be very complete—but it depends on what way you look at the level of taxation.

There are welcome reliefs in this Bill. Are they adequate, taken in the context of present inflation? Because of inflation the value of money is depreciating, and, as Deputy Desmond said, the nominal increase in incomes is widening the base of taxation. The Deputy may think that is moderate and commend the widening of the base of taxation—beautifully wide abstract terms—but in plain language that means that people get increases in remuneration because the value of money is falling so rapidly. The value of sterling is falling very rapidly. The bigger the increase, the higher they go on the tax scale—and the greater the catch of the tax net and the greater the yield to the revenue.

Not one of the least problems in an inflationary situation is the temptation to Governments because they get a rake-off from it. If, for instance, the income of a blue collar or white collar worker rises into the higher schedule of tax percentages as set out in last year's Finance Bill then the Minister for Finance through the Revenue Commissioners, gets this percentage and there is an increased yield in taxation from that source. It is therefore only equitable that reliefs be given. I commend the Government for giving those welcomed reliefs. If the sum is done and you take the amount of money from the increase in income and personal tax through the broadening of the net or through the return from people going into higher income brackets, is that balanced by the reliefs given? The general impression seems to be that, welcome as the reliefs are, the outgoings in tax are beating the reliefs, particularly in real terms as far as the individual taxpayer is concerned.

This is a problem. I do not think it is right to criticise an Opposition who draw attention to these points. That seemed to be Deputy B. Desmond's approach to this problem. As I said, there is a problem here, but part of it is due to inflation. Can we get back to the roots? The accounting of taxation will not get the balances sought.

The priorities are: maintenance of employment, development of the real wealth of the country, development of productivity and the sponsoring of economic activity. Deputy B. Desmond can say what he likes about capitalists and speculators. As experience over 50 years as a State has shown, when economic activity is booming, while some people get a little more than their share and some get less, for the bulk of the community there is a corresponding prosperity just as there is a universal reversal when there is a period of depression. I must avoid a budget speech. I make this comment only in reference to this Bill in implementing the budget. Can anyone show me any provision in this Bill remotely helping in that regard? The provisions are financial, but there is nothing here that will deal with that.

Deputy Desmond asked legitimately, where is the money to come from? I have spent a long number of years in this House, sitting on both sides of it, and I over there have asked that question from the Opposition who were pressing the Government for more expenditure in certain circumstances. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should ask this question from this side of the House, but I think I would ask it in a slightly different context and with a slightly different approach from that of Deputy Desmond.

Where is the money to come from? This raises a most unpopular problem. Over the years the responsibility of public men has not been sufficiently exercised in this regard. We have all become a little bit intimidated when it comes to saying the unpleasant or unpopular thing. However, the fact is that the money the State supplies for anything comes only through taxation. Whether the expenditure is above or below the line, in the long run it is collected from the citizen, and for every benefit we give, it is the citizen who pays.

We are all in agreement about the desirability of helping what is currently called the underprivileged classes and making demands on those who can afford it. If that proposition is put to anybody inside or outside the House, there is no doubt about the answer, but it is the practical application of the principle that matters.

We must beware—and people with a doctrinaire approach like Deputy Desmond fall into this trap—that the levelling-out process is not a levelling at the lowest level. Surely the aim must be to raise the standard of living and seek prosperity for everybody in the community. The doctrinaire approach, with overemphasis on hard cases, or the following of doctrinaire socialist ideas such as have got the British economy into the state it is in, results in a reducing of the general level, albeit reducing everybody to that lower level. This is the trap we must all avoid in the approach to financial business.

It is here, with your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle, that I stress the importance of the Estimates debates, because they are the only counterbalance when the question of expenditure on something good and appropriate is brought up, to see that there is no overloading or to see that the best method of expenditure, the best method of solving the problem, is employed.

Where is the money to come from? I sympathise with any Government, any Minister for Finance and Department who has to face that problem. However, it makes it all the more important that this House is fully informed as to how the money is being applied and that the help of this House is obtained. It is precisely here that the House can be effective, because it can communicate with the citizens and get the necessary support for balanced legislation.

This Finance Bill implementing the budget has the problem of bringing up to date our revenue mechanism for supplying the Exchequer and the State with moneys to meet the bill for the year, and according to the 1975 Book of Estimates the Bill has now reached the intimidating figure of £1,093,259,000. As a measure of the growth of State expenditure over the years, a fairly close approximate index might be got from the figures printed on the face of the Book of Estimates. Very often there are savings at the end of the year but they are balanced to some extent by supplementary estimates, and even though in recent years supplementaries have tended to outweigh savings because of the inflationary situation, I still think I would be justified in taking this as an indicator.

What do we find? In 1950-51 the total bill was £78 million. In 1960-61 it was up to £123,500,000. Five years later, for 1965-66 it was almost £221 million. That figure includes both capital and other expenditure.

Let us consider the figures for the present decade. In 1970-71 capital expenditure was £66,368,110 while other expenditure was £351,716,890, making a total of £418,085,000. In the following year capital expenditure was £70,180,406 while other expenditure amounted to £423,032,594, giving a total of £493,213,000. For 1972-73, capital expenditure was £85,538,000 while other expenditure amounted to £499,604,000 giving a total of £585,142,000. For 1973-74, the last year in respect of which we have full accounts, capital expenditure amounted to £100,290,500 while other expenditure was £607,673,500, giving a total of £707,964,000. There is a hiatus in so far as the year ended December, 1974 is concerned because the figures—capital, £80,428,500 and other expenditure £584,476,500—are for a nine-month period only. Consequently, it would hardly be fair to take those figures.

However, let us turn to the Estimates for 1975. In respect of this year capital expenditure is £133,258,760 while the other expenditure is £960,000,240 making a total of £1,093,259,000—a record. It is interesting to note the increase both in the captial and in the other expenditure. I leave that sum to the Minister but I might be permitted to comment that the inflationary trends in the demand of what I might call housekeeping expenditure by the Government are showing and that the cost of running the Government, in other words, the other expenditure as against the capital expenditure, may indicate a disproportion that needs watching and that justifies remarks made from this side of the House. However, to pursue that point would be going too far in this Bill, Deputy Desmond asked where was the money to come from and I might supplement his question by asking where is the money going?

There is another aspect of this adverse situation to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. Because of the huge sums of money involved now with what Deputy Desmond referred to as the widening of the basis of taxation there is obviously a big problem for the Revenue Commissioners. Because of the changing inflationary situation we must realise that very great problems are being created for the collecting machine. I speak merely from what I might refer to as intelligent guesswork. I have not been prompted in any way to make this point but from my own experience in a much smaller way I suggest to the Minister that it would be well for him to give some attention to the difficulties of the Revenue Commissioners in the operation of efficient and equitable collection and of the assembly of the vast sums of money involved now. There are some who may cavil at the word "vast" and who may talk about inflation in reverse. However, the unit remains small at the £ and that is the unit that complicates the accounting. I urge strongly that the Minister inquire from the Revenue Commissioners as to whether they are being overloaded by this Bill and by the existing law as a whole and ask them what needs to be done to enable them to function efficiently and equitably.

I should not like to see our revenue system driven into the position that has happened in respect of the system in other countries where, because of lack of facilities and lack of proper support from the administrations the collecting authorities find themselves unable to do a complete overall job and, consequently, must operate on a rather hit-or-miss basis, pursuing certain areas too vigorously while being unable to deal with other areas.

I have no reason to believe that anything of that nature has developed here. I know from my experience in dealing with the Income Tax (Consolidation) Bill that our Revenue Commissioners' department is the most efficient department in the State. It would be tragic if, because of overloading or because of a lack of appreciation of the problem that is developing now for them, they were placed in difficulty. We must remember that every time we change allowances we change taxes and that every time we take any step of this nature, no matter how desirable politically it may be, if it affects State accounting on the one hand but particularly the collection of revenue, we are presenting the Revenue Commissioners with a headache.

In that connection I would ask the Minister to try to resist imposing additional loads on them, as happened with regard to the Health Act. There at one blow, a mechanism that was designed for an important and specific purpose, one that is part of the financial procedures of the State, had wished upon it a social service function. I am not making a complaint about this but I am giving it as an instance of overloading. Every year we bring in new taxation, new reliefs and provisions to avoid tax evasion. Every Finance Bill and every budget is an urgent and immediate problem for the Revenue Commissioners and, in that regard, I would ask the Minister to take particular care in the organising of the administrative work.

This year it is aggravated further by the fact that, of necessity, the Finance Bill has to be taken in conjunction with the Capital Gains Tax Bill, the proposed Wealth Bill and the proposed Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill. I am not criticising the Minister when I say it may be easy for him to make a decision knowing that the public service, and the Revenue Commissioners in particular, will do the job. He is entitled to do this but, like a good commander, he should ensure his troops have adequate resources to carry out their work. I am a little afraid, in the light of existing tendencies and from a perusal of this kind of legislation, that problems may develop. Everything moves at a much faster rate nowadays. The Departments under the control of the Minister have to do the work. They cannot deliberate for a long time because once a decision is made here it must be implemented at once. This kind of problem should be understood by people outside this House. It would make for a better understanding between the revenue collection side of the State's activities and the citizens. I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to make these remarks.

The Bill we are discussing is a substantial one and it is really more appropriate to a Committee Stage debate. The size of the Bill emphasises the point I made regarding the people who must implement it. My comments on Chapter 1 may be summarised by the question: Are the reliefs adequate in view of the increased amount of tax collected from incomes, because of the increases of incomes in an inflationary situation?

My comment on Chapter 2 should be interesting both to the Government and the Opposition and it is to the credit of both. Deputy Desmond criticised the Opposition for delaying too long, in parsing clauses and so on. On a previous occasion when the question of taxing farmers' profits arose there was a long and bitter discussion. Views and amendments were put forward by this side of the House but they were referred to in a very disparaging way by Deputy Desmond and others. However it appears that as a result of cooler and more mature consideration, away from the heat of political controversy, the Minister has found some merit in these ideas. I am not taunting, criticising or even complimenting him because I would consider that an impertinence in the circumstances. My point is that here the House is working as it should, here is a debate bringing forth fruit. It is a good thing and I am glad to see it happening. The amendments to sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 are seen by some of us here in that light and I will leave it at that.

Chapter 3 will be dealt with more appropriately on Committee Stage, as will most of the Bill. I take it that the measures with regard to tax avoidance are the result of representations by the Revenue Commissioners. In principle I consider such matters should be scrutinised very carefully by the House because there may be a temptation to an administration to see it purely from the managerial point of view although there may be other considerations involved. However, beyond that I have no further comment on this chapter at this stage.

