Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jan 1984

Vol. 347 No. 4

Financial Resolution No. 8: Value-Added Tax.

The Taoiseach

I move:

(1) That in this Resolution—

"the Principal Act" means the Value-Added Tax Act, 1972 (No. 22 of 1972);

"the Act of 1976" means the Finance Act, 1976 (No. 16 of 1976);

"the Act of 1983" means the Finance Act, 1983 (No. 15 of 1983).

(2) That—

(a) the rate of value-added tax on clothing and textile handkerchiefs (excluding footwear, clothing made wholly or partly of fur skin and certain clothing for children) and on fabrics, yarn and thread of a kind normally used in the manufacture of clothing be increased from zero per cent. of the amount or value, as the case may be, in respect of which tax is chargeable in relation to those goods to 8 per cent. of that amount or value, as the case may be, and

(b) the rate of value-added tax on leather of a kind normally used in the manufacture of clothing and on yarn of a kind normally used in the manufacture of clothing fabrics be reduced from 35 per cent. of the amount or value, as the case may be, in respect of which tax is chargeable in relation to those goods to 8 per cent. of that amount or value, as the case may be, and

that, accordingly, the Principal Act be amended—

(i) in section 1—

(I) by the insertion in subsection (1) after the definition of "business" of the following definition:

" `clothing' does not include footwear;" and

(II) by the insertion in the said subsection (1) after the definition of "flat-rate farmer" of the following definition:

" `footwear' includes shoes, boots, slippers and the like but does not include stockings, under-stockings, socks, ankle-socks or similar articles or footwear without soles or footwear which is or incorporates skating or swimming equipment;",

(ii) in section 11—

(I) in subsection (1)—

(A) by the insertion after paragraph (aa) of the following paragraph:

"(aaa) 8 per cent. of the amount on which tax is chargeable in relation to the supply of goods of a kind specified in the Seventh Schedule," and

(B) by the insertion in paragraph (c) after "(aa)" of ",(aaa)",

(II) in subsection (7) (inserted by the Act of 1976), by the insertion in paragraph (e) (i) after "subsection (1) (aa)" of ", subsection (1) (aaa)", and

(III) in subsection (8), by the substitution in paragraph (a) (inserted by the Finance Act, 1973 (No. 19 of 1973)) of "Second, Third, Sixth or Seventh" for "Second, Third or Sixth",

(iii) in section 15, by the insertion after paragraph (aa) (inserted by the Act of 1983) of subsection (1) of the following paragraph:

"(aaa) on goods of a kind specified in the Seventh Schedule at the percentage specified in section 11 (1) (aaa) of the value of the goods, and",

(iv) in the Second Schedule (inserted by the Act of 1976)—

(I) by the substitution for paragraph (xvii) of the following paragraph:

"(xvii) articles of children's personal clothing of sizes which do not exceed the sizes of those articles appropriate to children of average build of 10 years of age (a child whose age is 10 years or 10 years and a fraction of a year being taken for the purposes of this paragraph to be a child of 10 years of age), but excluding—

(a) articles of clothing made wholly or partly of fur skin other than garments merely trimmed with fur skin, unless the trimming has an area greater than one fifth of the area of the outside material, and

(b) articles of clothing which are not described, labelled, marked or marketed on the basis of age or size;",

and

(II) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (xviii):

"(xviii) footwear;",

(v) in the Third Schedule (inserted by the Act of 1976)—

(I) in Part I, by the insertion in paragraph (xxviii) after "Second" of ",Sixth or Seventh", and

(II) in Part II, by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (viii):

"(viii) the hiring of goods specified in paragraphs (xvii) and (xviii) of the Second Schedule and paragraph (i) of the Seventh Schedule.",

and

(vi) by the insertion after the Sixth Schedule (inserted by the Act of 1983) of the following Schedule:

"SEVENTH SCHEDULE

GOODS CHARGEABLE AT THE RATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 11 (1) (aaa)

(i) Articles of personal clothing and textile handkerchiefs, excluding—

(a) articles of clothing made wholly or partly of fur skin, other than garments merely trimmed with fur skin unless the trimming has an area greater than one fifth of the area of the outside material, and

(b) articles of personal clothing of a kind specified in paragraph (xvii) of the Second Schedule;

(ii) (a) fabrics, yarn, thread and leather, of a kind normally used in the manufacture of clothing, including elastics, tapes and padding materials in the form supplied for the manufacture of clothing, and

(b) yarn of a kind normally used in the manufacture of clothing fabrics.".

(3) That the rate of value-added tax on certain concrete be reduced from 23 per cent. of the amount or value, as the case may be, in respect of which tax is chargeable in relation to such goods to 5 per cent. of that amount or value, as the case may be, and that, accordingly, the Principal Act be further amended—

(i) in Part I of the Third Schedule, by the deletion of "concrete,", in paragraph (x) (b), and

(ii) in the Sixth Schedule, by the insertion after paragraph (ii) of the following paragraph:

"(iia) concrete ready to pour;".

(4) That the rate of value-added tax on services consisting of the promotion of or admission to certain live theatrical or musical performances be reduced from 23 per cent. of the amount in respect of which tax is chargeable in relation to the supply of those services to 5 per cent. of that amount and that, accordingly, the Principal Act be further amended by the insertion in the Sixth Schedule after paragraph (iii) of the following paragraph:

"(iiia) promotion of or admission to live theatrical or musical performances, including circuses, but not including—

(a) dances to which section 11 (7) relates, or

(b) performances in conjunction with which facilities are available for the consumption of food or drink during all or part of the performance by persons attending the performance;".

(5) That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 11 of the Principal Act, the rate of value-added tax chargeable on the following services (being services in relation to the short-term hiring of road vehicles, boats, caravans, mobile homes and trailer tents) shall be 18 per cent. of the amount in respect of which tax is chargeable in relation to those services:

(a) the service specified in paragraph (ii) of Part II of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act, and

(b) the service consisting of the hiring to a person, under an agreement of the kind specified in the said paragraph (ii), of a vehicle designed and constructed, or adapted, for the conveyance of persons by road.

