Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 May 1990

Vol. 398 No. 9

Finance Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed):

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In page 62, before section 59, but in Chapter VIII, to insert the following new section:

"59.—The provisions of sections 59 to section 68 inclusive shall not apply to persons whose tax liability arises under case I or case II of Schedule D.".

—Deputy Noonan(Limerick East).

Mr. Rabbitte

Before we adjourned the debate I was dealing with pollution and the professionals, not necessarily in the same vein. I was referring to the diagnosis of mental infirmity that would attach to any lay person who dared to have the naivete to suggest to the professionals Deputy Noonan spoke about that they should pay their fair share of tax. I should like to repeat the point that people like doctors, barristers, solicitors, accountants and dentists do not pay their fair share of tax. One could say, as a minimum, that they avail of every legal method of tax avoidance to minimise their tax liability.

I find it difficult, against the background of the debate we have had about the necessity to introduce greater tax equity, to go along with the amendment that seeks to have applied to those professionals exemption from the restrictions that the Minister is introducing in respect of accelerated capital allowances. What is being sought is that these people should continue to have in their capacity as company directors, or whatever, the benefit of capital allowances. The only restriction being suggested is that they should not have the benefit of the earlier write-off that was allowed under the accelerated capital allowances system.

I suggest that those who in their corporate capacity are benefiting from the accelerated capital allowances system should not benefit in their Schedule D capacity from the elimination of this provision. It is contrary to any principle of equity that they should benefit in that way. To suggest, for example, that lawyers ought to benefit because they decide to install a particular labour-saving device to more accurately compute their legal fees seems to me extraordinary. Is it suggested that the PAYE worker who may consider that a personal computer would greatly assist him or her in the conduct of his or her business should get accelerated capital allowances? A PAYE worker who invests in a personal computer does not receive a capital allowance. If one invests in a video to keep one up to date with what is happening in the world is it suggested that that purchase should be eligible for accelerated capital allowances? I cannot take this argument seriously. I have every confidence in the creative accounting ability of the people to whom I refer to ensure that they will not be over-burdened by taxation. Therefore, I do not think the amendment is necessary.

Amendment No. 93 deals with pollution. Anything that assists in the elimination of the scandal we witnessed last summer when our rivers and lakes were polluted ought to be encouraged. However, if I understand this correctly, the plant that must be invested in by farmers to deal with pollution qualifies for capital allowances in the ordinary way. If there is one thing that is permanent here, and that is here for the long haul, it is the farmers. They can wait for the five or seven years to benefit fully from the allowances that exist rather than getting the write-off in the first or second year. If one looks at the other side of the balance sheet one will see that substantial grants are available from the Department of Agriculture and Food to assist in the installation of pollution control methods. The taxpayer is making a fair contribution towards assisting the farming community and encouraging their sense of social responsibility to the rest of us. Deputy Connaughton admitted that the grants package was a generous one and he welcomed it. If it meets the rigid criteria that Deputy Connaughton would apply others should accept it as adequate. Amendment No. 93 should not be encouraged.

Minister for Finance (Mr. A. Reynolds)

With regard to amendment No. 91 it is presumed that the Deputy's reference to a person is intended to refer to an individual and that the intention is that the section should now apply to individuals charged under Case I or Case II of Schedule D. Accelerated allowances are restricted for all taxpayers to 25 per cent on 1 April 1991 and to nil on 1 April 1992. The corporation tax rate is being reduced to 40 per cent from 1 April 1991. However, the Deputy should not forget that significant reductions are also being made in income tax rates and both the top and standard rates of income tax have been reduced by 5 per cent in the last two years. In those circumstances there is no reason not to apply the restrictions on accelerated capital allowances to individuals chargeable under Case I or Case II of Schedule D. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 93, I should like to point out that the tax system gives favourable treatment in the area of pollution control. Tax relief is available by way of capital allowance for expenditure incurred on pollution and effluent control equipment and related buildings. The relevant plant and machinery accelerated capital allowances at the normal maximum rate of up to 50 per cent can be availed of up to 1 April 1991 with the balance claimed by way of annual allowance or rates varying from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, depending on the type of plant and machinery involved.

