Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 11

Finance Bill, 1977: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 5.
1. In page 8, before section 6, to insert a new section as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other enactment no charge to tax shall be made on any person in respect of any benefit derived by him from the provision of a vehicle where such person is wholly and exclusively employed in the capacity of commercial traveller by the person or organisation supplying the vehicle.".
—(Deputy Haughey.)

Before we adjourned on this amendment I was making a case on the basis of the number of people involved. Obviously, I could make only a rough guess from the figures available. However, I do not think there is a large number of people involved. Having regard to the fact that other types of expenses are allowed in various ways I was going on to say that I support Deputy Haughey in this amendment.

If the Minister is really anxious to relieve the burden of taxation, he will have an opportunity of so doing. This would give an earnest of his goodwill in the matter. I do not wish to repeat what I said about the figure but the Minister should consider sympathetically this question and separate clearly the two categories we are talking of, namely, the category specified here and the category that could be put in the perks class. What we are talking of here is a necessary incident of employment. Regarding the Minister's argument on uniformity I pointed out a very blatant exception where the type of employment makes a difference. If there is an exception in one case I do not see how the argument of principle can apply.

Therefore, I based my original submissions on the Minister's answers to questions in this area but I should like to be taken as repeating what Deputy Haughey has said. I support him totally in the amendment.

I should like to ask the Minister a question at this point. He has said that if commercial travellers leave their cars at weekends on the premises of their employers, they will not be assessed. In the case of commercial travellers who take their cars home at week-ends, is it true that the minimum assessment to which they have been subjected is £300?

If they have the cars for private use, the minimum assessment is £300.

Irrespective of how much they use the car?

Yes. That is a matter that would be extremely difficult to police but it is not unreasonable to assume that if people have cars for private use, they will use them in that way.

This is scandalous.

The Deputy must have a strange notion of human behaviour if he discounts the liklihood of such cars being used for private use.

Therefore, the position is that if a commercial traveller, in order to be able to get away quickly on a Monday morning, takes his car home at weekends, he will be deemed to have benefit in kind to the extent of £300.

The reasoning behind Deputy Haughey's amendment is that if a commercial traveller, under these regulations, has a car, he is likely to have added to his taxable income the minimum sum of £300 or up to a maximum, presumably, of about £900, depending on the value of the car. In effect, this means that if the traveller is a single person he or she will be starting off with no earned income allowance if the car is valued at £4,500, giving a charge to income tax of £675 on that account. But if the car is even a more expensive one— and the traveller may not wish to have such an expensive model—he will be minus the earned income allowance from the word go. I have described some of the Minister's proposals as being deterrents to enterprise. This proposal is no exception. In effect, it is an additional overhead because after a year or so most firms would find it necessary to increase the incomes of their commercial travellers in order to make up for the additional tax imposition on them. In other words, this is a tax charge by the Minister irrespective of the equity—to use a word of which he is so fond—of the situation.

Speakers on this side of the House have emphasised that we are not talking about the company executive or the big-time director. We are talking about the individual who is faced with a choice of either paying the tax or of having no job. A commercial traveller, because of the nature of his work, must either provide a car for himself or be provided with one by his firm. There is no choice.

Mention has been made of the example given by Ministers in the use of State cars. One could allow that a Minister could say "Well, I do not need so large a car", but if the Minister is going to insist on equity then he is landing himself in a situation where if a State car is used for family purposes some form of assessment should be made on the person using it. The amendment, of course, suggests no taxable amount. That all depends on the value of the car. Any individual in today's circumstances may acquire a car fairly cheaply and run it on far less than the estimate which is being provided to the Minister. There may or may not be a charge for the use of the car on Saturdays and Sundays. As has been said on this side of the House, many commercial travellers if they are travelling all the time from Monday to Friday are not too anxious, except from a sense of duty, to take the family out all day on Saturday and Sunday, yet if the traveller is to take the car home and use it even to go to church he is going to be assessed from a minimum of £300 up to about £700 or £800 on his income and that is not equitable. Whatever argument the Minister may put, I do not think he can put that argument. He can put the argument that he wants the money and be honest about it but he cannot justify that under equity. I concede that there probably is some benefit but there are not such a large number of people under this category and in all cases they must use a car if they are to be commercial travellers. The Minister should be prepared to take a fresh look at the situation which has prompted this amendment from Deputy Haughey.

We have in another amendment dealt with the question of benefits in kind in relation to motor cars. I do not want to reopen the general aspect of that topic which I have made clear is leading to enormous difficulty not only for the taxpayer but also for the Revenue Commissioners. This amendment is very specific and deals only with commercial travellers, people in respect of whom it cannot be disputed that a car is an essential tool of their trade. The Minister is right to justify his attitude in this regard. I was listening carefully to him this morning on it and we have what I can only describe as a classic Richie Ryan dissertation on the minutiae of whether or not such people were getting a benefit in kind from the personal use they might have of such a car at the weekend. In an endeavour to bolster up the very artificial case which the Minister is arguing he has got himself into a situation which is quite untenable and to which reference has been made by Deputy Brugha with regard to State cars. It may be argued that State cars have to be used for security purposes but they are also supplied on the clear basis and understanding that their use is not confined to official business, that they are available for the same purposes as one's own car would be available. The logic of the situation, as Deputy Brugha has pointed out, is quite clear, that if you are to assess people like commercial travellers for the personal benefit they may be alleged to get out of their cars this should apply all round, but it does not. The Minister who has been arguing the minutiae of this matter conveniently ignored that fact.

