Vol. 365 No. 12
I move:
That the provisions of the Tax Acts relating to the charge to income tax in respect of a right to acquire any asset which is obtained, on or after the 6th day of April, 1986, by a director of a company or an employee by reason of his office or employment, be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to restrict, in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act, relief from income tax and corporation tax which may be granted to a person in respect of capital allowances, losses, interest or charges on income for years of assessment or accounting periods ending after the 22nd day of May, 1985, by reason of his participation in a trade in relation to which he is a limited partner.
I move:
That, for the purposes of income tax, corporation tax or capital gains tax, provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for the imposition, as respects the year of assessment 1986-87 and subsequent years of assessment and accounting periods ending on or after the 6th day of April, 1986, of a surcharge, in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act, where a person, when requested to do so by an inspector, fails to deliver a return of income on or before a date specified in relation to that return of income.
I move:
That, in relation to a case where there is an appeal against an assessment to income tax or capital gains tax for the year 1986-87 or any subsequent year of assessment, or against assessments to corporation tax for accounting periods ending on or after the 6th day of April, 1986, provision be made, in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution, for an increase (to 90 per cent. of the tax found to be chargeable on the determination of the appeal) of the amount of such tax that is required to be paid, pending the determination of the appeal, if liability for payment of interest on unpaid tax is to be avoided.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to secure, in the manner and to the extent specified in that Act, that certain capital expenditure which is met, directly or indirectly, by the State, by any board established by statute or by any public or local authority shall not qualify for capital allowances for income tax or corporation tax purposes.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to secure, in the manner and to the extent specified in that Act, amendment of the time limits for raising certain assessments, and making certain claims, under sections 25 and 26 of the Corporation Tax Act, 1976 (No. 7 of 1976).
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to secure, in the manner and to the extent specified in that Act, that the Minister for Finance may revoke a certificate entitling a company to relief or exemption from corporation tax in respect of certain trading operations within Shannon Airport on failure by the company to comply with a notice given by the Minister requiring the company to desist from certain activities.
Resolution No. 12.
Will the Minister give some explanation of some of these resolutions? The way they are being gone through at the moment is not very satisfactory.
We are now dealing with Resolution No. 12.
All of these resolutions reflect matters contained in the Bill and the substantive questions will be dealt with on the appropriate section. On that basis it has not been customary in the debate on any Finance Bill for a substantive debate to take place on the Financial Resolutions. The debate takes place on the relevant section of the Bill. However, if the Deputy having read the resolutions, as I am sure he has, has any question arising on any one of them I will be happy to provide him with any information he seeks.
If, as the Minister has said, these resolutions are concerned only with matters in the Bill that is all right. I wish to know if any of these resolutions are concerned with additional matters not in the Bill. Are they concerned with ministerial amendments?
They are all concerned with matters already in the Bill as circulated.
There are no additional matters?
Not relating to amendments.
One of the difficulties is that while in theory what the Minister has said is correct——
It is correct there may be a debate on each of these resolutions but it is not a Committee type of debate. The Minister moves a resolution and any Member who wishes to do so may speak once on each resolution.
I understand that. My point is that if these resolutions deal with matters arising from the Bill that is all right, but if there are ministerial amendments that are not in the Bill and that are dealt with in the resolutions that is something we would want to know about.
Yes. We are dealing with Resolution No. 12.
Notwithstanding that what the Minister has said is correct, that they are matters that will arise in the Bill and that can be debated there in theory, we know that in practice this is not always the case. I presume the Finance Bill this year will be debated in the same way as was done in recent years. If that is so more than half the sections in the Bill will not be debated at all. Only the earlier sections in each of the parts or chapters are likely to be debated.
The Deputy must deal with Resolution No. 12 which is before the House.
I thought we were on Resolution No. 11:
Resolution No. 11 was agreed to.
I do not think it was.
I called Resolution No. 11 and it was dealt with.
With respect, Resolution No. 10 was the last resolution I heard that was agreed to. Resolution No. 11 deals with the question of revocation of Shannon licences——
I am satisfied that I called Resolution No. 11 and that it was dealt with. Perhaps the Official Report will prove otherwise but I am satisfied that Resolution No. 11 has been dealt with.
