I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Sullivan.
Private Members' Business. - Income Tax Reform: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Noonan on Tuesday, 9 November 1999:
That Dáil Éireann:
–aware of the increasing labour shortages in the economy;
–conscious of the deteriorating industrial relations situation in the public sector;
–supportive of the renegotiation of another partnership agreement;
–acknowledging that many persons have not benefited from the booming economy,
calls on the Government to announce its commitment to introduce an income tax reform programme which would include the following measures:
–the removal of the first £170 of weekly income from income tax;
–the extension of the standard rate band to £17,500 in respect of single persons and £35,000 for married persons;
–the introduction of a new middle rate of income tax at 35 per cent which would apply to income from £17,500 to £50,000 single, and £35,000 to £100,000 married;
–the maintenance of the 46 per cent rate for the top 5 per cent of income tax payers;
–the completion of the transfer to tax credits from tax allowances;
–the commencement of the integration of the income tax and social welfare systems, and
Dáil Éireann, aware that families with young children need particular care, calls on the Government to increase child benefit to £25 per week per child, for all children under five years of age, and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, which will increase the supply of well-managed, well-regulated, affordable child care facilities.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann commends the Government for,
its progressive economic policies which have resulted in:
–the achievement of rapid economic and social progress;
–the large increases in employment and the significant fall in unemployment, including long-term unemployment, over the past two years;
–the pursuit of prudent and sensible budgetary policies since 1997 which have responded to the country's immediate needs while preparing for the longer term, and
its programme of tax reform which has resulted in:
–reducing the burden of taxation on all taxpayers;
–increasing the incentives to take up work;
–removing large numbers of low-income earners from the tax net altogether;
–reducing the burden of taxation, particularly on the lower paid, the aged and widowed parents;
–initiation of major change towards a more progressive system of tax credits, maintaining and improving our competitiveness,
and calls on the Government to continue its programme of tax reform through an appropriately balanced mix of measures in the next and subsequent budgets.
–(Minister for Finance.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I warmly welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and voice my support for the Labour Party amendment which is timely and a balanced contribution to the current economic and social debate at this critical time in the history of the State. The Labour Party's tax reform policy unashamedly focuses on targeting tax reductions at low and middle income earners. The proposed national minimum wage should be increased to £5 per hour and this level of earnings should be exempt from tax for all workers. The debate on tax reform should concentrate not on cutting tax rates but on increasing the standard rate band to ensure more workers pay tax at a lower rate.
We cannot talk about tax reform in isolation, especially from public expenditure. The recent MRBI- The Irish Times survey demonstrates that the public is deeply concerned about the level of expenditure on critical social services. It is not clamouring to get a few extra bob in its back pocket when it is well aware that significant investment is required in our schools, health services, services for people with disabilities and legal aid system. When asked whether tax cuts or social investment was a top priority, 49 per cent opted for social investment.
There is one specific taxation issue that I would like to address. The upsurge in house prices in recent years requires a review of the capital gains tax code. The Labour Party supports the concept of capital taxation which should play a key role in the taxation policies of the State and our objection to the slashing of capital gains tax in the first budget of the Minister for Finance has been well aired in this House and other forums. As my colleague, Deputy McDowell, indicated last night, there is a group for whom the capital acquisitions tax code as it applies to housing is causing difficulties. I am referring in particular to those who shared a family home with either their parents or a close relative for a number of years before acquiring the house. As we are all aware, given the rapid rise in house prices, many of them cannot afford to pay the tax due on the estate. Sons or daughters who may have lived in the family home all their lives, often caring for a sick or elderly parent, are forced to sell their house and move out of the locality to meet the tax bill. This is not fair.
I wish to focus on the proposal in the Labour Party amendment which calls on the Government to abandon its commitment to a 4 per cent ceiling in public spending increases in favour of a figure commensurate with either the rate of GNP growth or the projected increase in taxation income, whichever is higher. It is inappropriate at this stage in our economic develop ment that we should be limited to a 4 per cent increase in public spending. Even though this could now be described as a rich economy, the gap is growing between those who are doing well and those who are gaining little from current riches.