(6) That this Resolution (other than paragraph (2)) shall have effect as on and from the 1st day of March, 1984, and that paragraph (2) of this Resolution shall have effect as on and from the 1st day of May, 1984.

(7) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

I have moved this Resolution subject to the correction of a printing error. The word "that" in line 8 of page 10 should read "than".

Mr. Haughey

In view of this very serious error in drafting I suggest to the Taoiseach that this Resolution be withdrawn and brought back on some future occasion. Is that agreed?

Deputies

Yes.

The Taoiseach

No.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Taoiseach persist in pursuing this?

The Taoiseach

I have outlined the position.

Mr. Haughey

I am sure it will come as no surprise to the House that we are totally opposed to this Resolution which would impose value-added tax on clothing. Some of my colleagues who are more familiar with the industry will give their views on how detrimental this imposition will be from many different aspects. I will give my view very briefly.

This is an anti-social measure. One would have thought that by now the view of the majority of the people in regard to the imposition of VAT on clothing would have been well known and would have been sufficient to deter any administration from proceeding with a proposal of this nature. The proposal will be directly detrimental to the family budget. It is not necessary for me to outline the importance of clothing in the make-up of a family budget, particularly as an item in the budget of the lower income sector. The imposition is iniquitous and will cause direct hardship and privation to the weakest section of our community.

It can be described as anti-democratic to bring the proposal forward again in view of the fact that in a full general election the people rejected the concept of tax on clothing, particularly VAT. This is bad social policy and bad taxation policy because the way the proposal is framed will result in all sorts of evasions and distortions. It certainly will not help in so far as the problem of cross-Border trade is concerned. I will leave my colleagues to deal with the effects it will have on employment. The Government cannot attempt to argue that it will not have serious adverse effects on employment in this particular industry which is already in a perilous state and certainly does not need this imposition at this stage.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I wish to protest very strongly to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and anybody who cares to listen, about this Resolution, which imposes 8 per cent VAT on clothing. I wish to protest on two grounds, one of which has already been stated by our Leader, the anti-social ground. This is being imposed particularly on families who have already had savage impositions on them, the school transport costs introduced last year by the Government, the withdrawal of medical cards which will put an added cost on parents, the extra cost of foodstuffs and rent and now the added cost of clothing. The fact that it is not on clothing for children up to ten years is of no use whatsoever because every mother knows that clothes for children up to ten years are the least expensive. From ten onwards children are moving into the teenager stage when their clothes by size, quality and the rate of growth of the teenagers make the constant replacement of garments a severe headache for mothers.

I protest very strongly against this imposition particularly for the mothers who have to bear the burden of figuring out where the money will come from to replace Mary's and Johnny's garments when they see their teenagers growing in front of them. I wish to protest very strongly at the effect this imposition of VAT will have on the employment situation in the clothing industry. Is the Taoiseach aware that since 1979 employment in the clothing industry has declined dramatically? In the town of Athlone there are two very thriving small clothing factories. I have already had telephone calls from them tonight in which they asked me to point out the effect this imposition will have on employment in their factories. I want to put it on the record that the Government have done this directly not alone to the town of Athlone but to every town in the country.

This daft imposition reminds me of when I was a Senator and when the Coalition Government fell on their ridiculous age structure in a VAT imposition. I hope I will get an answer in relation to this matter. Will the Taoiseach say who will be the judge of the ten year old? Many mothers and fathers have fine strapping nine year olds who could pass for 14 year olds. I am speaking here tonight as a woman Deputy and as a person who knows the constant headache women will be facing. It is bad enough having to replace clothes for their families but they now have to pay this 8 per cent VAT on all those replacements. This makes nonsense of what the Minister for Finance said today, that 1 per cent would be added on to the rate of inflation by what he introduced today. When the full implications of VAT on clothing are taken into account I believe the rate of inflation will be far greater. It is a savage imposition on families, particularly on women.

The Taoiseach

I would like to reply to the questions asked and to make a few other points. First of all, with regard to the question of sizes, immediately after the budget the Revenue Commissioners will be in touch with the trade interests concerned with a view to agreeing detailed specifications and descriptions for distribution to traders and importers in good time before the date in question. That is the answer to the particular question asked. I would like to make a couple of other points.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I did not catch all of what the Taoiseach said.

Mr. Flynn

Would the Taoiseach please repeat what he has just said?

The Taoiseach

I am sorry. Immediately after the budget the Revenue Commissioners will be in touch with the trade interests concerned with a view to agreeing detailed specifications and descriptions for distribution to traders and importers in good time before the date on which it will come to apply.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Does that mean that every child will be measured?

The Taoiseach

No, but they will agree with the trade as to what sizes are appropriate to a differentiation at age ten just as it is operated in the same way in the United Kingdom and no doubt in other countries where this differentiation is made.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Therefore, every child must be the same size.

The Taoiseach

No, that is not the position. The Deputy will be aware of that if she reads the Resolution.

Mr. Haughey

The Taoiseach is about to goof again.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We cannot have standard children.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy reads the Resolution she will find the wording is there and the interpretation will be agreed between the Revenue Commissioners and the trading interests concerned. I would like to point out that the Resolution we are talking about is somewhat broader than the Deputies seek to imply. If it is suggested they will vote against it let them be clear about what they are voting against. They will be voting against 8 per cent VAT on adult clothing. They will be voting against a reduction from 35 per cent to 8 per cent on the charge on leather for the manufacture of clothing and yarn for the manufacture of clothing fabrics. They will be voting against the reduction from 23 per cent to 5 per cent of the rate on ready mix concrete. They will be voting against the reduction from 23 per cent to 5 per cent on the rate of admission to theatres and certain other live performances and they will be voting against the reduction from 23 per cent to 18 per cent in relation to short term hiring of road vehicles, boats, caravans, mobile homes and trailer tents. I thought the Deputies should know what they will be voting on before they decide.

