As it was not possible to put this question at 4.45 p.m. today, I am now putting it at the earliest possible opportunity. The question is as follows——
Finance Bill, 1987: Committee Stage.
On a point of order, is it proper that for the first time in the history of the State five sections of the Finance Bill and 13 amendments by all parties, including an amendment by the Minister which cannot now be put, should be passed without debate. Is that in order?
It is what the House decided.
I seriously put it to you that it is quite——
Deputy Mac Giolla has a point of order.
I did not finish making my point of order. It is impossible to have a Finance Bill enacted in this manner. I ask you to rule in particular in relation to the amendment tabled by the Minister for Finance which apparently even he cannot move. I ask you, or the Taoiseach, if there is any prospect of giving some time, even an hour, to debate the first five sections of the Finance Bill which deal with farm tax, retention tax, the basic rate of taxation. All are scrubbed in the most appalling manner——
The Deputy has made his point of order.
Is it in order for us to move the appropriate amendments before we take a vote? The amendments are to the sections dealing with PAYE and are of great relevance to the majority of people. It would be most unfortunate if the amendments were not at least moved before the motion is put regarding these sections. The PAYE sector will feel they are being treated like dirt if the amendments are not at least——
I am putting the question in this manner.
(Limerick East): I wish to give notice that on Report Stage I will be putting down amendments along the lines of amendments Nos. 6 and 13.
I want your advice in relation to Standing Order 97 (2) which states:
When the amendments (if any) offered to a section have been disposed of, the question shall be put, "That such section (or such section as amended) stand part of the Bill".
I query if we can move through sections 1 to 5 without having moved the 13 amendments.
The Chair is conforming to today's Order. I am now putting the question: "That the amendment set down by the Minister for Finance to section 5 is hereby made to the Bill, and in respect of each of sections 1 to 5, inclusive, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agree to." Is it agreed?
On a point of order——
I think the motion is carried.
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
Is the question carried?
I wish to make a point of order.
Have we any rights in this House?
I did not hear anybody call "Vótáil".
On a point of order——
A Deputy
Vótáil.
Question put: "That the section set down by the Minister for Finance to section 5 is hereby made to the Bill and in respect of each section 1 to 5, inclusive, that the section, or as appropriate the section as amended, is hereby agreed to."
The Committee divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Cullen, Martin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies Taylor and De Rossa.
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
We come now to deal with section 6 and in accordance with the Order of Business of today sections 6 to 11, inclusive, are to be completed at 7 p.m. There are amendments in the names of Deputies J. Bruton and M. Noonan——
On a point of order, I should like to ask a question. We are now——
Amendment No. 14 is first, Sir.
Deputy Higgins, on a point of order.
We now appear to be in the position where the remaining discussion of the Finance Bill will allow for the taking of amendments, the discussion of amendments and the possible making of amendments, whereas all the initial sections of the Finance Bill which affect many of the major taxpayers have not been either discussed, amended or decided.
We have been through all that, Deputy.
I am leaving the House.
(Limerick East): On a point of order, so that we might proceed in an orderly fashion, a Cheann Comhairle, would you advise the House whether we can discuss sections 6 to 11, inclusive, or do we have to take amendments in sections seriatim?
I would certainly accept the amendments seriatim.
(Limerick East): To put it in the particular rather than in the general, when Deputy O'Malley, as is his right, moves the first amendment, is it in order for myself or somebody else to discuss all sections from 6 to 11?
Hardly on that basis.
(Limerick East): Are we discussing them inclusively, or just voting on them inclusively?
One by one.
We are taking amendment No. 14, in the names of Deputies O'Malley and McDowell, to section 6 at the moment.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
6. —Section 7 of, and the Second Schedule to, the Finance Act, 1979, shall have effect, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of income on which a person is to be charged to income tax for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, as if—
(a) in subsection (1) of that section—
(i) `the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90' were substituted for `the year 1979-80', and
(ii) `£900' were substituted for `£450', and the following proviso were added to the said subsection:
`Provided also that in a case where a claimant is a husband who is assessed to tax in accordance with the provisions of section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, this subsection shall have effect as if "£1,800" were substituted for "£900" ';
and
(b) in paragraph 1 of that Schedule—
(i) `the period commencing on the 6th day of April, 1987, and ending on the 5th day of April, 1990' were substituted for `the period commencing on the 6th day of April, 1979, and ending on the 5th day of April, 1980' in the definition of `qualifying period', and
(ii) `the 5th day of June, 1987' were substituted for `the 5th day of April, 1979' in the definition of `residential premises';
and
(c) in paragraph 4 (1) of that Schedule, `the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90' were substituted for `the year 1979-80'.".