The root cause of the trouble is that the Minister's approach on this matter is wrong. As Deputy Haughey pointed out when this was introduced originally, it was intended to apply to what the average person would regard as unreasonable perks being given to people who in the main were very well paid anyway. It has now been brought down by the present Minister to the situation where a commercial traveller who drives his car all the week, comes home on Friday sick of driving, puts his car in the garage at home and does not take it out again until Monday morning, is assessed as having the maximum value out of that car or £300, and the amount could be much larger than that. This is nonsense, and the Minister must know that there has to be some maintenance of touch with reality in the assessment of taxation. This is losing touch with reality. I dread to think of the amount of time and money that it is costing the State to pursue claims of this kind and the amount of frustration that is building up among the commercial travellers who are being assessed in this way and are very conscious of the fact that in many cases they are being assessed most unfairly. The Minister should know by now that that kind of law operated in that way almost inevitably drives people into evasion of tax. If people think that they are being harassed quite unfairly, then the inevitable reaction is that they will say "To hell with the Revenue Commissioners" and they will find a way to evade tax.

As part of his spurious argument the Minister has tried to imply that only 5 per cent of commercial travellers object to this form of assessment. I, in company with the leader of this party, some time ago received a deputation from the Commercial Travellers' Federation on this very subject. I understand that the Minister had also received them but I may be wrong in that and it may have been the Revenue Commissioners who received them. Either way there was a substantial deputation representative of commercial travellers all over the country and I can say that they were steamed up about this. Is the Minister serious in asking us to believe that they were representative of only 5 per cent of the members of the Commercial Travellers' Federation? Is that what he wants us to believe? Does he not know that this again is losing touch with reality? Does he not know, if only on general principles, that any commercial traveller, whether he sensed that the system was unfair or not, would be against it if it meant that he was going to pay more tax? Is that not a natural reaction? The Minister should be under no illusion. The great bulk of commercial travellers feel a great sense of injustice and grievance about what the Minister has done and they are right. What is happening in general in regard to the assessment of benefits in kind for motor cars and in particular in relation to commercial travellers is quite indefensible.

There is no reasonable answer to the case put forward for this amendment. The only answers we have been getting are far removed from reality. They ignore the facts of the situation, ignore real life and how it is lived. If you get the situation in which people who have been driving all week can go home and put their car away and say "Thank God I do not have to drive that until Monday morning"—and there are such people—and they are assessed at a minimum of £300, that is an indefensible situation.

I would ask the Minister to think again and think very seriously, because there is in this area epitomised a number of the injustices which have been created in recent years under the taxation system and, I believe, one of the worst of them in so far as it affects the people concerned. Of course, as Deputy de Valera said, we are talking about a small number of people. Perhaps in voting terms they are not going to worry the Minister unduly. There ought to be a little more consideration given than simply the voting strength of the people concerned. They are being treated inequitably. This House has an obligation to do something about it, but, above all, the Minister, who has it in his power to do something about it, ought to accept this amendment or some reasonable version of it that would make itself more commendable to him. However, the principle involved in this is absolutely incontrovertible, and I would urge the Minister to recognise that that is so and take at least one step on the road to achieving real equity in taxation, not the alleged and spurious equity which he keeps parading before us.

The object of this exercise here is clear when Deputies opposite, three of them now, have attempted to pillory Ministers in respect of cars which are allocated to them for security purposes. I know many of my colleagues and myself regard the same car as a nuisance and an irritant.

We all did.

Quite a large number of Ministers, perhaps all, have cars of their own which they buy out of after-tax income like the vast majority of citizens, and those are the cars which, in the main, look after whatever family needs there may be. I think it is better that we should not bring this argument down to tit for tat, but at the same time, if people have been using this debate in order to have a go at Ministers, I would like to say that quite a large number of Deputies in this House, most of them in the Opposition benches, receive generous travelling allowances. They are not taxed on those, although there is quite an element of refund of capital value of cars. Therefore, there is quite a number of anomalies, but they are not all in relation to the availability of ministerial cars with all the restrictions and drawbacks they may have.

The Minister is getting very sensitive now.

The Minister is not getting sensitive, but if some people want to start fingering me I will finger them in return, and if they find that is embarrassing, so be it. Let the debate be conducted on a fair basis, and do not be selective in suggesting some people have privileges which are not enjoyed by others.

No Deputy who spoke on this gets a travelling allowance.

It has been suggested that my response was one that did not take account of reality. I do not know how realistic Deputies opposite are pretending to be when they suggest that no commercial traveller uses his car for private purposes, or does any Deputy suggest that all commercial travellers are on provincial beats far away from home? Quite a number of them are on beats which allow them to go home every evening. I have seen cars of commercial travellers at golf clubs, licensed premises; I have seen them shopping. The Deputies opposite know that. Fundamentally, the law has not changed, as Deputy Haughey acknowledges this morning, when somebody receives a bill of arrears going back four years——

Five years.

——making a charge against that person for the use of the car for four years. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the 1976 Finance Bill which people are now seeking to alter. You cannot get over the problem of definition. Even if it was considered appropriate that some particular group of people should get an advantage, how do you get over the problem of the definition of a commercial traveller?

Not the slightest problem.

There are innumerable agents and representatives, persons of various descriptions who would inevitably come into the category of commercial traveller if you tried to define one for tax purposes. It would seem to me to be flying in the face of reality to assume that cars given by firms which include as a perk, indeed as an advertised perk, as a condition of employment, the availability of cars for private use. Are we to ignore that, to consider that it is not a benefit. Of course, it is a benefit. Anybody who has ever financed his own car, paid for the running of it, paid for its insurance and road taxation, petrol and so forth, knows it is a considerable benefit to have the use of a car provided by another.