Expenditure on industrial buildings or structures and accelerated capital allowances of up to 50 per cent are similarly available with an annual allowance of 4 per cent. Under section 26 of the Finance Act, 1978, contributions to a local authority towards the capital cost of plant or a building for the treatment of trade effluent qualify for the same capital allowances as expenditure on a company's own plant or industrial buildings; 50 per cent level of accelerated capital allowances will remain in place until 1 April 1991 and they will be at a level of 25 per cent for a full year thereafter.

The normal wear and tear allowances are unaffected by the changes in this year's Bill. This treatment is already sufficiently supportive of expenditure incurred in investment in pollution control and waste treatment. I do not see the necessity for a long transition period in relation to accelerated capital allowances in this regard because 50 per cent is available until 1 April next year and 25 per cent after that. The type of work to which Deputy Noonan referred to be carried out by farmers would not have a long transition time and, consequently, they can avail of the 50 per cent between now and 1 April next year.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Does the Minister have a figure for the tax foregone in both amendments?

Mr. A. Reynolds

No, but I will get the information for the Deputy.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I appreciate the Minister's arguments in relation to 1991 that there is still scope in the sections. With regard to the amendment on pollution, I am not interested in getting extra allowances for people who carry out pollution control work as they will get a grant and will still have their capital allowances. If they carry out the work before 31 March next year they will have the grant of 50 per cent and, for another 12 months, the grant will be 25 per cent. The people about whom I am concerned are those who will not do the work because they will not have the cash. If they were in a position to get the full write-off — or even half it — extra work would be done. I am trying to encourage more people to clean up their act in the farmyards. People would like to invest in plant, machinery and scrapers but they cannot afford it.

Between now and Report Stage will the Minister consider allowing the 50 per cent to remain in force until 31 March 1992 for pollution related work on farmyards for those who qualify for the grants from the Department of Agriculture and Food as it would involve only a minor cost? This would not be an ongoing commitment; the whole emphasis of the policy from the Department of Agriculture is to get it done this year and next. It is a once-off investment and there is a very strong case to be made, especially in the very limited way I suggest, for the Minister to introduce an amendment stating that for the purposes of investment and pollution control for farmers, the 50 per cent would apply to 31 March 1992 and that after that capital allowances would be claimed in the normal way but that there would be no acceleration or depreciation. I would appreciate if the Minister would examine this.

Mr. A. Reynolds

I do not have any information available to know what is involved. I do not even know if it is possible to do as the Deputy suggested, but I will look at this matter between now and Report Stage without commitment. It is desirable to tackle pollution but I cannot figure out why this work would not be done. I would have thought, since 50 per cent of the cost is available, that anybody who intended to do this work would start it soon rather than putting it off to a time when the grant would be smaller. Surely that is an incentive?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): We are talking about people who have the intention to put in pollution control plant——

Mr. Rabbitte

They have a firm purpose of amendment.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): They first apply to the local farm advisory office and there will be an inspection to see whether they qualify for the grant. By the time they go through all that procedure the winter will have set in and many of them will miss the deadline. The period is very short in relation to planning, sanction for the grant and so on. If you extend the 50 per cent for another year and then draw the line it will encourage further anti-pollution activity. There will be a tiny loss in terms of revenue but it would have a strong impact.

Whatever about the merits of the case, there is a perception that the elimination of accelerated appreciation will have a very big impact on farmers carrying out anti-pollution work, a view put forward by the main farming organisations. Some gesture needs to be made to change the perception and the mood.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I gather that Deputy Noonan is not pressing his amendment.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I should like to hear the Minister's comments.

Mr. A. Reynolds

The Government are as keen as anybody to eliminate pollution for many good reasons. I accept what the Deputy said in relation to the very good motivation and canvassing by the two major farming organisations in working with Government agencies and Departments in trying to eliminate pollution as soon as possible because it is in the interests of our good name as a food producer, tourism and many other issues to do so. I will look at this matter, without commitment, between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 59.

Mr. Taylor

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 62, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) (a) This subsection applies to a capital expenditure incurred by an employer on the provision of a nursery, crèche or other facilities for the care of children of his employees at their place of employment during the hours of such employment.