There is a need to draw a line in the sand in terms of what an egalitarian society will tolerate in a rich economy. There are many circumstances that we can no longer tolerate considering how much extra money is available in the coffers of the Minister for Finance, including where elderly parents cannot find a suitable placement for a mentally handicapped son or daughter. I support fully the recommendation of the National Association for the Mentally Handicap of Ireland that appropriate accommodation be provided for all those included in the database as a matter of urgency. People with physical disabilities are literally imprisoned in their homes. This is not tolerable in a society as rich as this. Other recommendations extend to personal assistants, a cost of disability payment, the availability of carer's allowance without a means test to those who provide full-time care and attention and appropriate resource centres for people with disabilities, all of which should be provided in a rich economy.
The fact that many people are homeless should not be tolerated, nor should lack of access to health services. I know of one 84 year old man living alone in a rural area who has been waiting four years for a knee replacement operation. Given that there are people in society who cannot read, there is a need to provide remedial teachers in all schools and to provide for access to adult literacy services and legal redress. There is a need to alter the current 4 per cent on public spending to meet these basic requirements.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Ardagh, McGuinness and Michael Ahern.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy McCreevy will probably go down in history as one of the most radical Ministers for Finance. In his first two budgets he delivered the most reforming finance packages in the history of the State. He introduced budgets that have tried to give every citizen some sense of sharing in the spoils of the Celtic tiger economy. It had been a common complaint that the much talked about tiger was delivering little to those who had suffered and sacrificed most to bring about this economic miracle. It was only right that those who had taken the pain should share in the gain. The £600 million tax reform package announced in the last budget aimed at the poor and less well off was welcomed across all sections of society.
The Minister was controlled in his first two budgets which were radical and progressive and aimed at the lower end of the tax regime. He raised the income tax threshold with the result that no single person earning less than £100 per week is subject to PAYE or PRSI. He reduced the standard and higher rates of tax by 2 per cent while the tax bands were widened to £14,000 for a single person and £28,000 for a married couple. The increases in welfare benefits are unprecedented. The Government is committed to paying old age pensioners £100 per week during its lifetime.
The Minister has introduced far-reaching changes in the corporation tax code. The standard rate has been reduced to 28 per cent with a threshold of £100,000 for a reduced rate of 25 per cent. The standard rate will fall to 12.5 per cent by 2003. The reduced rates have assisted in reaching the point where there is near full employment and are of particular benefit to small companies in terms of increased development where cashflow is normally tight and borrowing capacity stretched. The transition to a standard rate of 12.5 per cent by 2003 will have far-reaching consequences for corporate tax policy and will make Ireland an attractive location for service type or medium to long-term financial type enterprises. The mainstream coporate tax rate will be lower than that applying in countries from which the bulk of our inward investment is sourced. Because tax uncertainty is removed, companies can plan significantly ahead knowing the implications of their investment. The new incentives will encourage employee share participation and create harmony in industrial relations. This should further assist employment growth and continued expansion of the economy.
The Minister was criticised for halving the rate of capital gains tax to 20 per cent. It has, however, proved to be a most efficient move in that the takings from this tax have increased significantly and scuppered the theory that increased rates of taxes were the only means of increasing the tax take. There was much criticism when he introduced the new rates, but they eliminated many of the under-the-counter transactions which took place in the sale of properties or assets. That measure has generated a significant amount of increased revenue.
The changes introduced by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, in the control of pensions for the self-employed were the most radical ever. Control of the accumulated pension fund remains with the individual and is passed on to his estate on death. Previously, people were obliged to invest in an annuity which, by and large, ceased on death. In addition, the Minister significantly increased the extent of the yearly contribution allowed for tax purposes, thereby encouraging individuals to increase their pension contributions. I was hoping the Minister would be here tonight because I wanted to ask him to consider reducing the capital gains tax on commercial development lands. He might also consider doing what he did in regard to residential lands last year. That would provide a stimulus for further boosting the economic development of our country. I hope the Minister's officials will tell him about my proposal because it is an important next step.