Chapter 4 deals with corporation profits tax and this matter has been discussed by Deputy Colley. The problem at the moment is not who is going to make money in a personal sense; it is a question of companies and corporations dealing with an inflationary situation so that they can stay in business and maintain employment.

That is the social point of view and all I want to do now is to make a few comments on the word "profit". The word "profit" has become a dirty word. There was a time admittedly when profit meant a big personal profit but, by and large, profits are now ploughed back in some form or other into the economy. Because of that we are obviously in a situation in which any help that can be given, particularly to industries which are in difficulty, by way of tax relief or tax adjustment is both desirable and welcome. We should be mature enough to get away from what I describe as the catchcry approach to the word "profit". We should get away from thinking it a dirty word. It means neither more nor less than whether one is going to survive economically or sink economically. If corporations and companies are not making a profit, they will go under water. If they make a profit, they will swim.

I have tried to approach this whole matter on an understanding basis from the point of view of the Minister's problems. At the same time, I am entitled to voice criticism and there is one area in regard to which I want to voice some criticism now. I am referring to Part II dealing with customs and excise. If extra money had to be found, the taxes the Minister selected were probably the best from his point of view. I would like to draw attention now to section 44 and the mechanism through which we come to section 44. I do not know if the Minister was here when I explained to the Chair my difficulty in not abusing the time of the House by turning this debate into another budget debate; I mentioned that my difficulty sprang from the fact that we had no Vote on Account through the medium of which to put our budgeting in order, so to speak and, because of that, the budget debate itself could not be what, in my humble opinion, it should have been.

Now it was not the Minister or his Government who set up this procedure. This Bill should really be a Committee Stage Bill for the purpose of the budget and then we should have an Appropriation Bill dealing with the final financial accounts before the House for the year. That would be an orderly way of doing business. We have abandoned the first and we slipped through the fourth. We are left now with the two in the middle. That is the first contribution to disorder. Making all due allowance for the fact that there may have been urgent reasons for the Minister to introduce his petrol tax before Christmas, the way in which it was done and the denial, so to speak, that it represented one half of the budget was a purely political exercise that did nobody any good and that was, in fact, prejudicial to the proper ordering of financial business. An important ingredient in taxation is disposed of by resolution before Christmas. We then have the budget and now we are back to the Finance Bill. We had the budget in two parts.

I do not intend to open old sores, but this is once more another symptom of the disorder affecting financial business. Before the House we have a Finance Bill implementing taxation imposed by resolution before Christmas and implementing the budget. To say the least of it, it is all very confusing. I make the point in support of my pleas as one of the older Members of this House to the Minister to do all he can to try to get the financial business of the Dáil into a progressive order, an order in which the Opposition can be more helpful to the Government, as well as critical of it, an order in which the Government may be more efficient in demolishing the arguments the Opposition advance or in making their own case. The Minister will admit that I have not talked unduly about the subsequent complications that are bound to arise.

This is essentially a Committee Stage Bill. I appeal to the Minister to heed my plea. I make it as one of the older Members who has seen a deterioration over a very, very long number of years and who fears—there are other Deputies who have the same fears—that in adopting this approach we are being unfair to the permanent administration.

I referred to the problem which can arise for the Revenue Commissioners. Other great difficulties and problems can arise for the Minister's own Department and for officers in all Departments both in implementation and in advice.

Overall there is a greater danger about which officers of the permanent service would be as concerned as Deputies. They have a function. They are part of a system. If the rest of the system does not function properly, the load and the responsibility on the part which is functioning are too great and can give rise to very serious problems and, if this were allowed to continue, it could bring about a situation where unfair responsibility and unfair loads would fall on the heads of Departments.

I would ask the Minister to take my next remark as being made without any reflection on him and as applying to anybody sitting there or any colleagues in Government past, present or in future. The great danger for a Minister who has not got the assistance of Parliament in our system is that he may become so completely reliant on his Department since, in effect, he has only one source of advice, that he may become a rubber stamp in the hands of somebody who does not want to use a rubber stamp, if the Minister knows what I mean by that. The civil service do not want that any more than anyone else would want it. It is a danger which faces all managements, whether State management, company management, or any other management. The Government are the board of management of the State.

Managements tend to become constrained by the advice of their own executives. That advice often needs a broader supplementation and a broader understanding where human and other elements are concerned. I would make a plea to the Minister to give serious consideration to the method by which the next Finance Bill is presented to the House and the method by which the next budget is presented to the House. He should consider whether provision should be made for something like the old Vote on Account and he should consider the matter of the group of financial Estimates which I raised on a couple of occasions on the Order of Business.

There is a danger confronting us. It requires thought. I cannot give the Minister a blue print straight away. It would require a great deal of information for me to go into closer detail. Absolutely no reflection whatever is intended either on the efficiency or the integrity of anybody. I wonder would the Minister take my remarks in that spirit?

Mr. R. Ryan

Of course.

Major de Valera

This also applies to the financial business before us. There is a difficult climate for the Government of the day whoever they are. It is an inflationary climate, a climate of depression which goes far beyond the borders of this State in the modern world. I hope that with all our efforts we will be able to do something to safeguard ourselves. We are a small country. We are now in Europe and we should exploit our opportunity as far as we can. The smaller one is the greater the necessity for minding oneself.

Mr. Crinion

It is normal for the House to be presented with a Finance Bill after the budget. This Finance Bill comes after a budget which raised £61 million between the tax put on petrol in December and the other tax which was being collected. In December it was £27 million and in January it was another £34 million. This is an all time record in this State and the Minister still budgeted for a deficit of £125 million. In the Minister's first two budgets, inflation was great for him. It brought in more revenue. The Government felt that was grand and they need not bother about inflation. There is always a day of reckoning and now inflation is running rampant. It has gone up to over 20 per cent and in Mid-March it may be considerably more.

When inflation gets out of control the returns do not come in. The Minister is now discovering the folly of his first two budgets. He was warned that they were both inflationary. In the first six weeks of this year the increase in the returns from income tax was less than £100,000. With inflation and with wage increases granted last year we would be expecting that the figure would be in the region of an increase of £3 million or £4 million. This was the case last year. What was collected this year was £39,400,000 and what was collected last year £39,300,000. This shows that by letting inflation run rampant and with bad management, the returns do not come in as they would have come in under normal circumstances.

I am sure the Minister expected in his last budget that returns would increase but he has found that, in the past six months, instead of increasing they have been decreasing. One Government Minister has come into the House after another to say he has no money to give any increases. We had the pitiful situation of the small farmers all over the country but, particularly in the west who wanted some extra money to tide them over the winter because they were paid the worst prices they had received for the past ten or 15 years for some of their young cattle. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries could do nothing. He said they had no money and the only thing he could offer was food vouchers which the meat factories were prepared to give by way of conscience money because they had robbed the farmers for six months before that. Even when these were a tremendous success——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The financial business before the House is taxation and the effects of it.

Mr. Crinion

I was dealing with the returns from taxation as given by Iris Oifigiúil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going into details that would be more appropriate to Estimates.

Mr. Crinion

I accept the Chair's ruling. The returns from motor vehicles and duties were substantially down on those of the previous year. The Post Office returns were startling, a drop from £5,300,000 to £3,300,000. Here, there was an increase in price which may be taken as taxation— there was a 40 per cent increase on letters—but the returns were less than in the previous year. Business people know that you can go a certain distance in increases but there is a point of diminishing returns and the Post Office returns are a typical example when the income for this six-weeks period was down by £2,000,000. At the end of the year the Minister will find he will not have the money to meet his commitments. The Government's policy in regard to different forms of taxation is bleeding the people dry. In Denmark the people strongly objected to the high taxation they had in the last election but one, and they changed their Government. This Government is heading in the same direction.

The first portion of the Minister's speech was spent in crowing about the removal of death duties on 1st April, and about carrying out a pledge to the community. If the electorate in 1973 knew the full extent of the taxation the Minister had in mind, with wealth tax, capital gains tax and capital acquisition tax, they would have had second thoughts about how they voted. It was a case of telling them a little, pacifying them and then looking for ways to bring in much more. It shows the amount of money required when in one month taxation was yielding £61 million and that was on top of the 40 per cent imposed on postage.

The Minister said he was giving a concession of 20 per cent on certain farm buildings erected after 6th April, 1974. He should have given this increase in respect of buildings erected since 1971 or even further back. The Minister says he cannot say what buildings were put up then nor what the cost was but that is not true because in respect of every farm building erected in the last ten years an agricultural grant was given and there is an estimate of the cost. The Minister could easily have gone back eight or nine years and given at least one or two year's concession of tax for buildings erected at that time. Farmers were being encouraged by the Department then to prepare for entry into Europe. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was the greatest advocate of Europe then. He had a half-hour programme every week on RTE for a whole winter for farmers and he always ended by saying: "When we go into Europe ...". That was a favourite phrase. Farmers were encouraged to erect buildings and get the cattle off the land for the winter and have them under cover. Milking parlours were modernised so as to be labour saving and so that farming would be more efficient. Poultry buildings are of a more temporary nature but they are all classified under the same term.

The same considerations apply to land reclamation or anything of a capital nature. Again, the Department would know the cost, how much per acre in grants was given. This should all be taken into account because it was all part of a long-term capital programme and it was all needed to make farmers efficient and able to compete with other farmers in Europe so that they could take advantage of the better prices we then thought we would get. We never expected to run into an economic blizzard such as we experienced last autumn and winter. Thank God, prices are rising again now. In conscience and in justice the Minister could go back before 1971 and allow the 20 per cent right along the line. He himself admits that buildings have a shorter life now than in the days of our fathers and grandfathers who put up buildings to last their own lifetime and that of their sons. Now, with modern technology, buildings become obsolete in ten years and there is some new idea to make them more efficient and easier to manage. We have seen the changes in cattle feeding in the past ten years and it seems there will be more changes in the next few years so that there should be greater incentives to farmers to erect the buildings needed to keep abreast of the times.