The other point I would like to make in clarification of this point is that of the total consumption of adult clothing 70 per cent is now imported so the main brunt will fall on imports. The Deputies opposite will know our views on this as they decided to introduce VAT at the point of entry, an arrangement which ties up working capital in relation to imports in a way which does not operate in the same degree in relation to home produced goods. There are many disadvantages in relation to VAT at the point of entry but it has this effect which should be taken account of in relation to the 70 per cent of imports as against the impact on the 30 per cent of home production.

Fianna Fáil were the people who introduced VAT on clothing in 1972, when they introduced a rate of 5.26 per cent which we subsequently abolished. Regretfully, at this stage, in view of the economic and financial situation, we have had to revert to a taxation on clothing but, unlike Fianna Fáil at that time, we are exempting footwear and children's clothing, all of which carried 5.26 per cent when Fianna Fáil introduced it 12 years ago.

Miss Harney

The Taoiseach was brave in telling us what we would be voting against but I would like to tell him what we will be voting for. We will be voting to make the remaining 10,800 people currently working in the clothing industry unemployed because over the last three and a half years almost 1,100 people in the clothing industry have been put on the dole queues. It is putting it mildly to say I was surprised when I heard the Government's intention this evening. If the Government wanted to introduce a tax of this kind and wanted to discriminate against those over ten years I would have thought they would have chosen another form of discrimination. Perhaps they should have considered the introduction of a tax on fur coats, silk goods or something of that nature.

It is ridiculous to exclude children under ten years, as my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, has pointed out. No shop assistant or person engaged in the sale of goods in the clothing industry can tell the age of any child and here the Minister is discriminating on the basis of size. The people, and most of the Deputies in this House, will rightly reject this proposal. I had hoped that in a time of high recession when so many people are on the dole queue this Government would have seen fit to encourage labour-intensive industry such as our clothing industry. Rather they have chosen to attack further those involved in the production of goods such as clothing and textiles, and that is very sad. It will have a detrimental effect on employment in the current and future years and on the small number of such firms that exist. Deputy O'Rourke spoke of some in Athlone. In my constituency of Tallaght, Glen Abbey, who have served both the constituency and the country well in providing a substantial number of jobs, may be forced to close down as a result of this. The few clothing firms that exist have been seeking from the Minister rather than imposition of a tax some relief in the PRSI contributions which labour-intensive industries must pay. In times like this we should encourage firms that employ people rather than encourage automation as we are doing.

The Taoiseach can tell us that imports will be affected to a greater extent than home-produced goods, and that may be the case; but this country should be very suited to the production of textiles and clothing. Since December 1979, 4,000 people have lost their jobs in the clothing industry and that should bring home to us all how serious a step we are taking in imposing this tax.

I was delighted to hear the Minister refer on quite a number of occasions in his speech to the importance of our tourist industry. Our traditional garments of wool and linen have been of great interest to many tourists. Our woven materials, clothing, linen products, Aran sweaters and so on have been purchased readily by them. The imposition of this tax will effect that industry.

Mr. J. Doyle

They can claim the VAT at point of exit.

Miss Harney

If Deputy Doyle wants to say anything he can do so afterwards. This Government should be doing something to encourage the few textile industries remaining in the country to expand production and go into the export market. Rather than do that they have chosen what perhaps in their minds is a simple solution: to close them down and put the remaining 10,800 people involved in the clothing industry on to the dole queue. As Deputy O'Rourke said, this measure will be very unpopular with the mothers and families of Ireland. It will affect adversely the poorer families, particularly parents of children in the ten to 18 years of age group who are not at work, who are at school and depending on those parents. Clothing for this section is very expensive. This tax will add a further burden to families in this category. It is a detrimental measure and I suggest that the Taoiseach have second thoughts about it. It will do great damage.

Mr. Flynn

I would like to put a point to the Taoiseach on his reference in the Seventh Schedule to Financial Resolution No. 8. It is a bare-faced admission of Government trickery. It is not devised to catch out Fianna Fáil; it is devised to lock in and out-manoeuvre the Labour Party, who have made it quite clear in political statements for the past 12 months that they would not and could not ever support the re-introduction of VAT on clothing or footwear. It has been deliberately locked into the Seventh Schedule which attaches it to other things like concrete products and to the reclaim of VAT by tourists at point of exit. It has been done deliberately to outmanoeuvre Labour and force them through that lobby. It is Government by stealth, it is irresponsible and it is purely political rigging of this Financial Resolution. This was the Resolution which was dreaded by the drapery trade. The drapery trade has been under considerable pressure to maintain its profit margins and employment levels for the past year or so. This Resolution will hurt particularly the small drapery outlets in rural Ireland, and in urban Ireland also. How can they hope now to maintain their existing employment levels if they have to compete against this extra VAT impact?

In recessionary times adults sacrifice themselves and they have been doing precisely that for the past 12 months. One sacrifice they always make is to cut themselves short on their own garments. Ask any woman in Ireland today if there is a deterioration in the clothing that people have to wear now and she will tell you that it is so. It is sure evidence of a recession, and here we are saying that from now on we are condemning our people to being the poorest-clad population in Europe.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

The Coalition withdrew this measure last year. Taoiseachs went on their knees to Independent Deputies to tell them that they would withdraw it and reconsider it. Now by stealth it has been brought back by this Government in the most outlandish, unfair and irresponsible manner possible. I ask the Taoiseach what, according to this Resolution, does "ten years and a bit" mean? Is he saying that it will be sufficient for a mother to establish the age of her child as a ten and a bit? By what means? Will it be by baptismal certificate, birth certificate or authorisation from her family practitioner?

Mrs. O'Rourke

By a measuring tape.

Mr. Flynn

In the supermarkets and small drapery stores will you have harassment and rows daily when mothers are trying to get the benefit of clothing for their children at the right price? Because of this irresponsible act of the Coalition Government every woman in this country will be anti-Coalition — and that is one good thing about what the Government are doing.