I will not have an opportunity to talk on the matter. I rose when we were on Resolution No. 10 to make this point. Therefore, the House could not have passed Resolution No. 11 which is the resolution on which I wish to speak. In practice I will have no opportunity on the Bill to speak on that matter because the section dealing with the revocation of Shannon licences comes at the end of a chapter and it will not be reached.
If, contrary to what I think, we have not dealt with Resolution No. 11, the Deputy is entitled to speak but I believe we have dealt with it. Failing that, I understand there is a section in the Bill dealing with the matter the Deputy is talking about now.
There is, but I have explained that I will get no opportunity, nor will the House generally, to deal with that when we come to it.
The Deputy cannot assume that.
I can assume it from experience, Sir. The section concerned is at the end of a chapter.
I can confirm that Resolution No. 11 has been dealt with and I am moving on to Resolution No. 12.
The Chair, in taking this attitude, is not being very helpful and is, perhaps, only encouraging Deputies to spend longer——
I have checked with the record that Financial Resolution No. 11 was dealt with and I cannot go back to it. The Minister to move Financial Resolution No. 12.
It is not my practice to fight with the Chair but this is sharp practice about something that does not matter.
I have checked with the record and if I were to allow Deputies to go back on something which had been decided we would not finalise anything.
I spoke on Resolution No. 10 to ask whether the procedure of "no discussion" was in order.
The record proves otherwise. We are moving on to No. 12.
I regret the Chair's attitude. It does nothing to help.
The Chair has no option.
The Chair has plenty of options if he wants to behave in a normal manner.
The Chair resents the Deputy's remarks.
Good.
I call on the Minister to move No. 12.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to secure, in the manner and to the extent specified in that Act, that the expression "total income brought into charge to corporation tax" shall be defined for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for the cessation, in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act, of allowances on spirits, matches and nicotine or tobacco extract or any preparation in the manufacture of which nicotine or tobacco extract is used as an ingredient.
I move:
That—
(a) certain services received from abroad be subjected to value-added tax;
(b) refunds of value-added tax to taxable persons be deferred in certain circumstances;
(c) certain activities of dental technicians be exempted from value-added tax;
(d) food and drink liable at the zero rate of value-added tax be subjected to that tax at the rate of 10 per cent in certain circumstances;
and
(e) the adaptation of certain movable goods be charged to value-added tax at the rate of 25 per cent.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for—
(a) charging a stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, at the rates specified in that Act on statements of certain amounts required by that Act to be delivered to the Revenue Commissioners by banks, and
(b) imposing, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, a penalty in respect of non-compliance with such of those provisions as relate to the stamp duty.
Which of these stamp duties does this relate to?
The banks.
Does it cover insurance as well?
No.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for—
(a) charging a stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, at the rate specified in that Act on statements of certain amounts of income from investments required by that Act to be delivered to the Revenue Commissioners by insurers, and
(b) imposing, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, a penalty in respect of non-compliance with such of those provisions as relate to the stamp duty.
This is one of these——
For the guidance of the Deputy and in order that there may not be any further misunderstanding, the Deputy can make one contribution and the Minister can reply and then we move on to the next.
Or another Deputy.
Yes, exactly.
This is one of these remote sections towards the end of the Bill which in practice will not be debated. It is somewhere in the late eighties.
It is section 85.
I want to make some reference to it now because the probability is that it will be impossible to move an amendment or deal with it in the normal place. I raised this matter already during my speech on Second Stage. The Minister replied to the effect that various amendments would be put down by him on Committee Stage which would deal with the matter. On looking at the complete list of amendments which I received this morning, there is no amendment from the Minister to this section and one can only assume that it is being left as it is and that the very unsatisfactory situation which exists as a result of section 85 will continue.