In section 25 there is the penal clause and the Minister proposes where a taxpayer is late to charge him at the rate of 1½ per cent per month. This is 18 per cent per annum which is a very heavy penalty to impose. The taxpayer will not even get relief in interest for this in the next financial year. This can amount to a sizeable sum particularly in the case of an industry. The Minister knows that bills are not paid as quickly now as they used to be. At one time I was interested in a co-operative factory. On average we got money back on bills sent out in seven weeks. Then it went up to ten or 11 weeks. In some businesses at present they consider 16 weeks to be the average. The Minister has set his dates at 1st January and 1st July. The fact that it is difficult for firms to get money back should be taken into account. Interest rates are so high that some firms, particularly retail ones, have gone over to cash only. They are prepared to take less profit so that they will have cash coming in straight away. This is not the case with industry. They have to give credit because if they do not their customers will buy from foreign firms who are prepared to give credit. It is all very well for the Government to talk about buying Irish but if firms can get better credit and better trading terms from firms outside the country, it is difficult to see them settling for less favourable terms from Irish firms. If everything is equal or near equal the patriotic mind will go for the Irish product but if there is a wide gap at the credit end people will tend to go for the foreign one. The Minister is being extremely hard on industry in charging 1½ per cent per month.

The Minister should have given a better concession in relation to the increased price of stocks carried by firms. With inflation running at 20 per cent the exact same stocks will have increased in value by 20 per cent and people will have to pay tax on that.

The only concession the Minister has given is that a person can wait for two years before paying it. If one takes £100,000 worth of stock the extra 20 per cent is £20,000 and the 50 per cent corporation profit tax is £10,000. There is no profit whatever involved for the firm in that sum. The same applies in the case of cattle. I cannot see in this Bill anything to suggest that the increased price of cattle will be taken into account. The farmer will have to pay income tax on the increased price.

For the past year it will not make much of a difference although possibly by April prices will be up to and, perhaps, over what they were last April. If a farmer has the same number of cattle, of the same ages and the same weight, and if there is a variation of £5 or £10 a head, that should not be taken as profit. Perhaps his capital has increased. It is liquid capital and can fluctuate. One can take it that the inflation which is going on will affect the cattle trade. It has happened in every year for the past 20 years except in 1956, 1961, 1966 and 1974 when there was depression in the cattle trade. In all other years the price of cattle has gone up at roughly the same rate as the inflation. When the £ was devalued by 14 per cent cattle prices went up by 15 per cent in the following six months. It is an undue hardship on a farmer to have to pay income tax on the increased value of his stock because the farmer does not see that profit. He does not get the handling of that money. He may have the same cattle on the land although usually they will have changed and it should be taken unit for unit. When the last Finance Bill was passed some of the inspectors had that in mind but there is no concession in this Finance Bill.

I gather that now a farmer's profit can be based largely on the increased value of his stock. We could have a situation where a farmer's stock could increase in value but his farm would have been working at a loss. A farmer could be assessed as making a profit of £3,000 or £4,000 but that could be the increased value of his stock only.

The Minister may say that he has allowed concessions to the farmer in that he can write down the value of his stock by one-third but that concession is only putting off the evil day because he will be caught the following year. The Minister in examining this situation should see to it that the increased value of stock is not taken as an increase in income just as occurs in a business.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Crinion

According to the official returns in Iris Oifigiúil there has been a dramatic drop in the receipts for this year as compared with last year. Sundry receipts have dropped from £16,900,000 to £3,500,000. What has caused such a drop? Are we to take it from these figures that the purchasing power of the community has dropped dramatically? These figures are startling. I believe the reason is that inflation has gone too high and people cannot pay and the returns are not coming in. Income tax has remained static while everybody would have expected that there would have been a big increase. Motor taxation and duties have decreased while post office receipts have dropped by £2 million. The latter was caused by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs being too greedy in jacking up prices by 40 per cent. I am sure the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when he was running short of money, had to go ahead of the budget with disastrous effects. I have no doubt he will be looking for more money.

The Minister for Finance should have taken cognisance of those receipts in this Finance Bill. If receipts continue to drop, I can see the Minister bringing in another budget before the summer recess. I am amazed that income tax receipts remain static when there was a considerable wage increase in the past 12 months. Like everybody else, he must try to meet his commitments. If prices are too high the returns come down. The Minister's returns are starting to come down because of bad planning and with inflation running so high.

The Minister mentioned a change in stamp duty from 3 per cent to 4 per cent on property from £20,000 to £50,000 and 5 per cent to 6 per cent on property over £50,000. He is telling the people that he is giving concessions if they pass their property over to their sons or daughters. He is getting the tax on a hidden basis. We only heard about those increases a few months ago and now the Minister has them in the Finance Bill. If he gives a concession, he is making sure he gets it back in some other manner. Stamp duty at 6 per cent on property of £100,000 is very high. The Minister is wrong when he says the transfer of property from father to son or daughter is not subject to capital gains tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Capital gains is not before the House.

Mr. Crinion

Stamp duty is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Capital Gains Tax Bill will be before the House again in the ordinary way in Committee.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It has a bearing on stamp duty.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It will be before the House in the ordinary way for discussion in Committee.

Mr. Crinion

This was mentioned in the Minister's speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There cannot be detailed discussion on a Bill which will be again before the House in Committee.

Mr. R. Ryan

It might help the Deputy to know that if it is a gift for natural love or affection it does not carry the rates of duty mentioned by him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is ruling that discussion on the Capital Gains Tax Bill is not relevant.

Mr. Crinion

I am glad to hear that from the Minister because I thought that on a property of £100,000, tax of £6,000 would have to be paid.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are moving away from the Bill that is before the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It is very important to clarify that matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is concerned with the procedure in regard to the Bill before the House. There is another Bill dealing with capital gains also before the House.

Mr. Crinion

I take your ruling on this but I want to tell you that this is included in the Bill and was mentioned in the Minister's speech. This is another way of trying to get more money in by increasing the stamp duty, which is substantial. At the lower rate there is an increase of 33 per cent and at the higher rate it is 20 per cent. The Minister mentions reliefs but they will only be at 15 per cent and will be at the lower end of the scale. The Minister should be fair to everybody. We would like to have seen him give some incentive to industry so that people would be able to invest more in their businesses and could stimulate employment. We hear auditors talking about inflationary accountancy. A large number of firms are finding it extremely difficult because of increased prices and high interest rates. Many of them are going out of business. Anybody who walks down the streets of Dublin can notice dramatic changes in the names over doors from those of four years ago. The same applies to industry. Any industry which is not efficient is going to the wall. The Minister has given them no incentive in the way of tax concessions or anything else to help them carry on.

The unemployment figure is 104,000 at the moment. The Minister might have helped to reduce this figure if he had given some concessions to industry. The Government should ensure that employment is kept at the highest rate possible. Our inflation rate at the moment is around 20 per cent. Ministers and Deputies on the far side tell us that inflation is caused by outside influences but the Central Bank report stated that over 50 per cent is caused by ourselves. Nothing has been done in this Bill to control the rate of inflation. Germany, by good management, have been able to keep it at 7 per cent. That was the rate of inflation when the Government took over from Fianna Fáil two years ago. The outgoing Taoiseach mentioned that Fianna Fáil were handing over when the country was in a good financial position and he hoped the new Government would return it to Fianna Fáil in much the same state. It is in a very poor state at the moment.

There is nothing in this Bill to help reduce the unemployment figure from 104,000. We have never had such a high figure. Prices are so high at the moment that people have become numb from the rate of increases in recent times. Some good Governments have been able to exercise control over the economy.

Subsection (iii) of section 51 of the Bill says:

the hiring of goods of a kind on the delivery of which, if paragraph (xxviii) of Part I of this Schedule were disregarded, tax would be chargeable at the rate specified in section 11 (1) (a);

I should like to know exactly what that means. Is it applicable to the case of a person hiring a contractor to do work for him? Or does it apply to the case of delivery of goods from point A to point B, say, manure or something like that? Has such a person to pay value-added tax on that transaction which did not obtain heretofore?

The Minister should have included in the Bill some provision to counteract section 59 of the 1974 Act, under which the Revenue Commissioners can empower solicitors to disclose confidential discussions and dealings with their clients. The Minister introduced that provision and never even allowed a discussion of that section in this House.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy is not being fair.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): At 4 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Esmonde

It was the House which did it, not the Minister.

Mr. Crinion

The guillotine was used at 9.30 in the morning to try to get it through. To try to get as much of it discussed as possible we stayed up all night. We went through only 28 sections of that Bill. We were voting on section 28 at 9.30 the following morning and the Bill had to be passed.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy will agree that we spent a lot of time talking about turkey stuffing and so on before that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crinion.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crinion, without interruption.

Mr. Crinion

Deputies say the Opposition held it up. The Bill was circulated on a Tuesday afternoon. We spent Wednesday and all Wednesday night——

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy knows about Wednesday's child. One has got to be very careful there.

Mr. Crinion

The Finance Bill did not arrive in this House until the middle of July.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with the Finance Bill of 1975.

Mr. Crinion

I know that but I feel there should be an investigation of that section.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy will be doing nothing in July except watching his money grow in Meath.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crinion.

Mr. Crinion

I can assure the Deputy that the Minister will not be counting his income tax returns this year.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy is very quick off the mark talking about profits and paying taxes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crinion.

Mr. Crinion

If the Deputy would read Iris Oifigiúil and note the official returns for the first six weeks of this year he will see the dramatic drop in some of the receipts, particularly the sundries, that have dropped from £17 million to £3,500,000. If that continues the Minister will be in a very sorry state by next July.

Mr. Esmonde

Caesar was condemned on an "if" and remember all the trouble that caused.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crinion. Deputy Esmonde will have an opportunity of contributing later.

Mr. Crinion

These are the actual returns.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Crinion will address his remarks to the Chair, perhaps other Deputies will allow him speak to the Chair when the Chair will endeavour to keep the conversation between Deputy Crinion and the Chair.

Mr. Esmonde

I should like to help Deputy Crinion if he were relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure Deputy Esmonde will have an opportunity of speaking later.

Mr. Crinion

I feel that section should be amended. I hope the Minister will consider an amendment because the Revenue Commissioners have approached solicitors already for returns of their dealings in each month. This is infringing very much on the privacy of the individual because a person often seeks the advice of a solicitor and he treats him much the same as he would a confessor. If the Revenue Commissioners are to get returns of such dealings and information at the end of each month it will sever that confidentiality between clients and their solicitors.

Mr. Esmonde

Under what section?

Mr. Crinion

That was section 59 of the 1974 Act. I feel the Minister should introduce an amendment to that section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are on the 1975 Finance Bill.

Mr. Crinion

I shall adhere to it now.

Mr. Esmonde

But it has not had that effect to date?

Mr. Crinion

It has. I know of solicitors who have been asked for that information.

Mr. Esmonde

I am in the business as a lawyer and I have not heard that.

Mr. Crinion

Two solicitors in the past month have told me that that information has been requested from them.