I ask the Taoiseach if I can take it from the reference to labelling and his earlier remarks that the Revenue Commissioners will instruct the drapery trade to devise a method of labelling goods for children aged ten and ten and a bit as mentioned in the Schedule. Is this not the daftest resolution ever brought before this House? Yet it is said willingly by the Taoiseach that it is coupled to other measures that might seem to give some little relief on a few other products and operations. That is political trickery and the Taoiseach should be above it. However, he has condemned himself out of his own mouth and that is how the public will treat him when they get the opportunity.

The Taoiseach

To answer the points put to me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would prefer if you would do so when you are concluding.

The Taoiseach

When Deputies put questions to me I answer them.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We would like to hear him.

The Taoiseach

With respect to the question of age, as is clear from the wording and from what I have said in explanation of it, the method adopted is for the Revenue Commissioners to discuss with traders in relation to their sizing system what sizes of clothes are appropriate to a child of average size aged ten or higher. My own experience of shopping for children of that age, which is quite considerable because of my grandchildren——

Mr. Haughey

In Harrods?

Mr. Flynn

Is it limited by some distance?

The Taoiseach

No, on the contrary it is quite current — I find that clothes tend to be sized by age very often. Whether they are sized by age, as is the practice in some cases, or whether it is done by sizes, the size appropriate to a child of average size of age ten will be determined and clothing below that size will be exempt. The same system operates in Britian and does not create any great difficulty.

The Machiavellian mind of Deputy Flynn imputes to us more subtlety than perhaps we have or would wish to display on this matter. In regard to the other point he raised, he should be aware that all VAT Resolutions being brought in are brought in as a single VAT Resolution comprehending any VAT change in a budget. This is not a practice being introduced in this budget to make matters awkward for the Opposition or to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It is normal practice and one that has been followed by other Governments, including Fianna Fáil, down through the years. If that were not the practice budget discussions would be very difficult and complex. Deputies opposite must bear in mind that if they vote against this they will be voting against the other elements too. It is not that we have put the Resolutions together by way of contrivance but merely to follow normal practice.

Mr. Flynn

The Taoiseach is the one who has used the word "contrivance".

Mr. Wilson

I should like to take up the point made by the Taoiseach when speaking about the importation of clothing. Most of the tariffs are ad valorem and we seem to be importing more from such places as Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, but a 300 per cent ad valorem rate does not bring the prices up to anywhere near what it costs to produce garments in this country. It was that kind of pressure that caused so many manufactures to close down, including two in the recent past in my constituency. This 8 per cent imposition will break the backs of those who are left. The 30 per cent mentioned by the Taoiseach are now being put under extra pressure.

I recall during my time working in Donegal that when tweeds came under threat in the US, which is the most powerful economic unit in the world, the Government there imposed restrictions that endangered the little industry in Donegal. This was done because of the concern of the US Government for their own manufacturers, whereas we are imposing an 8 per cent VAT on clothing when we know that that imposition will kill whatever is left of our clothing industry. I am talking of the manufacturing end but from that arise the other areas to which Deputy Flynn referred.

If the Minister for Finance would have regard to the well-produced journals that are sent to places all over the world in an effort to encourage tourism, he would find, as Deputy Harney said, that one of the big catches so far as the tourists are concerned are our knitwear and tweeds, which we are especially good at producing and in respect of which we are doing a very good business. In a budget in which there is nothing being done to increase employment there should at least be a second thought about the imposition of this 8 per cent on clothing.

Someone referred to the problem of teenagers in this respect. Today's teenagers are much more fussy about the clothes they wear than was the case in the past. The percentage of income that teenagers spend on their clothes is much greater than would have been the case of a past generation. Consequently, the pressure will be very great on parents who are already paying a great deal extra for their children in third level institutions and who are to be deprived in many instances of medical cards for those children. Today's impositions will add to the burden of all those families.

I cannot see the Labour Party supporting this proposal but, should they support it, we may take it that the whole nature of that party has changed, that they will be abdicating their self-arrogated responsibility for the weaker sections. However, they are linked in harness with Fine Gael; but Labour must realise that this 8 per cent on clothing may very well be only the thin end of the wedge. If Labour swallow this one they will probably be swallowing 10 per cent next year if the Government last that long and also VAT on footwear. Deputy Power has just reminded me of the old saying of not casting a clout until May is out. Apparently this VAT imposition will be effective from 1 May. Then, many people will be casting clouts, not for reasons of hygiene or of health but because of this Resolution.

The Taoiseach

There are two situations here. One is where a tourist is from an EEC country and is entitled to bring into his own country goods to the value of £145 without being liable to VAT. The position is that VAT rates on clothing in these countries are very much higher than is the case here. In four cases it is of the order of 18 to 19 per cent. In another case it is 22 per cent while the lowest rate is 12 per cent. Therefore even with the 8 per cent tax on clothing there will be an advantage for tourists in buying clothes here and that advantage is significant, about 10 per cent on average. In respect of tourists from outside the EEC, but particularly from the US, the new provision we are introducing whereby they can reclaim VAT on goods taken out of this country will ensure that they may purchase clothing here free of VAT. Therefore in both cases there is an advantage to tourists in buying clothing here.

Mr. MacSharry

Regarding the reference to children of the age of ten and a fraction, as at the bottom of page 9, we find on page 10 details of certain areas that are excluded — articles of clothing which are not described, labelled, marked or marketed on the basis of age or size. Does this not mean that there will be a sizeable amount of clothing for children under ten that will not be exempt? How is it intended to overcome that problem?

The Taoiseach

The misunderstanding is my fault because inadvertently I did not answer the question asked previously. There are certain types of clothing that are not sized regardless of whether they are for children or for adults. One thinks of scarves, for example. There are very few items of that kind. One case, though I cannot see its relevance in this instance, is wigs. Since very few children wear wigs, we may take it that they are intended for adults but they are not actually sized.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is a question of wigs on the green.

The Taoiseach

It is because of such items that the reference is included. Regarding the question of the age of ten and a fraction, I understand that the purpose of this is that the VAT will not apply to clothing of a size worn by children up to but not including those aged 11. In practice many clothes are sold marked not by size as such but in accordance with the age of the child for which they are suitable. The intent is that such clothing as would be appropriate to a child of ten or ten and a fraction, that is, a child under 11, will be exempt. Any clothing which would be appropriate to an average sized child of 11 or over will not be exempt. That is the purpose of the solution.