Even on the Minister's own admission, the situation that will arise as a result of the passage of section 85 is basically untenable and needs to be changed. I do not need to remind the Minister of the widespread concern in the industry, not simply for their own welfare but for the welfare of their ordinary life assurance policyholders who will inevitably be severely penalised as a result of this section. The Minister wants to get at a different category of person, the sort of person who has been paying large single premiums for guaranteed income bonds and guaranteed growth bonds. It is a reasonable fiscal objective but the way in which it is being done is liable to cause tremendous damage to the life assurance industry and in particular to ordinary policyholders who are not involved in these guaranteed income bonds.
The same problem arose in Britain but it was solved in their 1984 Finance Act in a completely different way from the rather ham fisted approach in this Bill. In Britain the problem was overcome in consultation with the industry in a way that affected only the type of activity that it was sought to control or tax. We are entitled to ask why that is not being done here and why instead we have this very unsatisfactory approach in section 85, a promise of amendments by the Minister and now the failure to bring forward any amendments. The position seems to have worsened since I pointed out on Second Stage that there is very serious concern both here and abroad at what is happening, not at the principle of raising taxation from insurance companies but at the way it is being done. It is being raised retrospectively from funds set aside to meet legal contracts which cannot be varied. The result is that if the companies are to pay the tax, as they must, they must have recourse to people who do not have tight legal contracts, the ordinary insurer of his or her own life who is paying a premium every year or at various points throughout the year. The bonuses or additional dividends which such people might normally have every reason to expect will not be paid.
I understand one of the suggestions made by the industry was that if this once-off payment of a relatively large sum has to be made this year in order to try to help meet the Government's serious budgetary situation and the heavy deficit, the industry feel they could do that without damaging their credibility and underlying structure, provided credit was given for this once-off payment this year against the corporation tax that would be payable in subsequent years if the law were changed on the lines the Minister and his officials indicated to the industry. It is impossible to deal with the matter now because the Minister, in spite of his promise on Second Stage and at the press conference on 4 April when he circulated the Bill to the Press, has not introduced these amendments. We are left in the position of assuming that section 85 will be allowed to stand as it is and that it is not intended to have it amended by the Minister. He has already made a major change in the section compared to what was announced in the budget. The rate of stamp duty has been reduced from 15 per cent to 9 per cent as a result of the realisation in the Department of Finance that a major error had been made and that the consequences of this on the insurance industry had not been taken into account at all. It is no great secret that the Department of Industry and Commerce are extremely concerned at the present position and about the effect it is having, or will have if it is passed, on the liquidity ratio and the liquidity position of life insurance companies here, and on the ability of some of them to meet their obligations without having recourse to funds which a prudent insurance company should not have to have recourse to.
The repercussions abroad are considerable because the very credibility of this country as a location for financial services, which is surely something we should be promoting, is put in doubt by this silly provision which the Minister is apparently now declining to amend. It is unsatisfactory that this discussion is not of a Committee Stage nature so that I could ask the Minister questions and could comment on his replies. I understand I will have to confine myself to this one statement but it is a matter which needs the fullest clarification from the Minister particularly in the absence of his amendments and in the light of the deep concern felt throughout this industry and throughout the Department of Industry and Commerce about the ham-fisted activity that is going on in this section 85.
This section 85 is a proposal for one year only. That is the way it is framed. The provision for subsequent years will be dealt with by way of an amendment. That amendment will be circulated in the near future. The reason for this proposal is based on a number of factors. The first one is the one referred to by the Deputy. But there is also the more general consideration that the tax contribution in the form of corporation profits tax by life insurance companies is very small indeed and, at the same time, there is a very considerable need on the part of the Government to provide funds from this and other sources to enable some relief to be given to ordinary income tax payers, in particular, the PAYE sector.
Deputy O'Malley said that this levy to which this financial resolution refers is retrospective. That is not the case. The base for the levy is the amount of investment income which arises in the case of a life insurance company during the current year. That is one of the changes which was made from the original budget proposal, to base it on the current year rather than the previous year. Deputy O'Malley suggests that this payment should be as a credit against corporation profits tax in future years. Corporation profits tax under the present code by life assurance companies, is a minimal tax. The amount they actually pay after all the expenses they are able to claim have been allowed is minimal indeed. If Deputy O'Malley's proposals were to be adopted, all we would be doing is getting some money this year at the cost of virtually abolishing corporation profits tax.