Mr. Esmonde

But they have not broken the confidentiality between themselves and their clients, have they?

Mr. Crinion

No, but it is going that way——

Mr. Esmonde

Manana and what might be is another thing.

Mr. Crinion

With all due respect to the Revenue Commissioners, they look for all the information they can get and they have large powers to do so.

Mr. Esmonde

The Revenue Commissioners are well aware of a relationship between a client and a solicitor or a lawyer advising him and they do not want to break that. That has been stated by the Minister for Finance.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It is in last year's Finance Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Fitzpatrick, we cannot have an orderly debate by crosstalk of this kind. The Member in possession will speak without interruption. Let Members desist from any further interruptions.

Mr. Crinion

Getting back to this year's Finance Bill, I feel the rates paid by a farmer should be deducted from his income tax bill. I know the farmers' organisations have been fighting extremely hard for that. The only concession the Minister has given is that he will have a committee investigate that whole aspect. But by the time any committee investigates such a question one financial year will have passed before any of its recommendations can be implemented. If such a committee does recommend something of that kind it will be next year before we will reap the benefit.

Mr. Esmonde

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, have not the Department and the Revenue Commissioners, with the help of the IFA —and all credit to them—had careful consultations about these difficulties with regard to tax? It is a new tax and have not they worked out a fair formula to deal with the little difficulties about which the Deputy and I know something?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the desire of the Chair that Deputy Esmonde will await his opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Mr. Esmonde

But with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I asked a question of the Deputy.

Mr. Crinion

There is this question of the full rates being deducted from the tax. There is a committee to deal with it, which the farmers, the Revenue Commissioners——

Mr. Esmonde

In fairness, are not they dealing with it?

Mr. Crinion

No, there has not been a decision taken on it as yet. It is expected that the committee will issue their findings in six months' time.

Mr. Esmonde

In fairness, I have to say that there are discussions going on. It is an ongoing situation. It is not fair to come down with a judgment such as Deputy Crinion is trying to do at present.

Mr. Crinion

The Deputy can take it that——

An Ceann Comhairle

Again, I want Members to get back to orderly debate. We could avoid some interruptions if Deputy Crinion would please address his remarks to the Chair rather than to other Members of the House. Deputy Esmonde must refrain from interrupting and await his opportunity to contribute.

Mr. Crinion

Those discussions are in progress but it is generally accepted that it will be six months before a decision is reached, and this financial year will have passed.

Mr. Esmonde

Nobody can suffer until the decision has been made.

An Ceann Comhairle

Interruptions must cease.

Mr. Crinion

The farmers must make their income tax returns in April. If they do not the Revenue Commissioners will assess them——

Mr. Esmonde

Come now, Deputy, be fair on the facts of the law as they stand. The Deputy is trying to be fair but his facts are wrong.

Mr. Crinion

I am not. The farmers know when they have to make their returns.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): A notional figure will not last very long.

Mr. Esmonde

They will not be making up their returns in Wexford on the basis that Deputy Crinion is making out.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Crinion

They will fill them in under five or six headings, they will be assessed and then come back again. The Minister could have been generous under this Bill. Farmers have always felt that their rates were a form of income tax. The amount of rates paid by a shopkeeper or factory owner would be quite small in comparison with their income. A farmer pays a substantial percentage of his income in rates.

Mr. Esmonde

Does the Deputy want to get the family shopkeeper into trouble with the Revenue Commissioners?

Mr. Crinion

No. An ordinary shopkeeper——

Mr. Esmonde

Has enough problems on his hands, as Deputy Fitzpatrick knows.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Crinion

An old established business may have a valuation of only £20 or £25.

Mr. Esmonde

He is lucky if he has such a low valuation.

Mr. Crinion

Let us look at the income such a business could bring in. It might be around £5,000.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Interruptions must cease.

Mr. Crinion

A farmer with an income of £5,000 might be paying £1,500 in rates. I want to bring home to the House——

Mr. Esmonde

He pays the full rate of tax. Stop picking on the shopkeeper.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Crinion

Yes, he is paying income tax but I am comparing the amount of rates paid by a farmer with the amount paid by the shopkeeper or businessman. The shopkeeper with a valuation of £25 might be paying £100. The farmer with an income of £5,000 could be paying from £1,000 to £1,500 in rates. That is why the farmer has been pressing so hard to have rates taken off his income tax.

Mr. Esmonde

He is not paying income tax.

Mr. Crinion

That is my point. The farmer always maintained the rates he pays are a form of income tax.

Mr. Esmonde

So he will not be paying income tax.

An Ceann Comhairle

A Member is entitled to make his statement in his own way without interruption.

Mr. Esmonde

I am trying to help the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

A Member may only interrupt on a point of order. There are too many interruptions and they must cease.

Mr. Crinion

Farmers are trying to get their rates taken off their income tax bill. It has often been mentioned in the past by different Ministers for Finance that rates paid by farmers is a form of income tax.

Mr. Esmonde

What about the multiplier?

Mr. Crinion

The notional system?

Mr. Esmonde

It is a factual system, although the Deputy might like to call it notional.

Mr. Crinion

How long will it last? It is generally accepted that the Minister will leave it for only about three years.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): If there is any provision, the Minister puts it from year to year.

Mr. Esmonde

The Minister is not——

An Ceann Comhairle

The debate cannot proceed by way of question and answer or cross-examination. Deputy Crinion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): In all fairness, Ceann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not the Committee Stage of a Bill.

Mr. Crinion

In the notional system he is not allowed claim on farm buildings. He can only claim interest up to £2,000. He can claim rent but not rates. It is very restricted. It may sound nice but only a small number of farmers will be in favour of it. The Bill should give this concession to the farmers who have been looking for it for nine months. Why pass it over to a committee for discussion? We all know there have been enough discussions. Or is the Minister so hard up for money as his colleagues say, that he is afraid to give away anything unless it is proved beyond all shadow of doubt that he can afford it?

The Minister should have been generous and provided the £2.2 million for animal foodstuffs from the Exchequer. This would have helped the farmers. If any other section of the community were in such a state— their incomes reduced—the Minister would have given them some help. He has shown his concern for the less well off sectors by granting increases. But the poor farmer whose income has dropped 10 per cent got no concession or relief. In many cases only small farmers were involved. Traditionally their incomes were low and they have now been reduced even further. One would have expected him to give some concessions to this section of the community. If he had been in the west during the past two weeks he would have realised just what those farmers have been going through over the past four or five months.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Let him go down to West Galway and ask the people there.

Mr. Crinion

No, he would prefer to stay up here.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): A big city man——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Esmonde

If we look back at the age of the saucepans on the dressers we will see that they could not afford to buy saucepans a few years ago but they can buy them now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Crinion.

Mr. Crinion

The people in the west did not buy them during the past six months because they did not have the money.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy is right. They did not have the money under Fianna Fáil rule.

Mr. Crinion

They reduced their stocks because they had not got the feedingstuffs for their cattle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying from the subject matter of this Bill.

Mr. Crinion

I was trying to enlighten the city-based Government.

Mr. Esmonde

There is a city Deputy sitting in front of Deputy Crinion who has been misled about the facts.

Mr. Crinion

He has been working in Galway for the past two weeks and knows the problems of the farmers.

Mr. Esmonde

I am delighted to hear that. Perhaps he has been educated with real facts.

An Ceann Comhairle

Interruptions must cease.

Mr. Crinion

The Minister should relieve the plight of the farmers and help them restock.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The farmers in the west cannot afford fertilisers at the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's statement would be more appropriate to the Estimate.

Mr. Esmonde

What type of fertiliser is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Crinion

Artificial fertilisers —0-10-20.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Esmonde

On a point of order, Deputy Fitzpatrick from Dublin made a statement that the people in the west cannot afford fertilisers.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order, Deputy Esmonde.

Mr. Crinion

The amount of fertilisers used has dropped dramatically.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have advised the Deputy that that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this Bill.

Mr. Crinion

I agree. It is certainly irrelevant for the Deputy across the way.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy knows the difference between nitrogen phosphate and potash.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would appeal to the Deputy to desist from interrupting.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy will try, even though he is being provoked.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy finds it difficult to listen to what another Deputy has to say, he has a remedy.

Mr. Crinion

I would ask the Minister once again to explain the dramatic drop from £17 million to £3,500,000 in the receipts from sundry estimates and to take note of the static returns from income tax in the first six weeks of this year compared with the same period last year, and the drop in motor vehicle duty.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): And 104,000 people out of work.

Mr. Crinion

Yes.

Mr. Esmonde

There is a bit of a muddle here. Could we have it slowly and clearly so that we shall know what is being said?

Mr. Crinion

I shall give it slowly to the Deputy. The returns from income tax from 1st January to 15th February, as given in Iris Oifigiúil on 18th February, is static. There is a margin of less than £100,000 of an increase.

Mr. Esmonde

What is static?

Mr. Crinion

The returns from income tax, and when you take into account the wage increases that have taken place in the past 12 months you would imagine that there should be a fair increase.

Mr. Esmonde

Does that include corporation tax and sur-tax?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Sur-tax, yes.

Mr. Crinion

It includes income tax and sur-tax.

Mr. Esmonde

This is coming from the Whizz Kids in the backroom of Fianna Fáil. Let us know what the basis is.

Mr. Crinion

It is not. If the Deputy has Iris Oifigiúil——

Mr. Esmonde

Yes.

Mr. Crinion

The Deputy can have it sent to him or go down to the Library and get it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Once again I ask that the Deputy be allowed to make his contribution in his own way without interruption or encouragement from any other Member of the House.

Mr. Esmonde

I like to help the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Crinion

This is Iris Oifigiúil. When I am finished I shall give the Deputy a copy of it. The returns for motor vehicle duty in the same period have dropped by £250,000.

Mr. Esmonde

Does that mean that farmers are paying less for tractors?

Mr. Crinion

Or cars.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Yes.

Mr. Esmonde

I am delighted to hear that.

Mr. Crinion

It means they have not got the money to buy tractors, and the same with cars. Post office receipts have dropped from £5,300,000 in 1974 to £3,300,000 in the first six weeks of this year. This has been the result, I presume, of the 40 per cent increase in stamp duty, telephone charges——

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy is dealing with a six-month period?

Mr. Crinion

No, six weeks.

Mr. Esmonde

That bill is usually for two or three months.