What we have done, in fact, is to save people a certain amount of irritating keeping of accounts. It has worked comparatively smoothly and it did not give rise to the fears which people had last year that the system would not work smoothly.

That is not my information.

I would emphasise, because this is overlooked, that it is not a charge of £300 tax.

But the notion might might get abroad that it is only a question of assuming that that is the value and you tax at that value.

That is the minimum. It is £500 and £600 in most cases.

It depends upon the value of the car.

Another aspect of this imposition is a matter of strict justice involving certain people. The word "equity" has been pitched around a bit; the Minister likes to use it. I am thinking of the person who applies for one of these positions which carries what the Minister calls this perk which, as a result of the Minister's direct action, can have the effect of raising his putative income by £300 minimum right up the range as has been said.

Let us take John Doe who is looking for a job. He is a good commercial traveller with confidence in himself and he has an offer of two jobs. One job carries a somewhat smaller salary and the other job has this bonus of use of car. In my part of the country John Doe will look at his situation and will decide, if both jobs are available to him, which is the better for him and no small part in his decision will be played by the actual worth of what the firm are paying or offering.

Before the Minister laid his cold and clammy hands on the commercial traveller in this enactment the car would be counted and the man could make a decision to take a job on the strength of getting the car with it. In justice, that man should be allowed to continue to enjoy that car in the same conditions as when he took up the job originally and it is a grave injustice to him to throw in the car as part of his remuneration, seeing that he may have turned down a job which would have been better under the old system of taxation.

There is a grave obligation on the Minister to see to it that the conditions of employment of people who had already taken up the jobs do not deteriorate. The Minister may say this has happened last year and this year and that the turnover of cars is about the same. That is no consolation to the man who had a choice and who made the wrong decision not because of his lack of judgment but because the Minister by direct action will punish him in a way he had not been punished before taking the job.

As I have said, people should not have their conditions of employment changed radically by ministerial action to their disadvantage, but this has happened in a number of cases to my knowledge. The Minister may argue that form now on the existence of this provision is generally known. That is a possible though not a total answer to the point made by Deputies Haughey, Colley and de Valera. I do not think the position of any citizen should be worsened, even if it were only one, and I know there is more than one, through the incorporation of a provision like this in a taxing Bill.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. The words "wholly and exclusively employed" are nostalgic. The people whom we visit in tax offices are always quoting "wholly and exclusively" and they are not easy to convince about the "wholly and exclusively" at times. The point was put in the House this morning that the commercial traveller who does not use the car privately should be free from this tax and the Minister said that if a person so convinces the commissioners the car will be free from tax. However, the provision as it stands punishes people who have made a judgment which they cannot go back on. If they had had foreknowledge—foreboding would be a better word—that we would have the type of Minister for Finance we have and that he would be likely to lay his hands on them, they might have chosen another job, but for the benefit for themselves and their families they chose the job which they thought would remunerate them best, from direct remuneration and perquisites.

Despite all the hardening of his heart during the past four years and that it is well known the more often you commit a heinous act the easier it becomes and the less humanity remains, I am appealing to the Minister to accept the amendment and thereby to make the other kind of name for himself in the dying moments of the 20th Dáil. I thought I saw a softening of complexion a few moments ago, and if more talk from me should push a little more humanity back into a habitation from which it has been excluded I would continue. I like the man who laughs because it is possible to convince him, and I am sure the Minister could take the wind out of all our sails by saying in a magnificent gesture in this late moment of our lives together that he will accept the amendment, that he has seen the injustice outlined by me and other Deputies in regard to this specific matter. Great men are remembered in their own lifetimes by their achievements, but in the end it is their jeu d'esprit that will make them remembered and I am appealing to the Minister to perform his jeu d'esprit now. He will not be Minister for Finance in the next Government and this is his golden opportunity.

(Dublin Central): I sincerely hope that the change Deputy Wilson has asked for will occur, but anybody who has seen the Minister's performance in the past four years will know that he is far removed from the world's realities and I doubt very much that he will accept the amendment. It is this kind of harshness we have seen in all his financial measures to date and it is this that has completely undermined confidence in the Government.

Deputy Haughey tabled this amendment because the provision it seeks to amend is unjust. The Minister, without giving any figures to prove it, has stated that a car means an additional income of £6 per week to a commercial traveller. He is saying "You are in the commercial travelling business and we deem that to be private income". The majority of commercial travellers are not in the high income bracket. By and large their cars are used in the course of their businesses. Many of them return home, having driven for five days, and are not anxious to resume their driving activities over the weekend. They prefer to remain at home with their wives and families.

There are commercial travellers who use their cars exclusively in the course of their business. It is unjust of the Minister to say to them that they are deemed to have that £300 additional income. This type of provision is unjust and has destroyed much incentive so badly needed at present. We know perfectly well that if we want to get the best people in other walks of life we must pay for them. This section of our community undertake a very responsible task in selling our products and manufactures.

I believe it short-sighted to include these people in the Bill. Indeed, over the past four or five years we have had similar sections in Finance Bills with no great significance to the Exchequer. I appreciate fully that the Minister must get revenue, that Departments must be run and various social services financed. We do not dispute that, but we are critical of the hardship being imposed on a small section of the community. We know the figure of £300 could be greatly increased. We know it is preferable and safer for the commercial traveller to drive a reasonably sized larger car. But, under this section, if they increase the value of their car, they are penalised.

As Deputy Wilson requested, I would ask the Minister to have a change of heart in the dying days of this House. Since the present Minister assumed office we have had repressive legislation, especially in regard to Finance Bills. For that reason the economy is at present in a depressed state. This Government's approach has always been a negative one. I would ask the Minister to reconsider acceptance of Deputy Haughey's amendment.