(b) Expenditure to which this subsection applies shall be regarded as an expenditure on plant provided for the purposes of the trade or profession of that employer.

(c) In this subsection—

`children' means children who are under five years of age;

`employer' and `employee' have the same meaning as they have in the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.".

This amendment provides that expenditure on such a facility would be regarded as expenditure on plant provided for the purposes of the trade or profession of that employer. The position, as I understand it, is that expenditure by an employer on crèche or nursery facilities for employees does not fall under any available capital allowance. The amendment would allow such expenditure to be deducted as expenditure on plant. We have been debating the Finance Bill for two long days, this is a very reasonable amendment and I am sure the Minister will sympathise with it. I do not know what it would cost. I imagine the cost would be minimal. But whatever its cost, I am sure that for very many women workers the provision of nursery and crèche facilities for the care of their children at their place of work would be a tremendous boon and would enable many to carry out their duties free from worry about their children. This amendment could be a factor in inducing employers to provide this facility. It has been pressed for by very many women's organisations. I am seeking support for it across the floor.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): May I ask the Minister if, in circumstances in which employers provide nursery and crèche facilities for employees at their place of work, will there be a tax liability on the employee as a benefit-in-kind?

Mr. A. Reynolds

There could be.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Has any case been adjudicated on by the Revenue?

Mr. A. Reynolds

No case has been taken.

Mr. Taylor

I could not imagine that the Revenue Commissioners would go down that road.

Mr. A. Reynolds

They do not miss much.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It seems to me that if there is a possibility of it being taxed as a benefit-in-kind, then there is absolute logic in the argument that the plant should be tax deductible on the other side.

Mr. A. Reynolds

In pure legal terms, there could be.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Then, in pure legal terms, there is a great case for Deputy Taylor's amendment on the other side.

Mr. A. Reynolds

It is all right in a different way, but we will come to it in a moment.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will not detain the House very long. This is a very interesting amendment which I should like to support. There is no pre-school infrastructure in the country. We pay a great deal of lip service to equality. It is very difficult in any meaningful way, other than talking about it, to advance principles of equality without this kind of facility being available to parents, women in particular. The amendment is worthwhile and would have broad, social support. Many women are still forced out of the labour force because there is no provision for child minding. There is no pre-school structure and, notwithstanding the lifting of the bar on employment, women have to give up work, leave the workforce, because the facility for looking after children does not exist. This would be a progressive development which would greatly encourage employers to invest in the provision of this kind of facility. Indeed, the workforce, as a whole, would be the better for enabling women to remain in the workforce and have their children looked after. I think it could be regarded as expenditure on plant and that the usual reliefs would apply, which would be very worthwhile.

Mr. A. Reynolds

Apparently the proposed amendment is intended to extend capital allowances to créches provided by employers for their employees. Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, which is being amended in section 59 of this Bill, is concerned with capital expenditure on the provision of plant and machinery for the purposes of a trade. Expenditure on crèche or nursery items which fall into the category of plant would qualify as expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trade of the employer. Capital expenditure on durable items, such as desks, chairs and so on, would qualify for capital allowances. Expenditure on items such as chalk, paints, crayons and the like would be deductible as a revenue expense. I am not disposed to accepting the amendment on the grounds that it is not necessary. It is provided for under section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1967 which is amended by section 59 of this Bill.

Mr. Taylor

Is the Minister saying, in effect, then that all the expense involved of a capital and revenue nature — let us get this clear now on the record——

Mr. A. Reynolds

Créches are equipment and all expenditure and equipment qualifies as plant and machinery under section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1967.

Mr. Taylor

Qualifies — so the expenditure of setting it up, with all the equipment, for example building on a room——

Mr. A. Reynolds

As part of a trade.

Mr. Taylor

What about building on a room to provide a créche?

Mr. Rabbitte

That must be a State secret.

Mr. A. Reynolds

We are dealing with plant and machinery now, not building costs. The Deputy is talking about building. Whatever goes into the building is covered.

Mr. Taylor

Well, one might have to provide a room or have to carry out substantial construction works, such as the provision of toilets, changing facilities for babies and so on. One might have to construct a room for those facilities. My amendment would cover that, that is capital expenditure incurred. I am not talking about tables; I am talking about premises. Is the Minister saying that that kind of work would qualify?