Substantially more will be payable in future years, and the Minister knows that.
If the Deputy would allow me to say what I have to say in my own way it would conduce towards good order about which he was making comments himself earlier. The position is that, on the basis of the present code, the effect of the Deputy's proposal would be to virtually abolish corporation profits tax.
The Minister knows that is not so.
That is essentially the position as far as that is concerned. It would also create a situation in which one would simply be bringing forward revenue from a future year into this year without actually increasing the total flow of revenue at all. That is a procedure with which the Deputy will be familiar since it was adopted in regard to the introduction of VAT at point of entry. It is not a satisfactory way of doing business and it is not something that I would wish to engage in. But the effect of giving credit for this year's levy against future tax would simply be to bring forward the revenue without actually increasing the total amount of revenue being obtained, and that is not what the Government's approach in this matter is about. It is not something which, in general terms, the Deputy should favour.
When is the amendment being introduced?
Soon.
Is that today or tomorrow?
Not today.
What is the reason for not introducing it?
On a point of order, if we are going to conduct this debate on the basis of established practice, that is acceptable. But if we are not I expect the Chair——
Deputy O'Malley asked when was the amendment being introduced. He was told it would be introduced shortly and he cannot go on mounting a debate on that.
Is it tomorrow? When is it being introduced? Why does the Minister not answer?
Is Resolution No. 16 agreed?
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for—
(a) charging a stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, at the rate specified in that Act on statements of certain amounts of interest received by companies in respect of loans made, being statements required by that Act to be delivered to the Revenue Commissioners by companies, and
(b) imposing, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, a requirement for the payment of certain interest in respect of non-compliance with such of those provisions as relate to the stamp duty.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for charging to stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, at the rate applicable to the release or renunciation of marketable securities, of an instrument which releases or renounces a right to certain letters of allotment.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to secure the charge to stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, on—
(a) a conveyance or transfer on sale of property without regard being had to certain agreements, and
(b) certain deeds whereby a term of years in property is enlarged.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for charging to stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, an instrument bearing witness to or acknowledging the surrender of a leasehold interest in immovable property or the merger of such an interest in a superior interest.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution so as to secure, in the manner and to the extent specified in that Act, that——
(a) inheritance tax shall be charged annually, with effect as on and from the 5th day of April, 1986, on property which is subject to a discretionary trust on the 5th day of April in any year;
(b) the said tax shall be paid by such persons, in such circumstances and at such rate as may be specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution.
I move:
That as respects gifts and inheritances taken on or after the 6th day of April, 1986, the definition of "minor child" in section 2 of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act, 1976, means a child who has not attained the age of 18 years or who is not married before attaining that age.
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for a reduction, in the rate of interest payable on certain repayments of tax, from 1.25 per cent. to 1 per cent. for each month or part of a month commencing on or after the passing of the Act giving effect to this Resolution.
Why is it proposed in this resolution to reduce the rate of interest payable by the Revenue Commissioners on repayments of tax to a taxpayer who has overpaid his tax without reducing correspondingly the rate of interest payable by a taxpayer where he has under-paid his tax? Is it not symptomatic of the unfortunate times we live in that the rules are changed to suit the Revenue Commissioners because interest rates are dropping and they have to pay less and the law is changed to enable them to pay less, but the rules are not changed at all in favour of the taxpayer? Why do we have to live in this kind of situation where everything is done for the benefit of the Revenue Commissioners and the Exchequer and those who operate it and everything is done to make life as difficult and as unpleasant as possible for those who have to operate within this economy and who are frequently almost held up as criminals by virtue of the fact that they produce and are active and worthwhile within our economy? Resolution No. 23 encapsulates in as good a way as one could ever see that kind of official attitude of mind which is that if the Revenue have to pay interest it will be reduced but if the taxpayer has to pay it is not reduced. This is the real Department of Finance Revenue Commissioners mentality. The Minister for Finance should have enough experience and cop-on to go along with such a provision.