Deputy Wilson was very kind in his remarks and he asked me to allow some humanity into my heart. It is already overflowing with it; my difficulty is to get any more in there.

(Dublin Central): The Minister must have kept it to himself for the past four years.

The Minister is hiding it.

Allowing the overflow and distributing it, even contemplating acceding to the wishes of Deputy Wilson, if we were to abolish the concept of benefits in kind, which appears to be Deputy Wilson's ambition and that of others opposite——

No, the Minister should take our case as it is put.

I would have to go back to uproot the benefits-in-kind legislation which was planted in Fianna Fáil legislation of 1958. It is part and parcel of the system. It is an acknowledgment of what Deputy Wilson, with his customary skill, articulated, that is, that having the use of a car is a considerable advantage; it is something of value. He said it was wrong to tax that value after the value had been given.

(Dublin Central): He said “in the course of a business”.

That is an argument against increasing or altering any rates of taxation. Parliament may as well not sit at all if it is not going to consider rates of taxation as matters which should be looked at and changed from time to time, and possibly increased, as circumstances require.

This Government are trying to take the power away from us. They will not let us discuss Finance Bills.

Not at all. We are very ready to discuss Finance Bills at any length.

Why the closure then?

(Dublin Central): There are many sections of this Bill yet to be discussed.

I am just wondering why it is that Members opposite are making a meal, if I may say so without disrespect, of this matter.

The Sunday Times had a very interesting article on the 16th January last on this very issue of company cars, the subtitle of which was: “Can you beat the system?” The whole tenor of the argument in the article was that more and more companies were issuing their employees with more and more cars because it was a convenient way of beating the system and that this led the Inland Revenue Commissioners in Britain to devise some way of stopping what was clearly becoming an abuse. The article concerned concluded with these very apt words:

In the past, more depended on your skill in negotiating with the Inspector, which is a tactful way of saying you are good at telling him the tale. That factor is henceforth reduced.

That was the purpose of our amendment in 1976 legislation, to limit the area of argumentation and to remove from people the temptation of telling tales that might cause them to blush if they were not subsequently established.

I shall quote from the Daily Mirror of 9th August last in which an interesting article appeared under the heading: “Top Perk is still a Car”. It records that a company car is still the biggest perk in business.

The Daily Mail is not a good source to be quoting these days.

The Daily Mirror.

Not much better.

Well, I shall come to Irish sources in a moment.

(Dublin Central): The Minister will be going back to the Bible in a moment.

We should never depart from the Bible; always bear it in mind. The Ten Commandments are very suitable rules to observe.

The only biblical thing the Minister knows is: give to Caesar what are Caesar's.

The Automobile Association has estimated, and has published here, that the cheapest car on the road, which is not usually one assigned to commercial travellers, costs not less than £1,000 to run annually. When one considers that two out of every seven days a car is available to a commercial traveller to use privately—and it is available to him also to use in the evenings if he is not about his commercial business— one sees that the provisions are very generous. The fact that there has been such little real complaint is a fair indication that these provisions have been accepted.

This morning I made a reference to what I believed to be were the beliefs of Deputy Haughey in relation to value-added tax and I undertook, if I could find it, to quote the text. In fairness to Deputy Haughey, I would like now to refer to what I have been able to find so far. Speaking on the Financial Resolutions on 22nd May, 1973, at column 1647 of Volume 265 of the Official Report Deputy Haughey said:

Another significant feature in the budget is the change in the VAT structure. I have given quite a lot of thought to this and I am convinced it is a mistake. I think it was an unfortunate election promise which had to be redeemed. It is unfortunate that the promise was made in the first place.

Speaking on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill on 17th July, 1973, at column 1019 of Volume 267 of the Official Report, Deputy Haughey said:

I believe, and I have said this in my budget speech, that the exemption of food in the VAT structure was a mistake and that time will prove that. However, it is done now and will come into operation in September and there is not much point in our railing at it from this side of the House except once again to indicate our disapproval of a move which I am afraid was saddled on the Government by the necessity to honour an exuberant election promise.

It would appear from that that Deputy Haughey was opposed to the removal of value-added tax from food and also opposed to exuberant election promises.

(Dublin Central): That is not what the Minister said this morning.

I may have paraphrased. I do not say I used Deputy Haughey's exact words but I have now recorded them and, if I paraphrased in any way unfairly to Deputy Haughey, then I withdraw that paraphrase. I propose to pursue my search for any other references. I think it is a pity he is opposed to the removal of value-added tax from food but I am glad to note he does not favour exuberant election promises. That is something that may be of great assistance to the country in the not-too-distant future.

We have discussed this amendment in considerable detail. We have put our arguments as forcibly as we can. I should like now to summarise the arguments and make a final plea to the Minister. Our arguments have not been refuted by the Minister and any impartial listener would certainly come down on our side because we have proved our case pretty conclusively. The Minister in an attempt to distract attention from what is involved in this amendment went off on a number of side issues. Now this is a very restrictive amendment. We are not talking about benefits in kind in general and the quotations the Minister gave us from what he obviously regards as his bible, The Sunday Times and The News of the World——

(Dublin Central): The Daily Mirror.

——are not relevant. These articles and the Minister's general remarks dealt with benefits in kind in general. We are not arguing about benefits in kind in general. We recognise that there has to be some sort of legislation about benefits in kind if there is to be equity in the taxation system. We are talking about a very restricted category and a very qualified situation. We are talking about people who have a car given to them because it is necessary for their business purposes. They have no choice. The company makes the car available in order that they will be able to go about their business in the company's interest. It is not a voluntary decision on their part.