Mr. Haughey

I have a suggestion to make. I think the Central Statistics Office should devise the relevant data on an average national ten-year old child. We could make an identikit of that child and supply it free of charge to every drapery shop in Ireland. I think that might solve the Taoiseach's problem.

Mrs. O'Rourke

What about the big child?

Mr. Lenihan

Under another section of the Resolution we cold pour concrete on the child and immobilise him——

Mr. Haughey

All of us know that largely because of the savage imposition of VAT and excise taxes on certain lines of goods here there has been a tremendous diversion of consumer expenditure across the Border. My colleagues who represent constituencies along the Border are wrong in thinking this is something that affects their areas only. Most Dublin Deputies know that even Clerys in O'Connell Street are affected by this diversion of consumer expenditure across the Border.

Mr. Harte

That is the result of the bad economic planning policy of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Haughey

The one minor advantage was in respect of clothing because in this State that item had an advantage over clothing in the Six County area so far as the ordinary shopper was concerned. One would think this Government had set out to be deliberately perverse in this. It was the one area where the ordinary trader in this country had an advantage and it was one way he could still hold on to a certain amount of trade. Obviously the Government set out deliberately to exacerbate the situation where consumer expenditure was going across the Border with a resultant loss of trade to shopkeepers in this part of the country and with a considerable loss of revenue to the Government. It seems to me the Government have set out deliberately to remove the last small advantage Irish traders had in consumer expenditure or, alternatively they have not even thought out exactly what they are doing in this ludicrous, silly, anti-social proposal.

Mr. Harte

It would be interesting to see how many of the Deputies opposite are wearing Irish shirts or Irish shoes——

Mr. MacSharry

I want to finish the point in relation to articles of clothing that are not described or labelled. The Taoiseach flippantly said there were only a few items and he mentioned wigs as a sort of joke. It is no joke. If there are only a few items involved, will the Taoiseach explain why there is a special section in the Resolution to cater for what he called a small problem?

The Taoiseach

If there are any items there must be some guidance as to what tax rate applies. There are items of apparel such as belts, braces, scarves and so on that are not sized——

Mr. MacSharry

The list seems to be getting bigger. The Taoiseach referred only to wigs and scarves a few minutes ago.

The Taoiseach

It is a small number but one cannot omit them because then it would be impossible to determine whether they should be taxable or not. Like all legislation, this has to be precise so that the items can be clearly defined and people know the situation with regard to tax. Therefore, even though the number is small and the items unimportant, it is necessary to put it in. The only comment I wish to make on what has been said is that Deputies do not seem to have much experience of shopping for children.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I must answer that.

The Taoiseach

I am quite surprised at what Deputy O'Rourke and other Deputies have said. Apart from grocery shopping it is the one kind of shopping in which I engage. From my experience I know one hears shoppers say that they want a coat or a skirt for a child of ten but will add that the child is big for a ten-year old or is small for her age as the case may be. Then a discussion will ensue as to whether the garment in question would suit. Shopkeepers work out the size for a given age and that is well known and established. The process of establishing that with the Revenue Commissioners is quite simple. It has been done in Britain without difficulty and the fuss the Deputies opposite are making shows how little they know about the subject.

Mr. Leyden

This would be amusing if it were not so serious. The Taoiseach would make a very bad draper because he has found it very difficult to explain to Deputies on this side exactly how he would define the clothes that would fit a ten-year old child. If he had experience of buying clothes he would realise it is impossible to impose this requirement. At this stage he should tear up this proposal and withdraw the provision because it will not work. The Taoiseach should have some knowledge of the realities of life. It reminds me of the women's programme he was on recently when some lady told him he was living on a different planet. It is obvious now that he is, that he has no real knowledge of ordinary Irish people. It is impossible for him to tell us how to work out the different sizes of clothes for a ten-year old or an 11-year old child. I have been in touch with clothing manufacturers this evening and they are worried with regard to retaining their employees. The point was made to me tonight that in our term of office we allowed £5 per week allowance per employee, to assist the retention of the employees in this particularly labour intensive industry, which is under threat at this stage.

This imposition is the death knell to many small clothing factories and many retail outlets are also under major pressure. The point was also made to me that from tomorrow onwards, you, Taoiseach, will be responsible for massive pre-imposition sales up to 1 May 1984 which will ensure very little return for the next 12 months, which is anticipated at £16.4 million for 1984. It is very unlikely that your Government will receive that amount from this imposition. The public must respond to avoid this penal taxation on clothing for children over ten years of age. It is a most crazy and unusual situation. I have been checking with manufacturers and they are unable to define exactly how to regulate sizes to suit a ten year old, an 11 year old or a 15 year old. They cannot devise any scheme which will bring this regulation into operation and you are trying to explain to this House that you, by some method of other, are in a position to devise it. This is a fraud and you are bringing in penal taxation on the hard-pressed consumers. The parents who are now trying to clothe their children up to 18 years of age will find it extremely difficult to carry this extra burden.

The concession allegedly being made at this stage is impossible to operate. You are reaching a stage, Taoiseach, where the position will be made impossible for the draper and the manufacturer. You will throw many hundreds out of work on the manufacturing and the retail side. You will be responsible for adding to the 208,000 at present unemployed. This proposal is the greatest disaster ever. You were beaten on it less than two years ago, defeated in this House. You went on your bended knees to plead to a man who is no longer here and will not be here again, Jim Kemmy, to support you in relation to this imposition of VAT on footwear and clothing. I believe that you will be begging the Irish people to put you back again into Government. You will never again be elected Taoiseach by the will of this House. This is going to damn you for all time. Everywhere you go and stand and speak, people will shout you down.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Leyden will listen to the Chair. The Deputy should speak in the third person, or address the Chair.

Mr. Leyden

I am sorry to have upset you.

An Ceann Comhairle

You did not.