Mr. A. Reynolds

No. I was saying that the provisions of this section just apply to plant and machinery. I am checking on the other points the Deputy has raised.

Mr. Taylor

When the Minister says "this section" I do not know whether he means section 59. My amendment would provide a new section which would stand on its own and would provide that the capital expenditure incurred would be chargeable.

Mr. Rabbitte

Is there any reason for keeping the existing position secret from the children of Ireland? I did not know that this facility existed under the provisions of section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1967.

Mr. Taylor

It does not, that is just it. It is there for the provision of tables and chairs but I am talking about the capital cost of setting it up. I know about the tables and chairs, thank you very much. I am talking about construction costs.

Mr. A. Reynolds

There are certain circumstances in which it will be covered. Let us take the example of an employer with a factory who constructs an area in an industrial plant to accommodate children, put in créches, plant and machinery. That is fine. That is covered all right. But, if we turn it around and say the extension is onto a shop, a private house or residence, then capital allowances on the construction side will not apply. Perhaps it is not satisfactory but that is the position.

Mr. Taylor

It is not satisfactory. All the expenditure necessarily incurred at any place of employment — it could be at an office where 50 people work, many of whom would be women and an employer might decide to build on a small extension room, or something like that in order to provide a créche or nursery facility. My amendment would cover that. It is not an awful lot to ask. Would the Minister consider conceding it and avoid us having to vote on the issue? I regard it as a very important issue for working women, for women who want to work and who might be unable to do so in the absence of such facilities.

Mr. A. Reynolds

I will take a look at it between now and Report Stage in order to ascertain whether I can tighten it up.

Mr. Taylor

I appreciate that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 59 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Is this the section that omits the claim for a business suit? Is this the section that was sparked off by the tax manager winning a case in the Circuit Court that a business suit was part of plant?

Mr. A. Reynolds

This is it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Are we going to lose the allowance on our suits from now on? Is the allowance on suits going to go?

Mr. A. Reynolds

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): There is a further implication involved. What about circumstances in which——

Mr. A. Reynolds

Going for a suit allowance is taking it a bit far.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East):——an item of plant is being used in a business capacity but also used in a non-business capacity? What would be the position there?

Mr. A. Reynolds

To be honest with the Deputy, I do not know how it could be used for the dual purpose.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): For example, one could use a car in that way.

Mr. A. Reynolds

I suppose one could be using a car for the two purposes simultaneously. I do not agree with the Deputy's first argument. I should tell the Deputy this is how a judge defined it: one wears a suit for warmth and decency.

Mr. Rabbitte

Does that include protective clothing?

Mr. A. Reynolds

That is a different category and is covered in a different way. With regard to a suit, one could be wearing it for business purposes while, at the same time, for warmth, good appearance. An article in a newspaper yesterday described such a person as a "power dresser".

Mr. Rabbitte

I have learned a lot from this debate.

Mr. A. Reynolds

The Deputy will be able to qualify as a tax consultant after this debate.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I take it the allowance for a suit is gone?

Mr. A. Reynolds

The allowance for a suit is gone.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): What is the position in respect of a car being used for both business and non-business purposes? Is any change proposed in that respect?

Mr. A. Reynolds

There will be no problem so far as using a car for purposes of business is concerned.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Therefore, it will not be caught?

Mr. A. Reynolds

That is correct.

Mr. Taylor

According to the section it will be caught unless it is being used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade. Is this not at variance with the wording used in the explanatory memorandum which states that the section will not prevent the making of an allowance where an item of plant is used partly for business purposes and partly for other purposes? As there appears to be some dichotomy there, can the Minister reconcile those two, apparently, contradictory statements?

Mr. A. Reynolds

Any time the car is used for business purposes so far as this section is concerned, it must be used wholly and entirely for business purposes. Furthermore, when a car is used for business purposes it is used wholly and exclusively for business purposes but a suit is not.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Will the person who owns a motor mower and who uses it to mow the lawn in front of the factory or office block, and then uses it at home on a Saturday be all right?