The Minister kept bringing in other instances but in all those the people voluntarily decided to have a car. What we object to is involuntary acceptance of a car being used to raise an income tax assessment on these people. The commercial traveller whose company provides him with a car has really no option but to have the car at home with him at the weekend. The Minister argues that because the car is at his disposal he must be assessed. That is unfair. The benefit the man is supposed to derive is imaginary. It is illusory.

The Minister has gone a long way to admitting our argument by confessing something none of us knew, namely, that if a commercial traveller leaves the car in the company's premises over the weekend no benefit in kind would issue. The fact the Minister makes that admission concedes our argument in principle. What is the difference if the commercial traveller takes the car home and does not use it? The Minister has brought about a situation where it is mandatory on the Revenue Commissioners to issue an assessment. The Minister could accept this amendment without in any way affecting the general application of the principle that benefits in kind should be taxed. This amendment is confined to a clearly defined category of people.

I could not follow the Minister's argument when he said my amendment falls because if it were accepted it would apply only to commercial travellers who work seven days a week and 24 hours a day. I do not think that could be read into it. The words "wholly and exclusively" are only used in income tax legislation. In the amendment they clearly govern the word "employ" and the amendment is, therefore, applicable to persons wholly and exclusively employed in the capacity of commercial travellers. They must be working only as commercial travellers and nothing else. The amendment will clearly be restricted to bona fide commercial travellers and to no one else.

There is no difficulty in defining commercial travellers. The Revenue Commissioners and the parliamentary draughtsman have defined very accurately and with great clarity much more difficult categories of persons. Indeed, I would undertake to draft a perfectly valid definition of commercial traveller. Indeed, I do not think they need to be defined. Normal language would enable the Revenue Commissioners to administer this amendment because the profession of commercial traveller defines itself. I do not think any difficulty would arise.

Apart from this, the Minister knows very well that if he is prepared to concede the principle of the amendment there is no difficulty, even across the House now, in adjusting the wording to suit the circumstances. I think he should agree to the principle because it is a very reasonable proposition, a restricted and guarded one, that we are putting before him. The Minister must realise that in selecting motor cars in this connection he is creating another anomaly. There are other types of person who, in the course of their employment, have the use of some particular thing which they can use outside their employment for their own purposes. These things are not subject to benefit-in-kind provisions. Even as the situation is, it contains anomalies to the detriment of that important and valuable body of persons, commercial travellers.

I gave the Minister a case of a commercial traveller in my constituency who, through no fault of his own, finds himself confronted with a bill going back over five years—the assessment goes from 1971 to 1976—and it is undoubtedly causing this man and his family considerable hardship to have to meet this bill. The Minister attempted the puerile argument that the person in question must have been concealing the position from the Revenue Commissioners. He never dreamt that he was under any obligation to pay for any illusory or imaginary benefit derived from the car at weekends. He did not think it arose and still does not believe it should arise. There is no question of attempting to conceal anything. It is the Revenue Commissioners' or rather the Minister's fault because obviously he gave the commissioners some instruction to get after everybody——

The 1958 legislation——

I do not dispute that. The Minister rebuts arguments I do not make. When speaking originally I said that Dr. Ryan brought in the benefit in kind legislation when he was Minister for Finance. I do not dispute that those benefit in kind provisions were there since 1971-72 but at this stage, because the provisions were not implemented, I object to the Revenue Commissioners now going back five or six years and giving him, through no fault of his own, a bill for accummulated arrears of tax on some imaginary income which the man never received. It is bad enough when the Revenue Commissioners, by mistake, omit to send out an assessment and have to go back after a number of years and issue accumulated assessments where there is cash income involved and the person concerned got some income. Here we have an assessment raised in respect of an imaginary income or benefit. The man is confronted with a bill for what is, in his circumstances, a large sum.

The Minister sought to rebut my suggestion that he has concentrated entirely on the taxation function of his office as Minister. I think it is true, and I fully agree with everything Deputy Fitzpatrick said about this concentration on taxation, this squeezing of the last ounce from every possible source undoubtedly having had a disincentive effect on the community. This is an example of it here. I regard this as hounding a section of the community, screwing taxation from them which they are not morally or legally liable to pay. It is bad taxation and the Minister should recognise that and remedy it because, as Deputy Colley said, this kind of thing gives rise to evasion. It is difficult to blame people who feel they are being unjustly hounded for tax that is not due for resorting to evasion. We all condemn it but it can be understood in these circumstances.

The Minister quoted the head of some professional organisation in support of his budget. Does he not realise —again it proves how much out of touch with reality the Minister is— that the business and professional community are so beaten down and depressed that any little crumb the Minister threw to them this year as a taxation concession would be welcome, since they have been so pilloried, abused by the Minister and his Cabinet who created the impression that they were all rogues and villains whose only aim was to avoid taxation? They have been so used for four years by the Minister that anything he did this year would be greeted with a sigh of relief. It is like the man waiting to have his head chopped off saying a prayer for the executioner and it is in that light that the Minister should regard those pathetic comments that he read out.

As regards earned income, the far greater proportion of people are overtaxed and after four years of the Minister's tax regime all incentives and motivation to work better and harder have been wiped out. The way to restore enterprise and activity, efficiency and productivity in the community is to have a substantial reduction in the burden of taxation on personal earned income. This is not a great contribution in that regard but it would be some indication that the Minister does more than pay lip service to the idea of incentives. In the last six months or so, probably because of the election coming up and a need to replenish election coffers, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance began to butter up the business community. We heard again for the first time after a long bleak period of four years' commendation of the profit motive. The Taoiseach spoke in favour of profits as being necessary to buttress the economy and provide means whereby development can take place. The Minister for Finance did likewise. He went to various functions recently and addressed business people, industrialists and people in the commercial world and began to utter soothing noises. He praised them for their energy and enterprise and encouraged them to get moving again.