This resolution should not be passed unless a corresponding resolution is passed reducing the rate of interest payable by a taxpayer. When these interest payments were introduced at the present high levels some time ago they were equal on both sides. Revenue had to pay the same rate as the taxpayer. Why change the rules in favour of Revenue only? Why not retain the same rate of interest for both sides?
I had prepared an amendment on this point but it appears that we may address ourselvs to it now. I hold the same opinions as those expressed by Deputy O'Malley. It is contrary to the principles of equity that the Revenue Commissioners should be given the privilege of a rate of interest on demand from the taxpayer when the taxpayer is not entitled to the same rate of interest from them. If there are over-payments due from the State to the citizen, the citizen is entitled to only 1 per cent interest for each month, but if there is money due by the citizen to the State the Revenue Commissioners are entitled to 1¼ per cent interest per month. This is an outrageous proposal. I will address this point in greater detail when we are discussing the section. On Committee Stage we will have an opportunity to tease out these points with the Minister. At present we are only allowed to make one contribution and the Minister can reply in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory manner and we have to accept it.
Not only does this proposal infringe the principles of equity and justice, but it acts as a disincentive to investment in business. If people who engage in discussions with the Revenue Commissioners are subsequently held to be in default or delay, this 1¼ per cent interest rate per month will be imposed on them, but the Minister for Finance is exempting himself and the Revenue Commissioners from the same sanction.
We all know that our taxation system is creaking under the weight of the structures this Government in particular have imposed. We all know it is not working efficiently. Every citizen — particularly business people — who has been dealing with the Revenue Commissioner knows that when repayments are due to him he gets no satisfaction. On many occasions I have been in contact with the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of business people seeking repayment of VAT over-payments, but I found it impossible even to make contact with the people concerned. The level of telephone inquiries from the business community to the VAT section of the Collector General's Office is so heavy that one cannot get through to the officers concerned. By the time the overburdened officials operating the switchboard can cope and transfer the caller to the second line, the businessman meets the second line of defence. I am not saying this as a criticism of the personnel involved but the office is inadequately staffed and the officers concerned cannot cope with inquiries, much less repayments.
The Deputy should relate this.
I will relate it. The much needed capital, on which the business people are paying heavy interest rates to the banks and financial institutions, is being withheld from them by the Revenue Commissioners and they are not getting adequate compensation by way of interest from Revenue. They are losing both ways. They have to pay much more to the banks and the financial institutions from whom they borrowed than they are being allowed — if that is the word — by the State. That is inequitable, and I would go so far as to suggest it is probably unconstitutional. If a provision allows the State to charge a higher rate of interest on money due than it is prepared to pay on money it owes to citizens, there is at least a statable case for suggesting that that does not maintain the essential equality between the citizen and the State which is a fundamental feature and obligation of our Constitution.
As I said, we may get an opportunity to return to this when we are discussing the section on Committee Stage and we will tease it out. For the moment I strongly oppose this resolution and agree with what Deputy O'Malley said.
The cash flow difficulties being experienced by firms at present is very acute and this resolution may add to them. What is the potential benefit to the Exchequer of this change? Approximately what will it cost the business community? There is no mention of value-added tax in section 105. This resolution relates to income tax, corporation profits tax, capital gains tax and residential property tax, but value-added tax is not mentioned. The biggest problem with refunds arises in the area of VAT where there are often delays. If someone applies for a VAT refund an inspector is sent out immediately — a person only sees an inspector when he applies for a refund — and delays often arise. Is there interest accruing for rebates on VAT or is that covered under this resolution?
If, later in the year, interest rates are reduced to 10 per cent, would it not be better to have some provision, other than by legislative change, whereby these rates can be adjusted? In other words, they could be related to a particular lending rate which is applicable to the day. If these rates cannot be reviewed until the Finance Bill, 1987, there could be a substantial difference between current lending rates and the rates applicable here.
How will the amnesty provisions relate to this Bill? As the Minister said earlier, no reference was made to interest rates under the amnesty provisions and they would be the most attractive aspect of any potential amnesty.