It is an unaccustomed pleasure to be allowed to speak on the matter.
I take Deputy Noonan's point. He also has amendments down to section 6. I assume he will be called to move them before we conclude discussion on this.
Yes. Certainly, I will call every Member who has an amendment down if time permits, but I want Members to bear in mind that the question shall be put not later than 7 p.m. in respect of all matters appertaining to sections 6 to 11, inclusive.
As I say, Sir, it is an unusual privilege in this House to be allowed to move an amendment, or to speak on it. This amendment, comes long after many of the major provisions in the Bill which have been just walked past because of the guillotine system which has been put into operation here today by the Government, with the full agreement and, indeed, encouragement of the Fine Gael Party. This has prevented these important matters being discussed at all. This amendment in my name and that of Deputy McDowell is for the purpose of re-activating section 7 of the Finance Act of 1979 which was allowed to lapse some years ago.
The object of section 7 of that Finance Act was to allow a taxpayer, against his tax, a certain amount on the labour content of work which he did on his own residence. The purpose of that was to encourage building activities without any cost to the State because grants were specifically excluded and could not be taken into account in evaluating the work which was done. When this was introduced in 1979 the amount allowed was an amount not exceeding £450 in excess of the first £50 which was disallowed. I propose in this amendment to reactivate the section to increase the figure of £450 in 1979 to £900 which eight years later in real terms is roughly about the same.
There is only one other difference from the 1979 section, that is, that it is necessary now to include a provision for a married couple. The 1979 section was enacted before the decision in the Murphy case and it would not be allowed to stand as it is. A double amount has to be given to a married couple. While the basic figure of £900 corresponds in real terms to the figure of £450 in the 1979 section the amount which should be allowed for a married couple is £1,800. This is in accordance with the normal way in which tax provisions for married people are drawn at present so as not to differentiate against them or give them any advantage vis-a-vis single people.
It is thought necessary by the Government in 1979 to introduce this provision in order to encourage the building industry at no cost to the State. If that was thought necessary in 1979, how much more necessary is it now? The building industry is in an appalling state and reeling under the effects of the budget of 31 March last. This provision will not do a great deal for the building industry. If it generates perhaps £10 million to £20 million worth of work in a year that would not otherwise have been available that will be the outside of it. Therefore, I do not claim that it will work wonders. However, taken in conjunction with another amendment to reactivate section 23 in so far as designated inner city areas are concerned, it would be a help to an industry that is not just in trouble but is literally devastated. Many long established building companies have closed down and the chance of getting any worth-while work is negligible at the moment because of the lack of activity.
There is no question of any State money being put up by definition. This is confined to the expenditure of private money. Whatever benefit in terms of his personal income tax a taxpayer who is prepared to undertake this work on his house may get so far as the State is concerned it is more than off-set by gains in revenue from additional legitimate employment, increases in PAYE and PRSI contributions, increased VAT revenue and corporation tax revenue on the profits of the companies who are involved in the work. Therefore, the State is a net winner by a significant amount. It does not cost the State anything in terms of having to put up any money to prime this activity because, by definition, it is all private money.
This section is confined to contractors who are tax registered. Under the 1979 section you do not get the benefit of this unless you can show that you have expended the money with a contractor who is registered for tax purposes with the Revenue Commissioners and, therefore, accountable for and paying his tax. If he were not, the Revenue Commissioners would withdraw his certificate. It will help to some extent to keep down some of the black economy firms which are proliferating at the moment, particularly as a result of the decisions of 31 March last and the manner in which they were taken. It will help to keep some legitimate businesses in operation. Many companies have gone out of business over the past few years and, in particular, over the past few months.
There is nothing new or revolutionary about this amendment. It is simply a proposal to reactivate something that was there and that worked very well. It was thought feasible to allow this provision to drop in the early eighties when much higher grants for building were brought in. It was not thought necessary to have this section in order to encourage work on private houses. Now that almost all grants have been removed, with one relatively minor exception, and since there is no incentive from the State to do work on one's house since the home improvement grants are gone in their entirety, it is essential to bring back something like this.