Incidentally, we do not hear that kind of talk from other members of the Coalition. For instance, I think Deputy FitzGerald still regards most businessmen and industrialists as public enemies, not quite subversives but bordering on it. Although they conceal it, it is the secret ambition of most of the Labour Ministers to have a total socialist, State-controlled economy here and for most of this era while Deputy Ryan has been Minister for Finance they have succeeded in pushing very far in that direction. We now have one of the most heavily taxed countries in Europe. We have a State which takes as high a proportion of our GNP as any other country in Europe. We have gone a fair distance along the socialist road during the term of Deputy Ryan as Minister for Finance. This last minute, death door repentance and this sudden commendation of private enterprise has emerged only because there is a general election in the offing.

The Minister certainly strained all the bounds of credibility in some of his remarks about the economy. Listening to him in the early stages of the debate when he spoke about the economy, one would almost believe that everything was marvellous and that we had one of the best economies in the world. One would almost believe we had demonstrated to the world how to get out of the economic recession. The Minister kept repeating that we had come out of it better than most and he went to a French newspaper to get some Far East country as a basis to prop up his argument. We do not want to go to French newspapers, to Singapore, to Hong Kong or to anywhere else. We want to keep the debate about our economy to Irish circumstances. We want to look at the economy through Irish eyes and to the conditions that affect us and our fellow-citizens in the Community. It is a dull, dismal and bleak picture.

Again, I want to quote to the Minister what the vice-president of the ICTU said the other day. He flatly contradicted the Minister's optimistic and glowing description of the economy. From his special, expert and knowledgeable position he said that in his view 120,000 people would be unemployed rather than having a decrease in the number as the Minister is asking us to believe. The Minister is making a great deal of play about how well the Irish economy is doing in comparison with other economies. That is ludicrous and absurd. Let us face the fact that compared with most of our European partners we are a very under-developed economy. We could increase by up to 10 per cent——

I am afraid the Deputy is departing from the amendment.

I am following the Minister.

Acting Chairman

I am afraid the Deputy is widening the scope of the debate too much.

The Minister dealt with all these matters in his speech.

It was Deputy Haughey who set me off on that. Perhaps we were both departing from the amendment.

I bow to the wishes of the Chair. I will leave that aspect with a final comment. If the Minister has a look at the OECD table of economic and social statistics he will see that of the 25 or 26 nations in the OECD Ireland was fifth from the bottom. We are down there with Greece, Portugal and Turkey, not very different from them with regard to per capita income and the various indicators by which social and economic progress are measured.

Let us not have any more of this nonsense that we are a great economy and that everything in the garden is lovely. That is not true; it is just deceiving the people. We have enormous problems facing us. We have 115,000 or 120,000 people unemployed —probably it is more—and we will have to create 200,000 new jobs in the next three or four years. We are not getting anywhere near doing that. Even in the context of the general election, I appeal to the Minister to stop making these absurd statements that the Irish economy is marvellous, the best in Europe, and that we overcame the recession better than anyone else because of his magnificent management.

The amendment is simple. It is restricted in its scope and it is fully justified by the arguments we have put forward. We are trying to correct an anomaly, to remedy an injustice. We are trying to get fair play for a small but a not unimportant section of the community. Therefore, I would ask the Minister—as Deputy Wilson put it, as, perhaps, his last act as Minister for Finance—to accept the amendment.

I am afraid the answer is no. As Deputy Haughey read a few reports into the record, perhaps, he would like to include the following also. The two most recent surveys by the EEC indicate that Irish businessmen are exhibiting greater confidence and have fuller order books than any other country in the EEC.

They also said that the Minister's forecast about a drop in unemployment was not accurate.

No, they said that with Germany and Holland we are the only country with a drop in unemployment. Would the Deputy like to draw me on any more?

We may get the opportunity yet.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 71.

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Keaveney, Paddy.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Cronin, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, subsection (1), after line 6, to delete the Table and substitute:

"TABLE

Statutory Provision

Amount to be deducted from total income for 1976-1977

Amount to be deducted from total income for 1977-1978 and subsequent years

(1)

(2)

(3)

Income Tax Act, 1977

£

£

Section 138 (Married man)

1,010

1,100

(Single person)

620

665

(Widowed person)

685

735

Section 141 (Child)

—16 years and not permanently incapacitated or over 16 years and receiving full-time instruction

240

265

—permanently incapacitated

310

340

Section 142 (Dependent Relatives)

95

105

"

It will be seen from the table to section 6 that it is proposed to increase the allowances in respect of a married man, single person and a widowed person. As I indicated earlier, the increases are respectively 9 per cent, 7 per cent and 3 per cent. The proposal involved in this amendment is to increase the existing allowances in respect of a dependent child. There are two categories of dependent children; one is the child under 16 years and not permanently incapacitated or the child of more than 16 years who is in receipt of full-time instruction while the other category is the child who is permanently incapacitated. It is proposed here to increase the allowances in respect of those categories of children by 10 per cent so as to give the revised allowances as set out in the amendment. It is proposed also to make a similar proportionate increase in the allowance for a dependent relative.