Mr. Leyden

I know that you are suffering at the moment and that this is adding to your suffering, and we are suffering.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not suffering.

Mr. Leyden

You are lucky to have already got the scarf to support your arm, because after 1 May you may be paying more — or would that fit a ten year old as well as the Ceann Comhairle of this House?

The Taoiseach

If it is bought as to size.

Mr. Leyden

You are not sure of the size, Taoiseach. I am only saying that if you ever come to my constituency and stand on a platform, the people will shout up at you "The man who brought in the 8 per cent on clothing, the man that broke the industry and damned the people of this country to pay this tax." You will be responsible.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Leyden should address the Chair.

Mr. Kelly

If I were a constituent of yours I would very much resent that. If I were a Roscommon man represented as a beggar, as you do every time you get up here to speak, I would resent it.

Mr. Leyden

I resent that from that man up there. He does not represent the ordinary people. Deputy Kelly represents the well-heeled, articulate and very wealthy people of this country. We represent the ordinary people of Ireland. Eight per cent is an imposition which cannot be borne.

Mr. Kelly

Your constituents deserve a better kind of treatment than that. They are not mendicants. They can face their responsibilities.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy O'Rourke and then I shall call Deputy Mac Giolla.

Mr. Haughey

I am going to name Deputy Kelly in a moment if he does not behave himself.

Mrs. O'Rourke

A Cheann Comhairle ——

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

A Cheann Comhairle, could I say something to you?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are sitting late tonight in order to deal with the budget. I would ask the House to deal with it in a responsible way.

Mr. Lenihan

If you restrain Deputy Kelly and keep him under control.

Mr. Harte

Keep your eyes on Deputy Lenihan.

Mr. Lenihan

Where is the Labour Party?

Mr. Wilson

Why are the Labour Party missing?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I shall try to speak to the Chair and in the third person as he has requested. I would like to issue an invitation to the Taoiseach. He has said that clothing for children is branded in age and size.

The Taoiseach

Sometimes.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Sometimes. Thank you, I am glad to get that admission.

The Taoiseach

I said that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Would the Taoiseach come with me tomorrow to Dunnes Stores in Grafton Street and we shall try to buy a jumper and jeans for a boy and girl of ten. He will not get the age on the label. That will give chest and other measurement. There will be no age, number or name on that jumper and jeans. I speak directly to you. You may well have shopped for your children and your grandchildren. I am shopping everyday.

Mr. Haughey

He shops at Harrods.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I cannot buy a jeans or jumper which states the age. In that age group they give a size. You sound so daft when you talk about it. I do not mean that as disrespectful. I am speaking in plain language. You try to explain your way out of it. You have said how feminist your Government are and that you have done so much for the women of Ireland. The women of Ireland will be appalled tomorrow when they read what you are doing. Where are all your fine women Deputies with their fine children? Why are they not here tonight to stand up for the women? Where is the Minister for Women's Affairs ——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lenihan

They are catching the 9.50.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Perhaps you should go home, Taoiseach, and think about it tonight and talk about it to your wife.

Mr. Leyden

Do.

Mrs. O'Rourke

And talk about it to your grandchildren and ask them do they think that this is a good measure.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Rourke will please address the Chair. It is becoming too personal.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I think the Taoiseach is behaving in an irresponsible, silly fashion and that to impose this tax will lead to tension with women and subterfuge and finally to bewilderment.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

Where are the women Deputies? Lovely. I am delighted to see Deputy Owen.

Mrs. Owen

I had left our office before this.

Mr. Lenihan

Repeat it again, Deputy O'Rourke.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I would be delighted. I am glad that the women responded. I know that Deputy Owens, like myself, has children and will be shopping for her children's clothing.

Mrs. Owen

And I bought a pair of jeans yesterday for age 13.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputy Barry will have her day, when she too will be buying children's clothes, please God.

Mr. Leyden

John, do not go, come back.

Mrs. O'Rourke

This is a daft notion. Please forget it — and I speak for the women of Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call on Deputy Mac Giolla.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Deputy Lemass has been trying to speak for some time.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Will you come to town with me tomorrow, Taoiseach?

Mrs. Owen

You will find that the ages are given.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

It is quite unfair that Deputies who have been allowed to speak should then prevent other Deputies from speaking.

The Taoiseach

I am glad that Deputy Owen has verified what I have said.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I should like, first of all, to support——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I will bring in the clothing and display it.

Mr. Flynn

That is the best offer you have got today, Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

We will go, and take Deputy Owen as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Mac Giolla, without interruption.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I support Deputy Flynn in his protests at the manner in which concrete ready to pour is mixed with clothes ready to wear. In this is also included the lowering of VAT on theatre tickets. That is something which in our submission to the Minister we asked should be zero-rated. We very much welcome the reduction to 5 per cent. However, that will not stop me from voting against VAT on clothing. It is most unfair of the Taoiseach to tell people opposed to VAT on clothing that they are voting to keep VAT at a higher rate on theatre tickets, or that they oppose a reduction on concrete ready to pour. As I read this it is only clothes ready to wear which are affected by the exemption limit for children under ten and a fraction. I take it that that includes a child right up to the day before his or her 11th birthday. I would ask the Taoiseach to consider that VAT will still remain on fabrics, yarn and thread. What about children who are of abnormal size, or are handicapped or disabled, and who do not get clothes ready to wear? They have to buy the yarn or fabric or thread and get the clothes made at the tailors. These are the children who more than any others need the exemption. Would the Taoiseach please reconsider this and how he can give exemption to these disabled or abnormally sized children who must have clothes made for them? In the first place, these clothes are much more expensive, so to put another 8 per cent on is an absolute outrage. Why has this not been considered by the people who drew up this measure? No consideration whatsoever is given to the difficulties of parents of these children. Will the Taoiseach consider altering this measure to ensure that they will have at least the same exemption as children who get clothes off the hook?