Mr. A. Reynolds

He will.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Therefore, the test is that when using it for the purposes of business it must be used exclusively for the purposes of business.

Mr. A. Reynolds

That is correct. This section is taking up a lot of time.

Mr. Taylor

That may be the intention but does the section say that and will it throw the pendulum too far in the other direction? The section which reads "which, while used for the purposes of the trade, is wholly and exclusively so used" strikes a very delicate balance. If an item can be used for non-business purposes at other times it may fall foul of the section.

Mr. A. Reynolds

The experts tell me that is not the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The quality of mohair shall not be strained.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 60 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 69.

Amendment No. 93 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 94 in the name of the Minister. With your indulgence, amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97 are related cognate amendments. It is proposed, therefore, to take amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97 together for discussion purposes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. A. Reynolds

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 66, to delete lines 18 and 19 and substitute the following:

"(c) the following provisions were substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (4):

`(d) in relation to capital expenditure incurred on or after the 1st day of April, 1971, as if "five-fifths" were substituted for "one-fifth" in subsection (1).',

and".

These amendments are merely drafting amendments. Amendment No. 94 is necessary to avoid the deletion of a particular date restoring the date which applied previously. The effect of paragraph (c) of the new subsection (2) to section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1967 is to provide for the continuance of initial allowance at 100 per cent in respect of the six categories of activity specified in section 51 of the Finance Act, 1988. The six categories in question are: (1) qualifying companies in the Custom House Docks area of Dublin; (2) qualifying services activities in Shannon Customs-free Airport; (3) the special building incentives under the Finance Act, 1986 for designated urban areas; (4) contracts entered into on or before 27 January, 1988, budget day; (5) projects approved for grant assistance by the industrial development agencies before 31 December 1988; and (6) machinery or plant provided for the purpose of a new hotel or hotel extension where a builidng contract was entered into on or before 31 May 1988.

The other amendments are necessary to introduce references to the most recent relevant amendments, that is, those in this Bill, to the various provisions of section 51 of the Finance Act, 1988 which are applied by section 69.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Would the Minister clarify what exactly is being excluded from the restrictions on capital allowances introduced under previous sections? Are we talking here about allowances for industrial buildings in all designated areas?

Mr. A. Reynolds

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Are we also talking about designated urban areas including those which were the subject of the three announcements, including the most recent one?

Mr. A. Reynolds

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Therefore, we are also talking about the Shannon free zone and the Custom House Dock site?

Mr. A. Reynolds

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Anywhere else?

Mr. A. Reynolds

No.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): What about plant and machinery in Shannon and the dock site?

Mr. A. Reynolds

Yes. The categories excluded are mentioned on the list I have read out.

Mr. Rabbitte

A number of points arise in connection with the proliferation of designated zones. Does the Minister consider that he has a role to play in this respect or is it a matter for the Minister for the Environment? There seems to have been a certain arbitrariness about the new areas so designated. For example, the citizens of areas like Ronanstown and Blanchardstown are concerned that the facilities made available to Tallaght for which provision was made in the budget last year are made available to them.

It is felt the giving of this incentive to Tallaght, and thankfully development is now well underway, is a competitive obstacle to any development taking place in Ronanstown or Blanchardstown, where similar town centres are planned and where such development is desperately needed. The intention was that these would be three new satellite towns on the western side of the city but only in Tallaght is the projected population target of 100,000 being achieved. It was given a belated boost by the measures announced in the budget of last year which are now coming to fruition. However, no such facilities have been made available to Clondalkin and Lucan, for which I am using the generic term Ronanstown, and Blanchardstown. There was great disappointment that provision was not made in this year's Finance Bill to provide such facilities in those areas. Such a project will not be taken on by private enterprise if they are not allowed to play on a level playing pitch. Specific proposals are under consideration at Dublin County Council, who are the local authority concerned, in the context of the review of the development plan. Can the Minister give us any indication as to whether either of these areas with projected population targets of 100,000 are being considered?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Notwithstanding the tremendous demands on our time, I know the Minister and the Deputies present would wish me to acknowledge the presence of and to extend a very special welcome to our distinguished Irish goalkeeper, Packie Bonner, who is in the distinguished Visitors Gallery, and to wish him special success in his capacity in the sport as our Minister for Defence.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): He should watch out for the Egyptians.