Mr. Crinion

No, those returns come out every fortnight. I am afraid the Deputy does not take heed of the official returns that the Department send out. Those are published every fortnight. If you get Iris Oifigiúil you will get——

An Ceann Comhairle

Again I must ask Deputy Crinion to address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Crinion

I am sorry. The really dramatic decrease is in sundry receipts, from £17 million for the first six weeks of 1974 compared with £3,500,000 this year. I should like to know what is the cause of that very serious drop. Any business person who saw a drop like that would be scratching his head to know what was happening and would try to get it back on the rails again. I hope the Minister will give us some idea of the cause of this.

Mr. Andrews

My view of the Finance Bill and the budget is not entirely consistent with the manner in which they have been presented by the dirty tricks department of the Coalition Government, namely, the Government Information Service. Since the budget was introduced and since the Finance Bill was published, the people of Ireland have been treated to a hallelujah á la the Coalition. We were told we were not meant to believe the fact that food prices were rising daily, that petrol and television licences were increased, that the motor vehicle industry was falling off because people had not got money to buy cars. We were meant to accept here in urban Dublin that the rates increase announced a number of days ago in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council did not happen. That is the form of propaganda which has been emanating from the Government Information Service. Certainly if you say something often enough people will begin to believe it, even if they have some doubts about it.

That is the tragedy of this Government, that they cannot tell the truth, because they have not got the truth in them to tell. When the financial resolutions were being introduced we were treated to the bonanza to social welfare recipients. We were told in the first fortnight of January this year they would be receiving their increases from 1st April next. What has happened since then? What has inflation done to increases which have not been paid? Those are some of a number of questions the Minister, who is agent of the Coalition Government, might answer.

This is an extraordinary Finance Bill in every respect. It is wrapped up in cotton wool, in soft verbiage, in soft-shoe socialism. It is sold to the people of Ireland as something never seen before in the history of the State. That is the tragedy of this Finance Bill. It is living the Coalition lie. It does not represent what it says. The Finance Bill does not mention, for instance, that there are 103,000 people officially unemployed. It neglects to say that effectively there are 125,000 people unemployed, if the truth were told. It neglects to tell the truth about the building industry.

I have come back from the constituency of West Galway. I have been working in the Oughterard-Moycullen area, and the number of people I have seen and met who are on a three-day week is shocking. People want work to preserve their dignity and self-respect. They are not getting work, and this Finance Bill does not tell them where they will get it. This is why I say this Finance Bill lives a lie, the Coalition lie. Go down to the west and talk to the people who are lucky enough to be on this three-day week, and ask them about the building industry which Deputy Tully——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is obliged to intervene. This is purely a taxation measure and I should like the Deputy to address his remarks to the Bill. This is not a budget debate. It is a matter of Government taxation proposals and their effects on the economy.

Mr. Andrews

I appreciate that but it is exactly what I am discussing.

Mr. Esmonde

The subject matter is very complicated and perhaps the Deputy may not understand all the implications involved. All of us have trouble in trying to understand such complexities.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have a repeat of the budget debate on this Bill.

Mr. Andrews

I am following the exact formula that you have articulated. You have mentioned, Sir, that there are certain taxation measures in the Bill and that we are concerned with the effects of these measures on the economy. I am endeavouring to point out where these measures fall down. I am talking of the situation in, for instance, the constituency of Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown where a housewife buys a tin of babyfood one week and finds the following week that the cost of that one item has increased by 4p. So continues the burden of price increases. This Government will go down in history as the Government responsible for making a luxury of food. There is nothing but worry for the people of rural Ireland—worry, first, as to where they are to get sufficient money to support their families but, worst of all, worry as to where they will get work in order to earn this money.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is waiting anxiously for the Deputy to come to grips with the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

I am discussing the economy.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to circumvent the ruling of the Chair on this matter.

Mr. Andrews

I am not endeavouring to do that. I am endeavouring to discuss the economy in human terms, so to speak, and the Ceann Comhairle will appreciate the problems I am enunciating. It is hardly necessary for me to produce facts and figures to emphasise the tragedy of the situation.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy is talking about Mum's lot but what about Dad's lot? Is he not getting greater reliefs to help him cover the increased costs of rearing his children —15 as against 8.6 per cent?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Andrews

Am I to be abused in this fashion?

Mr. Esmonde

I am not abusing the Deputy. I am trying to help him.

Mr. Andrews

I must seek the protection of the Chair. It is unfair that a Deputy be interrupted in this way.

Mr. Esmonde

If I have upset the Deputy I apologise but I was merely stating facts.

Mr. Andrews

I have no wish to engage in this type of chit-chat.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must be heard without interruption.

Mr. Andrews

Another matter which relates to the economy, to taxation and to the matter of Irish industry is the abortive Buy Irish Campaign which the Government set in train some months ago.

Mr. Esmonde

Let the Deputy be careful.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Andrews

The other day I picked up a box of matches in a shop. The box was not dissimilar to that produced by Maguire and Patterson.

Mr. Esmonde

Names of companies should not be mentioned here.

Mr. Andrews

I am not suggesting that Maguire and Patterson are engaging in fraudulence but I am suggesting that some other company are getting in on the backs of Maguire and Patterson. I purchased the box of matches in the belief that the matches were Irish produced but——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a convention of the House that names of persons or establishments are not referred to here.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I appeal to Deputy Esmonde to co-operate with the Chair in seeking to maintain order and decorum in the Chamber.

Mr. Lalor

He is looking for a job.

Mr. Esmonde

I am trying to help the Deputy.

Mr. Lalor

Perhaps the Deputy can help Deputy Andrews in the High Court.

Mr. Andrews

I submit to the convention and shall not refer again to Maguire and Patterson. I found that the matches I purchased were made in Italy under the guise of Fanfare Safety Matches. I am not apologising to the House for mentioning that name because I believe the matches came in here fraudulently. However, should I be doing the company concerned a disservice, I apologise but I object to foreign companies sending their products here in this sleight-of-hand way. What are the Government doing to prevent this practice? I present this box-of-matches trick as an exposé of the so-called Buy Irish Campaign. There is no such campaign. The Government do not care.

Mr. Esmonde

That is not fair. Of course we care.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Andrews

To rephrase that, they do not seem to care but their carelessness is having a traumatic effect on Irish industry, on the worker and on the nation generally.

An Ceann Comhairle

As yet the Deputy has not related his remarks specifically to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Esmonde

The trouble is that Deputy Andrews has bought a box of Italian matches but the matches worked and he is very worried about that.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy Andrews bought a box of Italian matches in the belief that they were Irish matches.

Mr. Esmonde

Were they presented to the Deputy by an hotel?

Mr. Andrews

I cite this incident so as to expose the Government's Buy Irish Campaign which in itself is a piece of fraud.

Mr. Esmonde

That is a strong word.

Mr. Andrews

To relate my remarks specifically to the Finance Bill I need not tell the House the serious situation which exists in the employment field. We had a wonderful treatise from Deputy Crinion during the course of which he set out in very clear terms, from an official document, the downfall—to use a cliche heard often from the Minister for Industry and Commerce—in the revenue received from income tax.

Mr. Esmonde

Is it not good to hear that the income taxpayers bill has been reduced?

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Esmonde please desist from interrupting?

Mr. Andrews

In the Irish Independent dated 22nd February, 1975 there was the following headline: “Payday Blues. Dole queue tops 103,000 with 500 more axed”. These people are unemployed——

Mr. Esmonde

There are increases in social welfare benefits to cover that difficulty.

Mr. Andrews

From a week's supply of newspapers I make a random choice and pick up the Irish Independent dated 21st February. That paper headlines the fact that CIE losses are still rising, that bus and rail fares are to rise by 33 per cent——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The income tax allowance is 15 per cent. That is a nice comparison.

Mr. Esmonde

CIE are in trouble.

Mr. Andrews

We heard the recent announcement by the Minister for Local Government that he intends to inject £7 million into the housebuilding industry.

Mr. Esmonde

Has the Deputy any objection to that?

Mr. Andrews

I have no objection to it. I would welcome it if it were true. One has to read behind every statement of the Government to get the truth. The reality of the position is that about half of the £7 million "boost"—I am putting that word in inverted commas—to the building industry will come from the Exchequer probably by way of extra borrowing and the Central Bank will arrange the remainder through underwriting loans from the commercial banks to councils and corporations.

Mr. Esmonde

Is there anything wrong with that?

Mr. Andrews

It is a case of borrow, borrow, borrow, live from day to day. That is the tragedy of the Government and it is the message of the £7 million so-called boost to the housebuilding industry. Their policy is: live on borrowed time and on borrowed money.

Mr. Esmonde

We do not throw £100,000 about the place.

Mr. Andrews

I have no idea what the Deputy is referring to. If the Deputy would like to refer to it specifically I will resume my seat. If he has an allegation to make let him do so.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Andrews

Chapter I of the Finance Bill, 1975 reads as follows:

1.—Section 142 (1) (as amended by the Finance Act, 1974) of the Income Tax Act, 1967, is hereby amended by the substitution of "£592" for "£489", in both places where it occurs, by the substitution of "£95" for "£80", in both places where it occurs, and by the substitution of "£497" for "£409" and the said section 142 (1), as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.

TABLE

142.—(1) If the claimant proves that he maintains at his own expense any person, being a relative of his or of his wife who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself, or his or his wife's widowed mother, whether incapacitated or not, and being a person whose total income from all sources is less than £592 a year, he shall be entitled to a deduction of £95 in respect of each person whom he so maintains, and a like deduction shall be made in the case of a claimant who, by reason of old age or infirmity, is compelled to depend upon the services of a person (being a person whose total income from all sources is less than £592 a year and being a son or daughter of the claimant) resident with and maintained by him or her:

Provided that each of the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall have effect, in a case in which the total income from all sources of the person in respect of whom the deduction is to be made exceeds £497 a year, as if, instead of specifying a deduction of £95, it specified a deduction of that amount reduced by the amount of the excess.

This brings up another matter in relation to this Bill, one that is no fault of the draftsman or of the Revenue Commissioners who must do their job within their terms of reference. I am concerned that the people should understand the legislation we pass in this House. I do not intend any disrespect to the people who are doing their job but one would want a translation or a simplified interpretation of the Table set out in section I of this Bill. It is utterly incomprehensible to the layman.

I am convinced that a considerable number of people do not realise their entitlements with regard to social welfare benefits and we are not helping them by presenting our legislation here in the form of gobbledygook. It should be presented in readable English capable of being understood by intelligent people. We need, particularly in Committee, a select committee of high-powered consultants.