Mrs. Lemass

If the situation were not so serious it would be very funny. A lot of people are making jokes this evening, passing remarks, but I should like to say to the Taoiseach that this is the most serious situation ever for the people of this country. Has the Taoiseach any realisation at all of what the mother and housewife is going through at present? Does he realise that families are experiencing the most difficult period they have done for a long number of years? Does he realise there are households with unemployed teenagers where the father is unemployed? The mother is trying to cope with feeding and clothing those children. He talks about VAT free clothes for children under ten. What about children between the ages of ten and 18 which women are trying to clothe? They are trying to keep them at school because there is no work for them. If they allow them to leave school at 16 or 17 they sit at home all day doing nothing. Therefore, the mother and father, at great pain and expense to themselves, are endeavouring to keep these children in school until they are 18. They are trying to buy schoolbooks for them, trying to feed them. On top of all of that, when they are endeavouring to clothe them there will be an 8 per cent VAT imposition on those clothes.

I have three grandchildren. I can assure the Taoiseach that even if there is a size shown on clothes in the shops children do not conform to size. There will be a six-year-old who might need an eight-year-old size, a ten-year-old who will need a teenage size. How is that kind of problem to be overcome? There will be a small woman who might be able to fit into a child's jumper or pair of jeans. As the Taoiseach said, when the Government fell here in 1982, he was putting VAT on shoes because he thought women with small feet would be able to buy children's shoes; a woman with a size three shoe could buy a child's shoe. The same thing will happen now. There will be women who will be able to fit into children's clothes and children who will need adults clothing. As Deputy O'Rourke said, the whole situation is daft. I notice the Taoiseach is not listening to me at present. I hope he can hear with one ear what I am saying.

What about items like bed clothing, sheets and material? Is VAT to be imposed on them as well? As another Deputy said, will people like dressmakers who make clothes be charged 8 per cent VAT? Will the tailoring establishments be charged 8 per cent VAT? The clothing industry has been going through an extremely bad time over the last couple of years because of the importation of clothing from different foreign countries, such as Korea, Taiwan and others. It is a sad situation for our clothing industry, an old established industry which employed a great number of women who at present cannot get employment while women are finding it more and more difficult to be employed during this recession. Does the Taoiseach further realise that in certain shops in this city one cannot buy an Irish-made garment? If one goes into one of these shops and asks, "Have you got an Irish-made garment in your shop," they will say, "No, they are all imported". Therefore, because of cheap imports in recent years our clothing industry has been going through an extremely difficult time. More and more small clothing industries have been closing down, more and more tailoring establishments have been closing down. This will finish them off altogether.

Even at this late stage I appeal to the Taoiseach to reconsider this VAT on clothes. The Minister for Finance has given an extra 20 pence per week per child in children's allowances. He is giving 20p per child per week and putting 8 per cent VAT on their clothing. One might well ask where is the £9.60 the women were promised in 1981? They are not even considering that any more.

Mr. Wilson

Where are the snows of yester-year?

Mrs. Lemass

It is gone, not a word about it. The woman in the home has been totally forgotten by this Coalition Government, totally abandoned and forgotten.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Credibility, where are you.

Mrs. Lemass

There are at present women living in housing estates in this city whose husbands are working and have reasonable jobs who cannot afford heating oil for their homes. In a certain estate in this city women are clubbing together in the afternoon, three and four of them. They go to each other's houses so that they can keep warm in the afternoons. One woman turns on the heating in her home one afternoon and another woman the next afternoon. That is how badly off they are at present. These are all people with young families, with two, three or four young children. Then this Government intend to crucify them with this extra VAT on clothes. They will reach the situation in which they will be unable to buy anything for their children. They are finding it sufficiently difficult at present to feed them and send them to school, never mind this latest imposition.

Even at this late stage I repeat my appeal to the Taoiseach and his Government to reconsider this stupid, unreasonable, dreadful VAT on clothing for children in excess of ten years and adults.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would remind Deputies that this debate must conclude at 10.30 p.m. and the Taoiseach has to get in to reply. There are from about two to six people to speak in about ten minutes and the Taoiseach to reply.

Mr. Flynn

I should like to give the Taoiseach a little respite from VAT on clothing at the moment. I might refer him to paragraph (4) of the Seventh Schedule on page 11. The reference contained in the Principal Features of Budget, the yellow document, is very misleading with regard to the question of VAT on theatres and other live performances being reduced to 5 per cent. I should like to tease this out somewhat with the Taoiseach. The VAT on certain theatrical and musical performances, including circuses, but excluding other types of things, is being reduced to 5 per cent. I take it that the exclusion will mean that Irish cabaret shows will not benefit from the reduction. I take it that live shows, including dinner arrangements, or live shows put on by performers in lounge bars, such as Siamsa, or whatever, will not be excluded.

I would draw the particular attention of the Taoiseach to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (4) on page 11 where it is stated that certain types of performances will be excluded from this beneficial reduction. Paragraph (b) says:

performances in conjunction with which facilities are available for the consumption of food or drink during all or part of the performance by persons attending the performance;".

Is the Taoiseach aware that in most theatres operating with live performances in this city and in other towns facilities are available for lounge bar drinking at intervals during the show, and that the provisions of this section, if applied to the letter of the law, would exclude them from its benefits? I should like the Taoiseach to clarify that matter and put the thousands of people who get involved in live performances in lounge bars and other places at ease.

The Taoiseach

I will deal with all of the points at the end of the debate on the Resolution.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Taoiseach should get in before 10.25 p.m.

Mr. G. Brady

This is one area in which the Taoiseach has made a mistake and in respect of which he has an opportunity to rectify it. I will put a direct question to him now. Does he intend to have any leeway to means test the children over ten years of age, or is it to be an overall attack on large families? He knows very well that large families are directly affected by this measure. Make no mistake about it, the reason it is being introduced is that the Government realise it is a money spinner. The Taoiseach realises perhaps that a very large number of people can afford to pay increased prices and there is a total disregard for those who cannot. It is ironic that in the year of Orwell we are going to have ten year olds snooped on by Big Brother. How does the Taoiseach aim to identify children of this age? Are the Government embarking on a campaign to photograph children? It is nonsensical and unworkable. The Taoiseach would be doing the country a favour if he would give an assurance that he will rethink this matter.