This accords with the philosophy of this party which is to encourage people to help themselves rather than going to the State for hand-outs. This encourages people to work in partnership with the State and to carry out work they are prepared to undertake themselves is an excellent example of it. The needs of the industry and the need for people to repair their houses is much greater now than it was in 1979 since no grant of any description is available to them. The beauty of this is that it can be done without any public money having to be put up. It is a simple reactivation of a section which is no longer in force.
It is proposed, under this section as redrafted, to have it for three years; this year, next year and the year after. It could be looked at again at the end of the three year period. It does not in real terms increase the amount of the allowance that was available in 1979 because in real terms it is roughly the same. It gives a higher allowance to married couples. I am not saying that the 1979 Act was wrong in this respect but, because of the Murphy judgment, it is necessary to make distinctions of that kind in tax legislation. Nobody in the House could reasonably object to this amendment and I look to the House to enact it speedily.
(Limerick East): I would like to speak to amendment No. 14 and with your permission to move amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
We must first dispose of the section. I thought you were going to speak on the amendment.
(Limerick East): I intend to speak on amendment No. 14 and I accept your ruling.
Amendment No. 14 is going back to something which was the practice in 1979 when Deputy O'Malley, the late Deputy Colley and former Deputy O'Donoghue were the main economic Ministers. I would be disposed to support this amendment if it confined itself to extensions to houses in respect of persons who did not have home improvement grants. The amendment, as drafted, will give three distinct benefits to the same people. Since it is confined to extensions to one's primary residence people will be able to avail of mortgage interest relief. I will say something further about mortgage interest relief very shortly.
Secondly, it would have the benefit of the home improvement grant. While it is true that the home improvement grant scheme has been abolished, it is not true to suggest that nobody will get home improvement grants because thousands of people have had grants sanctioned for extensions such as would be covered by this amendment. Then there would be the effect of this for a married couple where the maximum of £1,800 as a labour content of work on an extension could be claimed for income tax purposes. On the one hand, one would have mortgage interest relief at 58 per cent, then one would have a further £1,800 as labour content at 58 per cent and on top of that several thousand pounds of a grant. That is overdoing it a bit. Those people do not need three benefits and I doubt if it would do a lot for the building industry which is already devastated and which has lost confidence.
Because of certain things that were said by Fianna Fáil such as that they would pump in £200 million, the building industry had confidence. In the event, the capital budget was cut by about £80 million. Because of things that were said before the election, the building industry thought Fianna Fáil would reduce the VAT rate to 5 per cent from 10 per cent and that the whole plethora of home improvement grants which we brought in would be maintained. The building industry is now devastated economically and in terms of confidence. The professionals involved in that industry are deeply depressed by the implications of the withholding tax for the industry.
There is no doubt that in putting down this amendment the Progressive Democrats Party have pinpointed an area which needs some kind of boost. However, this is the wrong boost because it applies a triple benefit to the extent that people would actually gain money out of building an extension, and rather than a pumppriming exercise, which would encourage people to invest some of their own money, the net effect would be that not alone would it be State money only but there would be money left over on account of the triple benefit. Secondly, it is iniquitous for taxpayers because somebody on high marginal rates would get the benefit at 58 per cent, somebody on the standard rate would get the benefit at 35 per cent and somebody with a large family who is below the tax margins would get nothing at all.
On the point of the registered builder, the provision in this case was welcomed when it was introduced initially because it was the first attempt to bring the black economy into the white economy. It was the first tentative step but it did not work very well. It did not generate much activity. When the scheme was abolished it was at a cost of something like £12 million. Many steps have been taken subsequently. In the home improvement grant system certification applied only to registered builders. There is a system of certification operating now for anybody who has a public sector contract of any sort or for anybody involved in an area of the building industry to which State benefit accrues. At least theoretically they are certified as being in the white economy and are, consequently, taxpayers.
The case has not been made for this amendment. With the disorganised way in which the debate has proceeded, I presume we will not get the opportunity to vote on this amendment on its own, and when we take the inclusive vote on sections 6 to 11——
The Chair's intention is that when discussion on this amendment is terminated the question will be put whether or not there is a vote on it.
(Limerick East): I understand the intention of the Chair.
The Deputy intends to speak until 7 o'clock.
(Limerick East): Since the debate continues until 7 o'clock and a vote takes about 15 or 20 minutes, I would like if we voted now on it. I will sit down if the Chair calls the vote now.
