Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 1989

Vol. 386 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Implications of High Court Case.

20.

asked the Minister for Finance the steps the Government propose to take arising out of the decision of the High Court in a case (details supplied) and if he will make a statement on the implications of this case.

I have nothing to add to the statement on this matter made by the Taoiseach in responding to the Deputy during the debate following the budget on 25 January on financial resolutions under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927. Further legal advice is awaited by the Government on the implications of the High Court decision concerning the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957, and the steps, if any, to be taken will be decided in the light of this.

Apart from the 1927 Act completely and just dealing with the 1957 Act for the moment would the Minister agree that many of the difficulties which the judgment creates for the Government could be obviated if the actual rate of individual duties could be varied by statutory instrument? Would the Minister agree that legislation would be required if that is to be done and that the debate on the Finance Bill which is coming up is the time to do it rather than postpone the issue for another year and prevent the Minister from introducing mini-budgets when necessary?

With regard to the question of mini-budgets and making it easy for the Minister for Finance of the day to make regulations to vary duties in advance of the budget or throughout the year, I would not be prepared, until we get legal advice, to go on the record as saying what will be done. If I have clear legal grounds for doing so I will certainly consider moving in relation to the Finance Bill, 1989.

Top
Share