Mr. Flynn

He should go to the country and let the people decide.

Mr. G. Brady

This will be a very severe imposition on families who have three, four or five children. It is not so hard on smaller families but I am thinking of the bigger families.

Mr. Wallace

The Taoiseach's replies to the Resolutions, particularly this one, have been ridiculous. The methods by which the Government intend to implement this are just not on and I would have thought the Taoiseach and the Government had learned their lesson from the time they tried to impose a tax on shoes. However, they did not learn a lesson. There is a marked absence of Members of the Labour Party tonight. Not even one of them is here for this most important debate which affects the people they claim they represent, the working class people with large families. Is there a special parliamentary meeting taking place or have they gone into hibernation? The public should know that they did not even have the courtesy to listen to the arguments here tonight and I hope the Taoiseach will take that up with his colleagues. We have been asking people to be more competitive regarding job creation and competitiveness in the workplaces in order to sell more but now the Government are imposing 8 per cent on an industry that is on its knees.

The Taoiseach mentioned what Fianna Fáil did in 1972 when they imposed 5 per cent VAT on clothing and he said we were wrong to do that. He must make up his mind. If Fianna Fáil were wrong then he cannot be right now——

The Taoiseach

That cuts both ways.

Mr. Wallace

The Taoiseach should make up his mind. If we were wrong in 1972 he is wrong now and the climate in 1972 was much better than it is now.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Like Deputy Wallace I am surprised at the absence of the Labour Party here. I am also disappointed at the absence of The Workers' Party. We are told they represent the working people even more than the Labour Party do. All women TDs have been asked to unite on various issues and I am disappointed that none of the women TDs on the Government benches is here tonight to support the women of Ireland. I was amazed to hear the Taoiseach talking about the sizing of garmets in shops and saying that because there was a size ten label on a garment it is exempt from VAT. I have two children, one of whom is nine years of age. Because of his height he takes a size 12 in trousers——

Mr. Flynn

He is a fine broth of a lad.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Do I take a birth certificate with me to the shop to prove that my child is under ten years of age or do I have to pay VAT on a garment despite the fact that he is under ten years of age? I should like to address that question not just to the Taoiseach but also to the Minister for Finance and, more importantly, to the faceless men in the Department of Finance who obviously devised the sizing system——

An Ceann Comhairle

In order to be fair, I must call on the Taoiseach now. He has only five minutes to reply.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

We heard the Minister for Health last week flying a kite in relation to family planning legislation. This is family planning by the back door on the part of the Government. Do not have any more children because you are penalised if you do.

Mrs. Lemass

If you have children, make sure they are all small.

The Taoiseach

There is astonishing ignorance on the part of the Deputies opposite. I do not know where the Deputies shop; perhaps they go to very upmarket stores. But in Dunne's Stores, as Deputy Owen pointed out, she bought clothes yesterday for a child aged 13, marked age 13, for £6.99. Sweaters are sized by age up to the equivalent of about age 12 and other clothes to different ages. Anybody who shops for children will be aware of that practice. I am not, however, relying on that other than to expose the ignorance of the Opposition Deputies and the fact that they do not shop where everybody else shops.

Mrs. O'Rourke

How dare the Taoiseach say I am ignorant? I came here as an elected Deputy and not to be called ignorant by the Taoiseach. I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

A Cheann Comhairle, I am asking you to request the Taoiseach to withdraw the term "ignorant shopper".

The Taoiseach

I said the ignorance of some of the Deputies opposite. The absence of knowledge is a quality to be found even among politicians, but most notably on the other side of the House. Another example of the extent to which Deputies opposite are remote from reality is the fact that Deputy Lemass asked was this going to add 8 per cent to the cost of bedclothes, bedlinen and so on. The answer is no because, as she would know if she shopped for them, there is a 23 per cent rate of VAT on them already. She did not know that. The less said on the far side of the House the better, as they do not seem to know anything about the matters we are discussing. On the question of exemption for children's clothes, have the Deputies opposite forgotten the amendment they put down to a certain Financial Resolution two years ago?

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

As soon as I mention two years ago the shouting starts on the far side; they do not want to hear about it. They say this cannot be done. It is done in Britain. Fianna Fáil were the first to propose it in this House, excluding children's clothes and footwear and going on to define it by the age of children. That was the Fianna Fáil amendment to a Resolution two years ago and now they say it cannot be done. Not only do they not know anything about the sizing of clothes; they have not even read the Resolution or they would know that the method adopted will be based on the sizes of the average build of children. When they talk about birth certificates they are showing their ignorance even more. Perhaps the less they say the better. They have exposed their ignorance here for the last hour and a half.

With regard to theatre performances, this is a reduction of VAT brought in as the instance of people interested in the theatre to deal with theatres, circuses and other similar entertainments. In such cases there are, of course, refreshments provided in the interval and that will not in any way interfere with the reduction in VAT. It will not apply to entertainment in public houses and so on in order to prevent abuses in accordance with Dáil budgetary practice. Some Deputies opposite will recall that there was a well established avoidance practice under a previous entertainments tax relief to have a man playing a piano in an empty cinema for up to three hours before the film commenced in order to establish that the whole show was predominantly a live performance. In making this concession with a view to helping the genuine theatre and circus, it is not intended to provide something through which a coach and horses can be driven in order to exempt from taxation entertainment in public houses and places of entertainment of that kind, desirable though many people may think that to be.

Mr. Wilson

Plays are being produced——

The Taoiseach

We are trying to get at the root of the problem which is to help the live theatre and circuses which are threatened. One thing that is not threatened is entertainment in pubs, as anybody who sees them filled every night of the week will know.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

On a point of order: as a very personal request may I ask the Taoiseach if he would leave this resolution until he and I can go shopping tomorrow for a child's jumper——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 74.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Birmingham, George Martin.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McCartin, Joe.
• McGahon, Brendan
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim
• O'Leary, Michael
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Séan.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
• Daly, Brendan.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzsimons, Jim.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and V. Brady.

Question declared carried.

Financial Resolution agreed to.