I adverted on the first section to the question of a dependent relative. Consequently, I do not propose to dwell on it now at any length except to point out that what has been done in this regard is to increase the income qualification but not to increase the actual amount of tax allowance. In the case of children there is no proposal in the Bill to increase the allowance. The consequences of this is that such increase as is provided for in the section, an increase which as I indicated earlier is not even keeping pace with inflation, will be the same in respect of a single person or a married person with no children as for a married man with ten children. Clearly, it will not in any way meet the serious difficulties that are arising for most people but particularly for those with large families or, indeed, for those with a reasonable number of children. The pressure on the pockets of those persons is becoming such that it is absolutely distressing for some. Indeed, the mothers of families are breaking down under the strain of trying to meet the situation with which they are being asked cope. I am not suggesting for a moment that the acceptance of this amendment would make an enormous difference to such people but at this stage anything that would help to ease the burden on families is to be welcomed.

I am not in a position at the moment to give any estimate of what this would involve. Perhaps the Minister will be able to do so but it is not sufficient answer to say, as he has said in regard to other proposals, that this change would place a burden on other taxpayers. As has been pointed out already, that would not be the case having regard to buoyancy of revenue. But even if it did mean putting a burden on other taxpayers, is there any taxpayer more entitled to relief than the one who is bringing up young children in present circumstances? What case is there for giving the same kind of treatment to a single person or to a married couple with no children as to those with families? Having regard to the allowance that is being given not going anywhere near meeting inflation, the omission in respect of an allowance for children is all the more serious.

If the Minister were increasing the allowances in respect of married, single and widowed persons sufficiently to give them a real increase and in order to enable them to keep ahead of inflation perhaps there could be an argument at this time for not increasing the allowance in respect of children but since he is not doing that the reality is that people are faced with a situation in which such increases as are being given are not keeping pace with inflation. At the same time those who are trying to rear children—and those are the ones in greatest need—are not being given any consideration in regard to their problems. In effect they are being treated in the same way as single people, married couples or widowed persons with dependent children. I hope that the logic of the argument in favour of this will commend itself to the Minister and that he will find it possible to accept the amendment. If, however, he does not find it possible to do so I trust that he will be able to give some convincing reasons for not accepting what is on the face of it a very reasonable amendment which is not seeking anything that could be remotely described as excessive in the circumstances that we are faced with today.

One cannot run a country by making a large number of variations in tax allowances throughout a year. Even giving concessions now has its own complications as it involves amendments of tax-free certificates and so forth with an immense amount of paperwork which confuses the taxpayer just as much as it throws a burden on to the administration. Therefore, it is only appropriate that a Government should assess what are the feasible reliefs to be given in taxation at budget time and, having done so, then to set about implementing the action necessary to give effect to them. That is what we have done this year. I will come to the merits or lack thereof of the proposal in a minute, but I am afraid that enormous administrative problems would be created even if the motion was otherwise all right.

There is one very good argument for leaving Fianna Fáil in Opposition, that is that they seem to have some conscience in Opposition or they have time to think. They certainly come forward with proposals which would involve taxation relief and enormous expenditure at the same time. They make an effort to be all things to all men, but I am afraid that the image they present in the long run is of people who have not done their homework, or if they have done it, knowing the results are quite reckless in presenting policies and quite indifferent as to whether or not those policies contain contradictions and inconsistencies. A great deal of what we have heard in this House over the last few years from the Opposition has been full of contradictions and inconsistencies. There have been demands for reduction in Government expenditure leading to reductions in taxation, leading to reduced borrowing, while there have been even more strident demands for increases in expenditure on several fronts.

The Opposition while in power had an increase in living costs of 82 per cent. During that period instead of allowing personal income tax and tax-free allowances to keep pace with reductions in the value of money, they left them alone for 11 years and did nothing whatsoever as the cost of living eroded the value of personal tax allowances. I am taking their whole period in office. Belatedly they made two small efforts at correcting the imbalance which they had allowed to develop. They had reductions amounting to 30 per cent as against a cost of living rise of 82 per cent.

Are the Minister's figures right?

Yes, my figures are right. If they are wrong I will be the first to admit it. I am satisfied now that they are right. Deputy Colley has come forward with certain suggestions for increased allowances. If these allowances were to be granted the addition would be not less than £5 million and probably between £5 and £6 million. Deputy Colley says that revenue buoyancy would look after that. Revenue buoyancy could well be the most convenient excuse which people will offer for giving concessions on the one hand or indulging in more expenditure on the other. But even with an expanding economy such as we have at present there is a limit to revenue buoyancy. We estimated a great deal of such revenue buoyancy as we are having this year at budget time and it enabled us to give substantial tax concessions, which on a yearly basis are costing £72 million. That is quite an amount of revenue buoyancy or call it what you will. It is quite a large amount of money from public revenue to leave to people to spend themselves instead of the Government taking it from them.

Even since the budget we have looked at the revenue figures and in the light of their buoyancy we have reduced the amount we have collected in farm taxation in 1977 by about £17 million. We have provided additional moneys for food subsidies and the subsidisation of town gas. We have also increased a number of other Government expenditures. Therefore revenue buoyancy is substantially committed this year and does not leave room for more Santa Clause presents of the kind that the Opposition can very easily hold out when they have not the responsibility of providing the money to meet them. Tax concessions cost revenue. That is revenue foregone, and if Government expenditure is not reduced to correspond with reductions in revenue, then taxation somewhere else has to rise and the burden has to be transferred to others.

The taxation and national wage agreements of 1977 are combined. Generally speaking, wages do not vary according to the number of children which workers may have. In devising a package of acceptable tax reductions and wages we have to bear in mind the fact that workers at large would be voting upon what was on offer to them and that they would include people who were single as well at those who were married and had children. In order to assist families with children we increased what I might call the welfare or post office children's allowances which are not themselves subject to tax so that we catered——

Is the Minister correct in saying that they are not subject to tax? Surely they are.

No, they are not.

Since when?