Those people who are critical of the examination of legislation of this kind and critical of those Members who criticise legislation should examine themselves and relate what they understand the Bill to be to the Member's interpretation thereof. I would remind these critics, latter-day critics, that Members are selected from the people and they are not necessarily selected on the basis of high academic achievement, high-flown degrees or high-flown qualifications. The Members represent, resemble and mirror the population at large. If a Member is by calling a farmer he could not be expected to understand all the implications and the far-reaching effects of this Bill. Equally a lawyer, who may be a specialist in one field, may not have a specialised knowledge of accountancy. One would need to be an accountant of a very high order to understand the Finance Bill.

Those few words may meet in part some of the criticism we receive from time to time about not making an effort in debating measures of this kind. We are certainly willing but there is only a small group who can measure up to interpreting a Bill of this nature within the competence of their own knowledge and day-to-day experience. That may not be a good enough qualification but it is a qualification. The real qualification is that they were elected to this House and that distinguishes them from those critics who were not so elected, critics who, if they went for election, would probably not be elected. Do not for one moment think that we reject criticism or that I, in particular, reject criticism. We get enough of it and we receive enough of it. That is as it should be. But there is one little proviso; it must be fair criticism. The question then arises as to who is to decide whether or not criticism is fair or unfair. It depends on one's standards of fairness and that demands further interpretation. I am speaking in the generally accepted sense of the word "fair".

In regard to social welfare entitlements and what the Minister has made available by way of benefits generally, it must be a cause of grave concern to all that inflation continues uncontrolled. This is one of the most harrowing aspects of this Government's performance. It is generally agreed that 50 per cent of inflation is imported and the other 50 per cent home produced. It is alleged that the oil crisis has been responsible for many of the price increases; costs were increased and producers had to increase their prices in order to keep people in employment. To this day, however, it has not been satisfactorily explained how one can increase petrol by 15p per gallon in an infamous ten minute speech and hope to get away with it, and collect £27 million in the process. One of the most spurious reasons put forward for that increase was that we did not want trafficking in cross-Border petrol. Fraudulent and untrue. Perhaps the Government have been reading in their newspapers recently about the price of butter. Does the Minister intend increasing the price of butter because of the danger of cross-Border trafficking?

An Ceann Comhairle

These matters, I am afraid, do not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Andrews

To come back to the Finance Bill——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Petrol charges have a big bearing on the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

Of course, but I do not want to upset the Ceann Comhairle. We are in the middle of Lent and peace on earth to men of goodwill.

Mr. R. Ryan

It is not quite the season for that.

Mr. Andrews

No, but it is a season in which one might restrain oneself.

Mr. R. Ryan

The Deputy has given up abuse for Lent—good.

Mr. Andrews

The Minister for Finance is the most abusive little Minister we have ever had.

Mr. R. Ryan

The good resolution is quickly broken. Come back to peace.

Mr. Andrews

I am not raising my voice one decibel. I just put forward that comparison between the price of butter and the price of petrol and I ask the Minister what he intends doing. Will he be consistent? We do not want the price of butter to increase, but it was announced a few days ago that there is to be an increase in the price of butter. How long can the people go on carrying this burden of uncontrollable inflation?

Is the Minister aware that within the Finance Bill is contained the nucleus of the structure under which we are taxed and that, in addition to the ordinary taxes one pays on one's salary and on everything one purchases——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): And additional taxes coming up on the social welfare stamp.

Mr. Andrews

I have a very long contribution to make on that. I am sure the Deputy would like to hear me on that particular matter.

Mr. Governey

Was the stamp never increased while Fianna Fáil were in office?

Mr. Andrews

When we intended to increase something we did it honestly. We did it here in this House. We did not get the Department for Dirty Tricks, the Government Information Service, to work and to represent something as a fact which was not a fact. We had the guts to stand over what we did. That is another characteristic by which this Government are not distinguished; they lack courage, consistency and commitment, characteristics which distinguished Fianna Fáil Government. Despite the unpopularity of a decision they would take it and stand over it. They would not go one step forward and five steps backwards which this Government are adept at doing.

With regard to the recent rates increases in Dublin city and county, we were told that the health charges and housing charges would come off the rates. What has happened? How many people are grateful to the Government for "taking" the health charges off the rates? How many people are grateful to the Government for "taking" the housing charges off the rates? Have they decreased the penal rates which the urban dweller is expected to pay day in and day out in addition to the daily budgetary measures countersigned into law by the Minister for Industry and Commerce? The famous Government Information Services, which appear to be a law unto themselves, would have it appear that the National Prices Commission are responsible. That is not true. The truth is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible. If there is any dirty decision to be made let the Government Information Services make it——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is deviating from the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

I accept that.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is quite evident.

Mr. Andrews

It is very evident. There is also the reliable source who might produce a story and set the scene for an unpopular decision. We are told something may happen and when it does happen, well, we were told it was going to happen There are informed sources. When the Government have not got the guts to say what they intend saying through the responsible Minister, they refer to the ubiquitous A. N. Other, in football parlance. A. N. Other cannot be identified and the Government are not responsible. The Government are responsible for nothing. They have distinguished themselves by pretending they are not responsible for anything. They are responsible for the last budget and they are responsible for this Finance Bill, and very much so.

Will the Minister tell us whether the social welfare stamp will be increased by 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, or 75 per cent, or 100 per cent? We have not got the answer to that question yet, and we will not get a direct answer. We will have the sleight-of-hand job, the three card trick. The Minister for Finance is adept at that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): He will take about 50p between the employer and the employee.

Mr. Andrews

Of course he will. It will be presented as if it is not the Government's fault. It will be Arab oil again. How long can they get away with that scéal, that piseog? In the Finance Bill the Government should attempt to alleviate poverty. With great triumph we had an admission from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, and from the Minister for Health, that over 250,000 people are living below the poverty line. I think that is the correct figure. I apologise if it is incorrect but it was given a long time ago and it is difficult to get all one's facts right. I wonder if the 125,000 odd who are out of work are included in that 250,000. Even you, Sir, do not believe that the figure is 103,000. Nobody believes it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It is getting worse.

Mr. Andrews

It seems to be getting worse. What are the Government doing about it? There is a feeling of hopelessness. There is a will in this nation for leadership by our political masters, and we are not getting it. The Taoiseach should come out once in a while and lead the country and let us know what is happening. They got in on the promise of open Government. This is the most secretive and closed Government in the history of the nation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please come back to the Finance Bill?

Mr. Andrews

I have to make this appeal on the Finance Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not relating his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

My whole emotion emanates from the Bill. That is what it is all about. My appeal arises out of the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It is the frustration of the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

In some areas in West Galway, Ministers were actually afraid to appear.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): There is a lack of industry in the Gaeltacht.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should help the Chair rather than hinder it. This is not a budget debate. The budget debate is over.

Mr. Andrews

You can see how the Finance Bill affects one's speaking on it. While thoroughly and entirely agreeing with the Chair that one is not specifically relating to the nuts and bolts of the Bill and to the mechanical nature of the facts and figures, there is something a little bit more here. This Bill is necessary. It was produced by civil servants doing their duty on behalf of the nation and doing the bidding of the sovereign Irish Parliament. They are not in any way to be blamed for the fact that the Bill is couched in this language. To give the mechanical nature of the Bill and the nuts and bolts of the Bill some meaning, some feeling, one has to express the feeling of the country. If I turn to Part IV dealing with stamp duties I see:

46.—(1) (a) The Heading set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, is hereby substituted for the Heading "CONVEYANCE or TRANSFER on sale of any property other than stocks or marketable securities" in the First Schedule (as amended by the Finance Act, 1970, and by subsequent enactments) to the Stamp Act, 1891.

This refers to an Amendment of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891. In itself that is important, and that is what they are talking about on this occasion. This legislation does not give rise to too much emotion. It discusses the interflow and interchange of money between the people and the Government the people have elected to govern. It is very difficult to get warmed up on the nitty gritty of the Bill. Section 28 (1) reads:

This section applies to interest chargeable under—

(a) section 14 of the Finance Act, 1962,

(b) section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1967,

(c) section 550 of the said Income Tax Act, 1967.

Why they did not say, "section 550 of the Income Tax Act, 1967," defeats me. It seems to me that there is a clear case for an amendment of the section. Why did they say "the said Income Tax Act"? In paragraph (b) they referred to "section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1967". They had to add the extra word "said" at section 28 (1) (c)—"section 550 of the said Income Tax Act, 1967". Surely the 1967 Income Tax Act mentioned below is the same as the Income Tax Act mentioned above— they are both 1967? It beats me why we have to have an extra word in a rather mechanical form of legislation of this nature.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Details like this should be reserved for the Committee Stage.

Mr. Andrews

I am just putting it on record. If one needs to put down an amendment, it is on record. However, I shall not have the pleasure of seeing my contribution until some time next week and consequently will not be able to refer to it. It is a small point and I am not making it in any sense of personal criticism. It is obviously a word that should not have got in and, perhaps, if explained, there may be good reason for it. In the meantime, I say there is no reason for it and hence my criticism, necessary or otherwise.

Section 28 deals with interest on unpaid taxes and relates to the statute of 1962, No. 15. Section 28 (2) says:

Where any interest to which this section applies is chargeable for any month commencing after the 6th day of April, 1975, or any part of such a month, in respect of tax due to be paid or remitted whether before, on or after such date, such interest shall be chargeable at the rate of 1.5 per cent for each month or part of a month instead of at the rate specified in the said sections and those sections shall have effect as if the rate aforesaid were substituted for the rates specified in those sections.

It would appear that, subject to correction, the rate will be increased considerably.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Of course, it will, making it more difficult for business people.

Mr. Andrews

Yes. This is nothing to do with the Revenue Commissioners but something to do with the Government. It is a very important point that should not be overlooked. This Bill requires very thorough perusal and this section has considerable interest for the business community. Are they aware of what the Government are doing? There is no doubt that there is great hardship in the present situation. The Government will get their department of dirty tricks on the job and they will say everything in the garden is rosy. It is not. I would not expect you to agree with that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy does not expect the Chair to comment on remarks like that.

Mr. Andrews

No, I could not expect committed Fine Gael or Labour people to agree with that comment. In a situation of economic depression the Government are taking care of inflation by increasing interest rates on their own account. They are saying: "Inflation is upon us and we must have an increased rate of interest to take care of that inflationary situation." At the same time, small and not-so-small businesses are going out of business. At the same time the Government are increasing interest rates payable on undischarged debts.