Deputies O'Kennedy and O'Malley are making a very good case but it is based on a false premise. I think they do not understand — they may not have been advised — what is going on and what motivated this section. Because of the relatively high rate of interest that has obtained — 1.25 per cent per month which is a very good rate of interest, better than is obtained from money on deposit in a bank — companies who have cash to spare, so to speak, and have available to them expert tax planning advice have been paying substantial amounts of tax that they do not owe at all in order that they can put the money in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners——
Did you hear, a Cheann Comhairle?
——which the Revenue Commissioners are obliged then to repay to them——
This is the comedy of the year.
——at a rate of interest which is well in excess of the rate they could get if the same money was lodged somewhere else or, indeed, anywhere else. Because this is happening and the Revenue Commissioners have evidence that it is happening, that amendment was recommended to me by the Revenue Commissioners.
Does the Minister believe them?
The divergence between market rates of interest for money on deposit and the rate available on tax being lodged and then repaid has opened up a relatively large gap quite recently, so clearly it is not happening on an ongoing basis all the time but it has been happening in the recent past in the light of the fact that a much better rate of interest was available on refunds of non-liable tax than on other forms of use of the money. Deputy O'Malley and others seem to think this quite incredible and that it could not happen at all. The Revenue Commissioners have substantial evidence to indicate that it is so. To my mind——
Did the Minister think of blaming the people who are paying too much?
——so long as people know——
There was a black list last week. Will the Minister publish the white list this week?
——that they are liable and certain to have the money refunded to them and if they can obtain an interest payment on that money — and they do not need it for other purposes — which is substantially in excess of the amount they would get if they put the money somewhere else, they would be quite foolish not to avail of the best rate of interest they can obtain. Deputy O'Malley's comments reveal a lack of understanding of the sophistication which some tax planners can apply to using the tax code to their own advantage. All I can say is that his innocence does him credit.
The Minister's does him credit. This is the best we have ever heard, the Revenue Commissioners suggesting that people pay too much tax.
Deputy O'Malley should cease interrupting the Minister.
I will not bother to comment on that because I have explained the situation very carefully and I do not propose to go into it any further. No interest is payable on refunds of value-added tax, so that is why the taxes named are the only ones to which this applies.
They should be. That is worse. That is outrageous.
It may be outrageous but is has been the case for a considerable time including, I am sure, when Deputy O'Kennedy held the office that I now have the honour to hold. Deputy Yates made an interesting suggestion that in view of the variability of interest rates one should look at a more flexible mechanism for adjusting rates of tax both on late payments and on refunds more closely in relation to market rates. I will have a look at that. Deputy Yates' suggestion seems to be sensible but I cannot say whether it will prove possible. Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy O'Malley raised their concern about the fact that the rate on refunds was going to be different from the rate of tax applied in the other direction on late payments. My advice is that interest is not charged by the Revenue Commissioners on late payments where the late payment arises from queries by the Revenue Commissioners or by failure to settle matters which are outside the control of the taxpayer. However, I will have this matter examined further to ensure that the rate of interest, which is quite high, is levied only in cases where there is a degree of culpability on the part of the taxpayer and I will be able to deal in greater detail with that matter when we reach the section.
Votáil.
Will those who are demanding a division please rise?
Deputies O'Malley, Harney and Wyse rose.
In accordance with Standing Orders the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
On a point of procedure, I wish to indicate that we have put down an amendment to the section and when it is reached we will be pushing the amendment which will have the same effect.
I am surprised that Deputy O'Kennedy did not vote against the resolution in view of his statement that he was implacably opposed to its contents.
I merely made the point that we have put down an amendment to the section and that is the normal way of dealing with the matter. It requires the Minister to justify on Committee Stage what he is not obliged to do on the procedure which Deputy O'Malley has chosen to follow——
It may never be reached.
If Deputy O'Malley wants to press it he might have all his Members in the House to do so.
Deputy O'Kennedy is correct, this matter can be discussed more satisfactorily on the section.