The Minister may accept it. It may not be necessary to vote.
(Limerick East): I want to give notice to the House that if I cannot move amendments Nos. 15 and 16 I will be asking my party to vote against the whole block. I hope nobody is under any misunderstanding about what is going to happen at 7 o'clock because I want to vote and if I cannot get it on the isolated issue of mortgage interest relief——
The Deputy will appreciate that in respect of this matter guidance was taken. While ordinarily with the agreement of the House amendments can be taken together, in respect of this, the insertion of this new section, that arrangement has not been made and amendment No. 14 is being taken separately.
(Limerick East): I am not challenging that or quibbling with that. In case there is any misunderstanding here, my preferred position and that of my party would be that we move amendments Nos. 15 and 16, that we vote on them and that we vote on section 6. It is unlikely now that we will get the opportunity to do that. That means that we will be voting against the whole lot at 7 o'clock.
That eventually might arise depending on——
On a point of order, is it not usually the case where there is more than one amendment on a section that the debate is allowed to widen and the question put is that the section stand part of the Bill? Given that this is the only section we will discuss fully, surely the procedure would be that the Chair would allow a debate on section 6.
It is not often that the Chair has an answer even before the question is put. As I indicated, that happens occasionally, but this amendment refers to the insertion of a new section so it did not allow for the situation that obtained in certain circumstances where one only moves one amendment but takes four amendments for debate. The situation here is that amendment No. 14 will be taken separately and the question put after the discussion.
I will not delay the House. I will be brief in view of the delays that have already taken place. I do not accept what either Deputy O'Malley or Deputy Noonan have said in relation to the devastation of the construction industry. The construction industry has been going downhill for a few years. That relates to demand for houses, office blocks or whatever. Deputy O'Malley referred to the Murphy case. When the scheme was being extended in 1980 the aspect of the married couples' question the Deputy raised was catered for under the old regime before it was abolished in 1983. Turning to Deputy Noonan's question, it would have cost about £5 million when it was discontinued in 1982-1983.
(Limerick East): What is the projected cost now?
The cost of the proposed relief would depend on the extent to which taxpaying householders availed of the relief but it could reasonably be expected that it would cost at least £10 million. It is wrong for Deputy O'Malley to say that it would not cost anything. This measure cannot be viewed in isolation from the house grants scheme in respect of which there is a very substantial accumulation of claims waiting presentation and settlement. Very many of such claims would also qualify for relief under this measure. I agree with what Deputy Noonan has said in that regard. In view of the current budgetary situation where tax relief in one area can only be granted at the expense of another, the amendment cannot be accepted primarily on the grounds of cost. For the information of Deputies and the House, last year, taking the house improvement grant area, £34 million was spent. This year the allocation is £100 million and next year it will be a further £100 million. That is because of the number of schemes already in the pipeline without this incentive. These schemes will cost the taxpayer generally and the Exchequer £100 million this year and £100 million next year as well.
Deputy O'Malley.
(Limerick East): I move that the question be put.
A new democracy is upon us.
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
You called me to speak.
We will reach 7 o'clock and we will not have discussed anything other than this amendment.
You wanted all of this.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy Noonan and the Fine Gael Party are feeling sorry for themselves now, they have only themselves to blame. Today, they joined in a most despicable piece of conduct——
(Limerick East): On a point of order——
——with the Government and they are now paying the price for it. They have only themselves to blame.
Deputy Noonan, on a point of order.
(Limerick East): I have tried to be orderly in what I have had to say in this debate. I sat down, with certain encouragement from Deputy O'Malley and his colleagues on the understanding that the question would be put if I sat down. You are untrustworthy, Deputy O'Malley.
It will be put in two minutes when I have two minutes to reply.
(Limerick East): Deputy O'Malley is untrustworthy.
If that remark came from somebody of more significance I might resent it.
(Limerick East): He is still untrustworthy.
We will let the people of Limerick East explore that.
(Interruptions.)
Let me explain to the Deputies. I remind the House that if, as requested by Deputy Noonan, the question be put, it would incur further delay because it would be obligatory on me to send for the Ceann Comhairle. Deputy O'Malley to proceed, without interruption.
I hope so, Sir. Deputy Noonan is waspish at the best of times but perhaps he is excelling himself today because his conduct and the conduct of his party earlier today has now rebounded on them.