They have never been. The Deputy may remember that some years ago there was a temporary adjustment and that people whose incomes were above a certain level would be subject to tax on that portion which was in excess of the appointed level. That was only a temporary measure but otherwise the allowances were not taxed. Therefore families had the gross benefit of increases in children's allowances. Varying in relation to their income, tax rates and so on, they have had reductions in their tax load. At the lower end the value of the reduction in tax is about 80 per cent. Some people are paying 86 per cent less tax this year than last year. Of course, this declines; but the average is 11 or 12 per cent of tax and the wage concessions are very substantial. We have looked after the families in a sensible way, giving the relief where it would be of most benefit and giving the initial money direct to the mother.

As Deputy Colley said, the burdens of the mother and the housewife are considerable. The Government have been anxious to relieve them and that is why we are giving children's allowance and why we have also increased the subsidies that were given in respect of essential foodstuffs, cheese, milk and so forth and also in respect of town gas. These are significant reliefs to the family budget and we believe, in all the circumstances, that it was the right thing to do.

Undoubtedly we will, from year to year, have to look at the personal tax allowances. One of the greatest complaints often made is that we do not give everybody the same precise percentage increase, but to say that that is wrong is to assume that the tax code is perfect and that there is no need to vary it. I am satisfied that from time to time one should have variations in increases. This year the increases given are quite substantial and very costly, as I pointed out, in terms of revenue foregone, and it would not be justifiable to further increase the amount of revenue which would be lost as a consequence of which some essential services might have to be cut.

The Minister said the cost of this would be?

£5 million or £6 million.

Since the Minister sought to refer in a rather selective way to the record of previous Fianna Fáil Governments, I presume he was referring at least to the period back to 1957 in his calculations. That being so, I think it is only right that I should point out that he did not make a similar estimation in regard to his own tenure of office, but the undeniable fact is that since the Coalition came to Government, whatever the position of the taxpayer was at that time, and without getting involved in arguments of what might or might not have happened in previous years, it is now worse than it was because inflation has far exceeded the tax cuts granted, even if you include the ones proposed, which, of course, have to operate until the end of the present fiscal year, so that they would be covering a period up to the beginning of April next. Therefore, the position of taxpayers as taxpayers is now considerably worse in real terms than it was before the Coalition came into office.

Whatever about that aspect of the argument, the Minister seemed to be saying that, because the national pay agreement negotiations adverted to pay for individual workers without regard to their family commitments—he is quite right in saying that—the Government had increased the child cash allowances. It is true they did, but I do not think that even the Minister would try to boast about those increases. They were pretty miserly. For the first child there was no increase at all, and then it was 50p per month after that. I do not think the Minister would attempt to suggest that that went anywhere near redressing the balance that needs to be redressed. I am not suggesting that this amendment would go very far in redressing that balance, but I am saying that any step in that direction is worth while.

It was interesting to hear the Minister say that we should not rely on buoyancy of revenue for things like this. Speaking again from recollection, I think he said he relied for buoyancy on £60 million in his budget calculations. The indications up to now are that the buoyancy is exceeding his expectations. I do not know whether that will continue, but that would appear to be the position at the moment. He went on to point out the various commitments the Government have taken on since the budget calculations were made: additional food subsidies, a cut-back in revenue from farming taxation, and, more recently, the subsidy for town gas.

How is it that the Government, not having provided for such things, suddenly find that, despite their provision for revenue buoyancy in the budget, they can now make provision, according to the Minister, for all of these things, apparently, out of further revenue buoyancy, although he did not give details of that, but he cannot find £5 million to £6 million to increase the income tax allowance in respect of children by 10 per cent? If there is any logic in what the Minister is saying, and assuming the Government have been acting in good faith, it means that in their calculations there has been enough additional revenue going through to meet the various items he mentioned but they cannot go any further; that therefore, apart from the things the Minister mentioned and all the other announcements that were made which will involve a drain on the revenue, there is no possibility of the Government making any further announcement of commitment involving the expenditure of any further money, because the Minister for Finance has told us now that £5 million to £6 million for the purpose of raising the child allowances under the income tax code cannot be found. The money is not available out of revenue buoyancy because it has already been committed to the things he mentioned such as the cut-back in the revenue expected from taxation, increased food subsidies and so on.

I hope the Minister will adhere to that argument in the next few days and if, in fact, he intends to do otherwise, it is dishonest to come in here and tell us that such money cannot be found. If, on the other hand, his view is that further money could be found but he can think of better ways to spend it, then he should say so. But he should not tell us that the money simply cannot be found. If it cannot be found, then we may take it that there will be no further commitment by the Government to further expenditure other than that already announced.

I must confess to a certain degree of scepticism as to the outcome being no further commitment by the Government. I have a suspicion, too, that my scepticism may be shared by many people even outside the ranks of Fianna Fáil. If that scepticism is justified, then the Minister is simply misleading the House in what he has said. What, in effect, he is saying is: "I do not care what case there is for this. I do not care how difficult things are for people at the moment and the fact that a married man with two children on £2,500 a year will be saving a little over £1 a week in tax. I am going to refuse to find £5 million to £6 million to increase the allowance moderately by 10 per cent, not even keeping up with inflation, in respect of children which the person has to support." It is the Minister's prerogative to make that choice. I believe myself it is a wrong choice, an anti-social choice. He should have taken the opportunity he was given in this amendment and I think he was quite wrong not to do so. We will watch his antics within the next few days with considerable interest in the light of what he has said to us now.

It being now 5.30 p.m. I am, in accordance with the Order made by the Dáil yesterday, putting the Question:

That any amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to and, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 63.

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

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Dalv, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahev, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • French, Seán.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunny, Jim.
  • Walsh,
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
  • Seán.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share