Mr. Rabbitte

We all agree with that.

Mr. A. Reynolds

I would join with those sentiments. I would like to advise Packie Bonner, if he is not fully aware of it, that it might be profitable for him to come here because he can get a tax allowance, even at this stage, on the suits he might wear on his way to Rome because it is part of his training. The best of luck to them in Rome.

In relation to the question raised by Deputy Rabbitte, it is primarily a matter for the Minister for the Environment. Why one place was chosen as against another is not for me to comment on. I am open to correction, but I understand that the planning authorities are part of the process of choosing places for urban renewal and that would, I am sure, apply to both county council and corporation. It is primarily a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

Mr. Taylor

How much tax is foregone as a result of the measures in this section?

Mr. A. Reynolds

It is not possible to calculate that. Any figure I could produce would not have any real meaning because I would have to guess what sort of development would or would not take place. In some areas in the past little or no development took place. In other places there was quite significant development. It is only in retrospect, when it is applied for, that one can give figures. If my memory serves me right, the figure given at Question Time one day was £20 million or £25 million in tax foregone.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): When the incentives for the designated urban areas were brought in the idea was that they would be very strong tax incentives which would encourage people to develop sites which would not otherwise be developed. It followed that the areas designated had to be quite small. If too many acres in any town or city are designated, then the developer will build on the best sites but not on the worst. This was a strategy to develop the worst sites; I am worried now because I think the extension is far too wide in Dublin, for example. Several hundred acres have been designated in Dublin on both sides of the Liffey. There is such a choice of sites there now that the better ones will be developed and there will be kind of pock-mark development.

Mr. Taylor

And nothing outside those areas will be developed.

Mr. A. Reynolds

This can be misleading because there are vast areas around Dublin Castle which are mapped in, but it will not apply to Dublin Castle. That sort of distortion can take place on initial reading.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I have no doubt about what I am saying. Even in my own city, where another 40 acres have been designated, the latest extension has moved away from what I would call the “development of the worst site” strategy and unless the worst sites are caught and developers are encouraged to develop them, this will not work. The only way it can work if, say, 20 acres are designated is if the whole 20 acres are developed. If only ten or 12 acres are developed that will be fine from an economic point of view and to stimulate the building industry, but it will do very little for urban renewal. This kind of pock mark development is not what was intended at all. I really do not understand the situation in Dublin. The quays should be the elegant backbone of Dublin, but they are a disaster. The approach from Islandbridge to O'Connell Bridge and further is an absolute disgrace in any modern European city.

Mr. A. Reynolds

It is designated.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It is but it is a frightful shambles. I do not know what the answer is. Widening the designation in Dublin before that spine has been dealt with will result in a transfer of resources to more desirable sites and we will be left with the backbone of the city — on the water front — in a very bad state. If we contrast that with Paris, Florence or any of those cities where the river is the focal point of the development, we certainly have a long way to go. This area in Dublin is an absolute disaster. We do not have time to develop that point now but maybe we will have next week.

Mr. Lawlor

The Minister is quite right. The planning authority have a very important role. In Dublin County Council we have made our case. The practices to date have led to the development of raw unfinished satellite towns. There are 55,000 people in the greater Lucan-Clondalkin area and these areas are not being finished. Vast amounts of money have been allocated for services in this area but they are lying dormant; if this area does not get services such as a town centre, there will be no further growth in residential development. Blanchardstown/Clondalkin should get favourable treatment although maybe not as favourable as Tallaght, so that we can get these satellite towns finished. We cannot leave 100,000 people in green field sites. I would urge the Minister to recognise these requirements and to focus on them.

Mr. A. Reynolds

As we did not reach section 70 I would like at this point to put the House on notice that we are considering a possible Report Stage amendment relating to transitional relief for pipeline tourism infrastructural projects similar to that provided by the IDA, SFADCo or An tÚdarás for a short period.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question is: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance to Part I of the Bill and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, and in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, other than section 75, that that section, or as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to."

The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Howlin.

Question declared carried.