The Deputy will appreciate that comments like that will not help to change his ways if they be so. Now let us proceed.
They fall very short of the sort of personal comments he made earlier.
(Limerick East): I repeat that he is untrustworthy. People on the other side know that as well.
Deputy Noonan objected to this amendment and the reactivation of what was there in 1979 because it would enable people to build extensions to their houses. The implication of what he said was that it would enable nothing else to be done.
The Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1979 which defines the various terms for the purposes of this legislation defines "qualifying work" as meaning "any work of maintenance, repair, improvement, or insulation of residential premises". I see no word of extension there. What it covers are the very things that are needed. The Minister made the point that there is a tremendous amount, hundreds of millions of £s, awaiting payment in house improvement grants and other grants. Undoubtedly that is the case. The last Government built these up and the present Government are trying to pay them off, and I sympathise——
For work that is not done, that is in the pipeline.
The Minister misunderstands the position as it is under this amendment. None of those cases, the many thousands awaiting grants, would be affected by this or would get any benefit from this because if you get a grant under section 7 of the 1979 Act you do not get the benefit of this relief.
That is a tax allowance. The Deputy is confusing the two things.
I am not. Section 7 of the 1979 Act provides that if you get a grant this relief is not available to you. I advise the Minister to read that at page 201 of the 1979 Act.
It is a saving.
Therefore, the Minister's point is quite invalid in that respect. The other point he makes is that the cost to the Exchequer of this provision when it was in operation previously was £5 million and, depending on the number of people who might avail of it now, it could be £10 million this time, he thought, but he did not really know. The point I made at the outset is that he misunderstands this. That is the cost in the smaller amount of income tax collected but it is, as I said at the outset, more than offset by the higher amount of employment that is given, the higher amount of VAT collected, the higher amount of PAYE paid, the higher amount of PRSI paid and the higher amount of corporation tax paid, and it costs the State nothing. It has to put no money up front. It seems that in the extraordinarily depressed condition we are in at the moment this is an ideal way of trying to generate some activity particularly among smaller firms who are going out of business by the new time now. One of the main purposes of introducing this relief in 1979 was to prevent too much of this kind of work going to those who were in the black economy. If that was thought necessary in 1979 it is umpteen times more necessary and appropriate now because the black economy today is many times greater than in 1979. Therefore, the validity of this section and its legitimacy in this context is evident and should be accepted. If the Minister is going to reject it he should reject it for the correct reasons rather than for the incorrect one he gave. The same points could have been made in 1979. Clearly they were not, perhaps because there were people with more vision around at that time and the need for this section was much less than it is today.
There is an amendment to section 11 in my name. Is it in order for me to speak on that amendment at this stage?
Deputy, we are trying to economise on time.
I thought I saw on the monitor that sections 6 to 11 are being dealt with. Am I in order to come in on section 11 at this stage?
No. The Minister to reply.
Section 7 of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1979 provided tax relief——
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): There is no amendment of sections 1 to 5 and there is no amendment of mortgage interest.
Let us have order while the Minister replies to the question.
It is a deliberate attempt by the parties to stop any discussion on tax relief.
Could we have the Minister without interruption?
This is a two and a half hour debate. The reason Deputy O'Malley raised the whole issue on the Order of Business was, he said, that he had not got the Order of Business in time. The Order of Business was given to his Chief Whip and signed for at 12.05 p.m. today. That cannot be denied, so it is the PDs who have delayed the discussion that we, particularly myself, would all like to have on all of these sections.
In relation to the point Deputy O'Malley made about section 7 and the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1979, these provided tax relief within certain limits for the labour cost element in expenditure in 1979-80 by householders on the improvement and maintenance of their residence including gardens. The relief was given by way of a deduction in the calculations of an individual's total income for tax purposes. Only the net labour cost expenditure after deduction of any grant apportionable to such cost qualified for the relief which would apply to the excess of the net cost over £50 and subject to a maximum allowance of £450. Therefore, people who did not get grants get this tax allowance.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 74.
Tá
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Gibbons, Martin Partick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Firzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Harney and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Amendment declared lost.
I am now required to put the following Question in accordance with the resolution of the House of this day: "That amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 21 in the name of the Minister for Finance are hereby made to the Bill and, in respect of sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to."
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles, J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies O'Brien and Harney.
Question declared carried.