Again, I refer to the national daily newspapers to put on record what is happening in this respect. The Government are looking for their pound of flesh. Companies and industries are going out of business daily and yet the Government bring in this penal legislation. The Irish Independent of Saturday, February 22nd, 1975, has the headline “Pay Day Blues”. When I referred to this newspaper I was abused by a Fine Gael Deputy who implied that I deliberately picked out this newspaper in the Library here. I did not have to go far to find another newspaper which said: “Bus, Rail Fares to rise 33 per cent”. That newspaper was of the day before. I did not want to bring in the whole week's issues of The Irish Independent and I did not go through them all. I took the one on top of the bundle.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It has been like that for two years—increases.

Mr. Andrews

The first and second newspapers mention that the dole queue tops 103,000, with 500 more axed. One wonders if the 500 are included in the 103,000 or should the figure effectively be 103,500? I do not want to spread gloom and doom, quite the contrary. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says that in some way we are trying to undermine national confidence——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should keep to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Andrews

I am relating this to section 28. We are accused of spreading gloom. Until the number of unemployed reached 100,000 we were reasonably restrained about it, but you reach bursting point when the figure goes up and up and you are still asked to remain silent in the national interest. In the national interest one must ask what are the Government doing to bring the figures down. That is reasonable and responsible. I am relating this to section 28 (2) which says:

... those sections shall have effect as if the rate aforesaid were substituted for the rates specified in those sections.

I am sure Deputy Fitzpatrick can tell me what the present rate is. Or can the Minister help me on that or is it too much to ask him to comment on anything?

Mr. R. Ryan

I shall be replying to the debate.

Mr. Andrews

We hope so. We look forward to it. It will be a change in the Government's attitude if they reply to anything, say anything or take responsibility for anything.

I must come back to the burden being imposed on the business community in particular. At the height of an economic depression the Government intend to introduce a penal tax of this nature. Instead of assisting people, sympathising with people or encouraging people they are imposing an increased burden. How many small shopkeepers at present collect their accounts? People are finding it difficult to maintain the Irish tradition of paying one's debts. What happens to the small shopkeeper or the small industrialist who does not make a tax return? He is whipped by the Minister for Finance. He is told he is a bad boy and that the Government are not responsible for the economic depression, suggesting that the small shopkeeper is. The Government are not responsible and so they bring in an increased rate of taxation in section 28 (2) of this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Three-quarters of 1 per cent and 1 per cent in VAT.

Mr. Andrews

This Bill is characterised by the sneaky fashion in which the Minister for Finance has introduced section 28. We are not meant to know section 28 exists and we are not meant to say anything about it because if we do we might rock the national boat.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The Minister is making sure that high interest rates will last for ever.

Mr. R. Ryan

All we want is people to pay their taxes and not to withhold money which does not belong to them. It is the employees' money which is due to be paid.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): VAT is not employees' money.

Mr. R. Ryan

VAT happens to be what the customer pays when he makes a purchase. It is not the retailers' money at all.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Is the Minister aware that there is a cash flow crisis at present and that retailers——

Mr. R. Ryan

They get long periods of credit.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Of course, they do not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair suggests to the Minister and to the Deputies concerned that details in regard to the Bill should be kept for the Committee Stage.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): This section increases VAT.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is well aware that sections of a Bill are not discussed on Second Stage. The Committee Stage of a Bill is for the discussions of sections.

Mr. Andrews

We understand that sections are discussed on the Committee Stage. We have been, I would not use the word "harassed", by your predecessor in the Chair, the incumbent of the office of Ceann Comhairle for going outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy should not use the word "harassed" about the Chair. That is a bit naughty.

Mr. Andrews

Welcome back.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews has quite a long experience in the House and is well aware of how parliamentary business is conducted. He knows that in regard to a measure like this the taxation is proposed and dealt with in general on this Stage of the Bill and details of the Bill or sections are reserved for Committee Stage.

Mr. Andrews

I appreciate that. At the same time in the circumstances one is dealing with a specific section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Increased taxation.

Mr. Andrews

I am not particularising, I am generalising. I am relating in a broad fashion to a matter that happens to be in a subsection of the Bill. It is an extremely important subsection which the Minister is trying to hide away. When Deputy Fitzpatrick asked the Minister to explain section 28 (2) his reply was just fraudulent. It was almost as bad as his explanation of the petrol price increases.

Mr. Esmonde

Keep it to the point.

Mr. Andrews

I thought Deputy Esmonde was going to say: "Keep the party clean." Of course, Deputy Esmonde finds my reference to the petrol price increases objectionable.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Andrews

Does Deputy Esmonde think I am going outside the scope of the Bill or has he anything to add to what I have said?

Mr. Esmonde

I would always like to assist the Deputy if I could, provided he was not too woolly in his argument.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy Esmonde has come in now from the Library and he is insinuating that my contribution has been woolly. I would not suggest that Deputy Esmonde's interjection was woolly. It certainly was not based on his presence in the House for the past number of moments. He has come in and made this off-the-cuff and hurtful remark against the Opposition. I have picked out a very important subsection and I would refer Deputy Esmonde's attention to it. Section 28 (2) purports to increase interest charges from——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Three-quarters of 1 per cent to 1½ per cent.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy Esmonde was crying crocodile tears for small shopkeepers and small businesses in general. Could I have his potted interpretation, in the interests of brevity if not of accuracy, of section 28 (2)? In the meantime I will go on to another plank in our platform of reasoned and constructive criticism of this Bill.

Mr. Esmonde

If there was a constructive criticism of the section I have not heard it from the Deputy as yet.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy was not present and I cannot repeat myself.

Mr. Esmonde

The entire tenor of the remarks does not appear to be constructive.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The interest is being increased on arrears of tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews is entitled to make his contribution and any Deputy who has not spoken may then give his interpretation and may attempt to answer the case put by the Deputy. Deputy Andrews is in possession on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Andrews

I was trying to help Deputy Esmonde because I know he is concerned about this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would much prefer if the Deputy would make his own contribution; other Deputies may contribute later.

Mr. Esmonde

I would like to help Deputy Andrews.

Mr. Andrews

The Minister in his speech stated:

Given further, but necessary increases in social welfare benefits and other payments, additional taxation, consisting mainly of customs and excise duties on non-essential commodities, had inevitably to be raised if the borrowing requirement were not to go to unmanagable proportions.

Can the Minister tell the House if he considers that borrowing has risen to unmanageable proportions and if this Government have not distinguished themselves by a record of borrowing which has yet to be matched in our history? The Minister should tell the House if the Government are to continue on their borrowing spree. If we felt that they would spend the money decently and stop plugging holes in the economic fabric, with bits borrowed here and there and generally going along in an unco-ordinated fashion, then we would be understanding and reasonably uncritical of Government policy. That is not the position and that has not been the record.

The Minister should give the country some hope when he is replying. There is a feeling emerging in Irish politics, and amongst people generally, in the context of the performance of the Government that they do not believe the Government any more. People do not accept what the Government state to be entirely true. This is a very serious matter and the Minister, when replying, should tell the truth. Yesterday a newspaper carried a headline concerning an announcement by the Taoiseach to the effect that £459 million more would be provided for jobs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is away from the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

I am talking about industrial output. The Taoiseach's statement was given this headline but how does one, having seen that figure, relate that headline to the one which appears in one of today's newspapers, "Pay Day Blues, Dole Queues Grow"?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does the Deputy relate that to the Finance Bill?

Mr. Andrews

That is the dishonesty of the Government.

Mr. Esmonde

That is the Deputy's new disc.

Mr. Andrews

I must repeat it time and again in order to get it across.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy should be fair to himself because he does not have to do that.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy Esmonde is not being very fair to me. The Government have distinguished themselves by feeling that if they tell a lie often enough people will begin to believe them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

That is what I am doing. The Bill relates to the whole economic structure of the community. I was relating my remarks to the economics of the Bill and I accept the Chair's censure in that respect. I was dealing with it in a broader sense and, on the basis of my not being allowed to discuss section 28, subsection (2), it is understandable that the Chair is suffering for chagrin. I do not understand why I am not being allowed to discuss this section which jumps out of the Bill despite the effort to incorporate it in a hidden fashion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was told by the Chair that this section would fall to be discussed on Committee Stage and the Deputy, and any other Members, would have an opportunity of discussing it then.

Mr. Andrews

The matter of poverty is directly related to the Finance Bill because it is from industry that money is circulated. When industry is going well the country is going well, whether it is in farming, mining or tourism. These were built up in the era of the late Seán Lemass and continued under the leadership of the present Leader of our party, Deputy Lynch, but are gradually and unfortunately being dismantled in a tragic fashion by the Government. The Leader of this party, when we were put into Opposition democratically after the last election——

Mr. Esmonde

Tragic.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It will not be for long.

Mr. Andrews

——and when we took our place on the Opposition benches, told the present Taoiseach that the country was being handed over to him in a healthy condition and it should be handed back in that condition.

Mr. Esmonde

It is not the Deputy's country; it is everybody's country.

Mr. Andrews

I did not say it was a particular individual's country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House is straying away from the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

I accept that the Government hold the country in trust for the time being.

Mr. Esmonde

It is not the property of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Andrews

Of course it is not but neither is it the property of the present Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will have to deal with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy Esmonde should not go into the realm of fantasy or of "Alice in Wonderland".

Mr. Esmonde

I am being a realist.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy has read something into what I said to suit his own prejudices.

Mr. Esmonde

I have no prejudices.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy has an axe to grind tonight and he would be better off out of the House. The Deputy is in bad form. How does this Bill deal with people who are below this infamous poverty line? After two years of hopeless Coalition Government the plight of those high risk poverty groups is nothing short of desperate. The Minister for Social Welfare may forever refer to the increase his Department have given in social welfare benefits——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): They have nothing to do with the cost of living.

Mr. Andrews

Of course they have not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must protest against this type of treatment of the Chair's ruling in regard to these matters. The Chair has repeatedly pointed out to Deputies what is before the House. Deputies ought to accept the ruling of the Chair on this matter. The Chair is trying to keep the debate going in an orderly fashion between both sides of the House.

Mr. Esmonde

May I ask a question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be much more preferable if the Deputy in possession was allowed to make his contribution and after that other Deputies will have an opportunity.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy used words "high risk". I do not understand that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews should be allowed to make his contribution and other Deputies can make their contribution afterwards.

Mr. Andrews

I would like to explain, with your permission, that high risk groups mean those people most susceptible and open, the weaker sections of the community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Finance Bill deals with Government taxation.

Mr. Andrews

They are the people I am talking about and they are the people the Government are not accepting responsibility for.

Mr. Esmonde

We are.

