(Limerick East): The practice of legislating by regulation is a very bad one. The Minister stated he will now enact many agreements already reached at EC level into Irish law by way of regulation. He states he is empowered to do so under the European Communities Act, 1972. On the generality of items probably he is so empowered but I wonder whether that power extends to financial items. The matters in question here are those that involve changes in taxation. I should have thought that the fact that the Minister's office is a constitutional one, that there are requirements under the Constitution that all financial matters should be authorised by this House, at least renders it questionable that enacting such a wide range of procedures by way of regulation alone is not being done on very strong constitutional ground. Will the Minister give the House a commitment that at the first available opportunity he will re-enact and allow debate in the House on the matters which says he will now enact by way of regulation? I believe the Minister is now on very thin ice in regard to constitutional matters such as these. Throughout the Bill other decisions are being made to take on the power of legislating by way of statutory regulation in matters which should properly come before this House for debate.
The Minister referred to the 1992 out-turn. We are happy to note that the year is ending with the figures more or less in line. Even though Supplementary Estimates were passed yesterday brining forward £71 million of pay commitments into the current year the Minister appears to think the year will still end with the outturn slightly under 3 per cent. Quite clearly, that is good news. The Minister referred also to the opening position for 1993. I presume we shall be hearing more about that as the days go by.
The Minister referred also to measures to maintain the yield from VAT in view of the fact that VAT at the point of entry will be abolished from 1 January next. Will he please state what are his intentions about these measures to maintain the yield from VAT? When replying will he inform the House what precisely he intends doing if he is still in the Administration when the forthcoming budget is introduced. Will he state what are the present recommended measures in the Department of Finance? There is no doubt but that the budgetary position in 1993 will be quite tight. There is no doubt also that almost every financial decision will be made in the shadow of the exchange rate issue.
If I may be so bold as to comment on the published programmes of the parties now in negotiations to form a Government, while they contain many items of merit, and certainly the Labour-Democratic Left document would envisage a more caring, inclusive society, when it comes to the hard economics either of the Fianna Fáil position or that of the Labour-Democratic Left it seems to me there is no measure at all which will effect any substantial change in the underlying economic position in 1993. I can identify no proposal that will obviate the need for the Minister to provide for something in the region of, say, 25,000 to 30,000 extra people on the live register in 1993. I do not see any proposal for any radical change that will alter the underlying position of increasing unemployment, continuing emigration, with more families having to rely on social welfare alone. I do not see the change, the new departure, that fundamental radical shift of priorities which would be necessary to address the enormity of the problems facing us. However, those matters can be dealt with at another time.
On the question of deposit interest retention tax the Minister did not specify his estimate of the yield loss by moving down to a rate of 10 per cent. I understand the figure was somewhere in the region of £90 million and I presume that figure will have been increased in the light of the interest rate increases. I should like the Minister to give the precise figure.
I put the proposition to the Minister that the position has changed radically, to the extent that the proposals advanced in his Budget Statement of January last are no longer valid. Certainly in January last it was fair to assume that on the basis of the interest rates then prevailing when exchange controls would be abolished from 1 January 1993 there would be an outflow of funds from the country, in particular that savers, ordinary citizens with savings, would tend to move their savings to where their net interest yield would be greater, say, to Northern Ireland, into special accounts in the United Kingdom, to Luxembourg, or wherever they would be subjected to a zero rate. I wonder is that assumption true at this stage? The Minister should reconsider the position between now and budget day, if he is the Minister who will introduce that budget. It appears to me that anybody in this jurisdiction at present would be crazy to move money into a United Kingdom deposit account since the relevant interest rates are totally favourable to keeping money on deposit here. Indeed, the exchange rate risk of moving into the United Kingdom, with a floating £ rather than a fixed exchange rate, would seem to me to be a major inhibiting factor as well to the movement of such money.
The position within the EC is changing also. For example, last Monday's Financial Times talked about a certain amount of money moving out of Germany into Luxembourg because in Germany they have introduced a 30 per cent deposit interest retention tax. It appears to me that throughout the EC — that is, those countries that do not have it already — they will introduce deposit interest retention tax. Would it not be better if some kind of agreement could be reached at EC level rather than writing off a very big yield to the Exchequer from a tax on unearned income? With our very strong, positive, interest rates those with savings are getting a very good return. Therefore, it would appear to me there is a case for re-examining whether it is necessary to pull back from 27 per cent to 10 per cent, or if it is found necessary to pull back, what is so relevant about 10 per cent; why not 15 per cent? In the new circumstances prevailing I do not think the case has been made and since it involves such a huge loss to the Exchequer I contend it warrants reexamination.
The whole purpose of the new deposit accounts is to protect the liquidity of the system, to ensure that money does not flow out of the country with the yield to the Exchequer thereby reduced. Could this not have been done in terms of individual rather than corporate deposits? Could that not have been done by way of regulation? Does the Minister see any merit at all in re-examining the position? It is now debatable whether the decision taken in January last remains a valid one.
The question of motor car registration I find extremely disturbing, because we were given to understand that we were coming in to enact, almost on the nod, what the Minister announced in the last budget. That is not the situation we are presented with. The Minister said:
Faced with this division, it is, as already stated, simply not possible to reconcile the objective of revenue-neutrality with the achievement of price neutrality in all cases, given that a single rate of VRT must apply to all models in a particular category.
The Minister goes on at length to explain the issues. The bottom line on it is that every person knows now that the Minister is saying that the price of cars will increase. That is an absolute botch of an arrangement. I did not come into this House this morning to underpin an increase in the price of motor cars. I know the Minister will say that I am misrepresenting the position, that some prices will increase while others will reduce and that the Revenue have to strike a balance to protect the yield.
In the real world, the price of cars will go up in circumstances where the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister are getting an extra take. Where there is any slight reduction, that, in the traditional manner of Irish business, will not be passed on to the consumer, just as the benefits we were supposed to get from a strong currency were not passed on.
The Minister this morning is increasing the price of motor cars. It is all hocuspocus to say that we must be revenue neutral and that we must protect the yield. That is a bit ironic. One of the great benefits of the Single Market we were told was that we would have free movement of capital and labour, that we would end up with price equality and that if items were produced more cheaply in other jurisdictions we could get them cheaper here once the Single Market came into operation.
There was an expectation at one stage that the price of motor cars would reduce dramatically. The Minister knocked that on the head last January when he said he would have to introduce vehicle registration tax to mop up anything that was lost on excise and that, depending on the model of the car, several thousand pounds will be the contribution on the first time registration tax. The Minister has gone beyond that now and is adopting this kind of belt and braces approach where the margin is always on the side of the Government and the Exchequer.
He has taken measures this morning to increase the price of cars when the expectation was that the introduction of the Single Market would at least mean that there would be some reduction in the price of cars over the years. This is outrageous. We were led to believe that there was no change from the Minister's budgetary position but today we find a new section being introduced which was not in the White Paper published in the course of the election. We see that the rates will increase the price of cars. It is very unfair to those Members who are co-operating with the Minister, and the Department, that the Minister is approaching it in this fashion. There is very little we can do about the fact that we are this morning waving the Minister on as he raises the price of motor cars. We were supposed to do this without even looking at the sections.