Mr. Andrews

Of course the Government are not. If the Deputy went down to the by-elections, got out and about and met the people he would see what we are talking about.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy would be surprised at the places I have visited in the west in the last few days.

Mr. Andrews

I am sure the Deputy has.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with Government taxation proposals. This is what is in this Bill.

Mr. Andrews

The Government have got too much out of touch with the people. I can understand, particularly after the large petrol increases, which caused serious hardship for industry and which this Bill allegedly deals with, that they were afraid to face the people and they went to ground for a week or two until the public memory, they think, attached to some other disaster committed by them. This has not been forgotten. With your indulgence, we have, under the Finance Bill, 1975, to remind the Government about the increase in taxation to the tune of £27 million in less than ten minutes on one infamous evening. We were then presented with a budget last month, which was only one of a series of budgets.

This Finance Bill is important and necessary. On this side of the House we respect the right of a Government to introduce a Finance Bill but under the present economic climate and in the present economic atmosphere we must query a number of sections in this Bill. I do not wish to delay the House because I think you have been indulgent with us and I do not want to take advantage of that. I hope my contribution to this Finance Bill, out of the area of cold figures and the mechanical nature of figures, has shown how unreal they are when they are seen in cold print. I hope it has shown how important it is to relate figures to actual experiences, what people are thinking and fearing, what they hope for, what leadership they look for and do not get as well as what confidence people want. We have a lack of leadership at present. The Leader of the Opposition, in rough times and not so rough times when he was Taoiseach, went on television and on radio to tell the people what was happening in a given set of circumstances. The Government Ministers are notorious for not going on radio or television to discuss what is happening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is digressing again.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): There is a new Broadcasting Bill.

Mr. Andrews

We have a new Broadcasting Bill introduced by a former liberal who seems to have his liberality in his back pocket.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is again getting away from the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

He will wear the mantle of liberalism again when he gets out of his present position. We will deal with the Broadcasting Bill when it comes into this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should wait until it arrives.

Mr. Esmonde

I always enjoy listening to Deputy Andrews because he speaks for an urban constituency while I speak basically for a rural constituency. It is a far more mixed constituency than that of Deputy Andrews. I appreciate we are somewhat constricted in our debate here tonight because, according to the rules of debate in the House we are tied to what is written in the Finance Bill, which is basically the instrument that applies to judgments, wishes and policy of the Minister for Finance as enunciated in his budget speech.

I invited Deputy de Valera to digress slightly earlier this evening on the effect of resolutions passed by this House. I mentioned the difficulties that had arisen in the last few years in references to resolutions in the British House of Commons and their ultimate translation into legislation from the point of view of changing the taxation law and the meaning of the applications of taxation law. I was thinking basically —I was thinking as a lawyer at the time—that people had got away with certain stratagems in the sense that they avoided paying tax on the same basis as the lower income group earners had because they were prepared and in a position to pay for expert legal and financial advice. Having practised for approximately 25 years in the legal profession I am not unaware of the fact that a certain part of our society have means available to them enabling them to avoid the effect of legislation. I am getting at the effect of the 1927 Act that I think was referred to in the Minister's budget speech and which must be relevant to the application of this Bill, and of the resolutions, having regard to the change in the financial year. It is no harm to state that when the Minister for Finance's budget speech is made the legal and financial experts here, in England and elsewhere, get to work on the Minister's speech with a view primarily—and this might sound sour to the ears of those with money—to safeguarding the very welloff people in society. I am aware of the fact that lawyers and accountants——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): That is, operating within the law.

Mr. Esmonde

Of course. Lawyers and accountants have retainers to advise people with large sums of money at their disposal of their dangers and difficulties and of the necessity for adjustments when the budget is announced.

I do not want to bring it back to a personal basis but I am a member of one of the professions that would be involved in that type of thing. It is a fairly well-known fact and, I must say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it; it is quite natural, but reading the daily newspapers immediately after a budget, in what I would call the "time to think", almost like the month's mind, a second waive of propaganda starts up because certain people feel that the financial resolutions might be moved in a certain direction that would pinch a certain section of the business community or any other section of the community. Therefore, they start a propaganda campaign. I am afraid it is a question of not being able to see the wood for the trees, that people become a little confused in their judgment of what the Government are at and a Government must put up with a tremendous amount of criticism, expressed or implied, before the actual Finance Bill goes into print.

The Minister has referred to the necessary date adjustments for the purpose of introducing the Finance Bill. He is quite right to suggest that an extended period of time is required to give the Opposition and other people outside the House an opportunity of studying the financial measures which must flow from the financial resolutions. We have seen quite clearly here, and it is very interesting to note it—I do not think we have had it before in the history of this House —where the Minister for Finance has very quickly and very early admitted that what he proposed to do could not be done and that there had to be an alternative way of dealing with the matter. This is dealing with matters of taxation which are specifically part of this Bill. I do not have to spell out the particular parts of the Minister's speech but it is a very refreshing thing that a Minister can come into this House quite openly, without any formula, or without putting up any smokescreen and say: "Well, what I intended to do cannot be done but I have to do it another way." That goes back to the original tenets and statements of the Taoiseach that there would be open Government under this Administration. We have honoured that commitment.

To deal with the philosophy behind this Finance Bill, which is very relevant in order that people may understand it, we start very significantly with its first section. In this section there is stated the intentions to increase the amount of the dependent relative allowance from £80 to £95. I suppose some of us who make up the Government side of the House are judged as being right wing, left wing, middle of the road, socialist, Tory, whatever one likes, whatever may be the propaganda for the time being of the Opposition or the Press. But the point is this, on this side of the House there is great unity of intent and purpose——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The Deputy would want to ask the business community about it.

Mr. Esmonde

——to provide for the poor in society. There I think Deputy Fitzpatrick will agree with me. I think we all agreed on that. It is very significant that the first section of our Finance Bill deals with a particular section of society, the dependent relative. Deputy Fitzpatrick, and I think all Deputies, will agree that this is one of the areas causing all Deputies deep and grave concern. We are all very worried trying to deal with a past generation; I do not say a past and finished generation but I describe them as a past generation in relation to superannuation and pension because they missed out. What I want to refer to is this: the average lady working in, say, a solicitor's or accountant's office today is covered by a private superannuaton scheme that insurance companies have provided for such private concerns. It is very significant that the Government should choose section 1 of the Finance Bill to deal with that section of society who have given good service in their day but who have not got the modern provision to cover them because their employment was prior to the implementation of modern schemes of financial aid. It is right that the Government should take on the responsibility and duty of looking after these people. It is very important to note also that this section allows assistance to the taxpayer who supports a dependent relative and at the same time gears it so that such a person, who might be in receipt of old age non-contributory assistance under the Department of Social Welfare, is not excluded nor is the taxpayer excluded in providing the extra assistance. This is important. It may be what I call marginal personal assistance but it gives the necessary help that means so much to a person in those circumstances.

I must compliment the Minister, and I will go even further and compliment all those in the public service from Finance to Social Welfare for their careful thinking in this matter. They have seen that there can be no loss or failure of the relief applying in a true and real sense. I am also glad to see, under section 2, that the amendment and alterations in relation to insurance premiums are retrospective in their adjustment. I was pleased to note from his speech that the Minister was careful to honour what he said last year about finance and his proposals and ideas on taxation.

The Minister for Finance has been described as radical. Everyone in this House and many outside have quietly prayed for a radical approach to finance, the fiscal methods of taxation, the approach to taxation and the applications for money applying therefrom. I do not intend to go into the methods of applying money on the basis of Estimates being relevant.

The Finance Bill is the effective weapon that applies what the Minister for Finance declares to be his intent in the budget speech. Looking at the Finance Bill, 1975, one must bear in mind that there have been very rapid and radical changes in world and national situations from the point of view of any Minister of Finance. I must express surprise that the Minister's hair has remained the same colour because of what happened so radically and rapidly during his term of office.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Inflation has kept his hair the right colour.

Mr. Esmonde

The Minister is in control of national finances. His hair is still dark and not yet red. We are in the black and will stay that way as long as the Coalition stay in power. That interlude passed and we have other problems.

One problem which worried me and also Deputy Brennan was the problem of dogs and cats. The Deputy was concerned about a possible licence fee for cats. Perhaps there are wild cats in Donegal. There is a funny bag of political outlook there sometimes emanating from the other side of the House which takes a little matching now and again. The only wild cats I know are the tailless type—the Manx cats. I do not think they have any in Donegal. Rarely do I agree on matters of principle with the Opposition spokesman, Deputy Haughey, but we agree on dog licences.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): How would a poor person be able to pay the fine which has been increased substantially?

Mr. Esmonde

I have just been in Galway north-east. I am now thinking of smallholders of 15, 20 or 30 acres who rely on sheep and lambs. If the farm is near a town the farmer would be very concerned if there were too many loose curs around. I mentioned earlier this evening that a farmer in my constituency lost 92 head of stock as a result of dog worrying one night.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Is that why the Minister is increasing the licence?

Mr. Esmonde

I made representations to the Minister as did Deputy Haughey. He represents an urban constituency and I am from a rural constituency. The Minister has multiplied by four or five the penalty for unlicensed dogs. A teacher made representations to me about young children who have been pestered in Dublin schools by loose dogs.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I am not criticising the Deputy for this.

Mr. Esmonde

No, but Deputy Colley did and it is only fair that I as a Government speaker should deal with it. I feel very hot about this. If a constituent of mine loses in the region of 90 head of stock because of dog worrying one night, they shoot five dogs the next night and come back the following night and find dogs worrying cattle, then one gets really worried about this scourge. This is a very serious matter and starts from basically very simple causes. Perhaps the father was in the pub coming up to Christmas and had forgotten to buy a present for his daughter. So he buys a pup and brings it home. That pup grows into an enormous dog and is running around the streets. We all know this is the problem. The dog is not licensed and eats as much as any child. In the first place that dog should not have been bought and kept or, if kept, should be under control.

There are people in Dublin constituencies who cannot bring their dogs for a walk because they know if they have a dog on a lead and there is a loose dog about, the loose dog will savage the dog on the lead. That is a well known fact.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Would the Minister consider giving free dog licences to old age pensioners?

Mr. Esmonde

If the dog is required I am certain a formula could be found. The dog, of course, would have to be labelled and properly collared. One can have a little mawkish charity and stupidity——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): That is not a stupidity. Old age pensioners often like dogs.

Mr. Esmonde

Blind people have dogs.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Old age pensioners have dogs for company.

Mr. Esmonde

Agreed. I have avoided two burglaries in my house because I had a dog in the house.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th February, 1975.