We look forward to additional incentives in the tax regime in future budgets. Adjustments can be made in the following areas: an increase in tax allowances and bands, thereby ensuring that those on lower wages are fully exempt from tax and that the ordinary worker remains in the standard rate category; adjustments for parents facing child care fees; increased welfare benefits for the less well off; and assistance in the housing market for those on lower incomes.
Other speakers mentioned capital acquisitions tax. The Minister is currently reviewing this area and I hope we will see some changes in the budget in that regard. The value of properties and family homes has escalated and there are enormous implications for those who inherit family homes in terms of capital acquisitions tax. I hope the Minister will carefully examine this area and introduce measures in the budget.
I compliment the Government on the low unemployment rate and on its target to achieve full employment in the coming years.
The National Economic and Social Council recently published a booklet which sets the parameters for the social partnership discussions due to take place shortly. It states that average employment growth from 1994-98 was about 4.9 per cent and, apart from Luxembourg, the nearest country to us in the European Union was The Netherlands, which was just over 2 per cent. It indicates also that in April 1993 the unemployment rate was at 16 per cent and it is now down to 5.2 per cent. The long-term unemployment rate in April 1994 was 9 per cent and it is now down to 2.5 per cent. Irish living standards as a percentage of the EU average increased from 58 per cent in 1988 to 93 per cent ten years later. That does not take into account the significant percentage increase in real take home pay in 1999 which is estimated at 7.5 per cent for a married person and 5 per cent for a single person after tax and inflation. That should bring Irish living standards as a percentage of the EU average close to 100 per cent.
The NESC booklet also states that the foundations of a successful society are a dynamic economy and a participatory society incorporating a commitment to social justice based on consistent economic development that is socially and environmentally sustainable and which responds to the constantly evolving requirements of international competitiveness. It further states that that vision has several important dimensions, one of which is economic inclusion based on full employment. That is important.
I do not want to hear any more pious platitudes about low paid workers being economically included. I would like to see the minimum wage increased to £5.50 per hour, that is £220 per week. That would give everybody an incentive to work. The Labour Party does not have the bottle to propose a minimum wage of £5 per hour. If this side of the House had originally proposed £2.50 per hour, the Labour Party would probably propose £3 per hour.
What has the Deputy proposed?
A minimum wage of £220 per week is needed and the social partners should not allow for relativities in this regard. That is a basic wage which everyone should be paid, and this country can afford to pay it, but I would not like the various professions and trades to view that as a base on which they can seek relativity increases.
On the question of child care, the State should pay for child care for children of any parent who wants to have their child cared for in a well managed, well regulated, competitive and privatised child care facility up to a fixed amount per week agreed as the norm in the industry. During the 1970s, 50 per cent of the population were under the age of 25. That seventies baby boom is the engine of our current economic growth. Every country in Europe envies our well educated young people who are working here, paying good taxes and driving our economy. We want that to be the case in ten and 20 years' time but it can only happen if we care for the children in this society, and it is the State's responsibility to provide good child care.
Another dimension to this vision is social inclusion reflecting full participation in those activities which constitute the norm in society. There should be equality of opportunity and access to education, employment, health, housing and social services. A recent opinion poll in The Irish Times indicated that only 9 per cent of people wanted a reduction in taxes as against an improvement in services. There is an immediate need for those services to be fully available to all people, regardless of their income or their living standards. Under the Fine Gael proposal, a person earning up to £100,000 would have a 10 per cent increase in take home pay, but there would be no significant change for the person earning approximately £35,000.
That is not true.
There is an urgent need for investment in infrastructure. There is a problem in regard to housing, roads and traffic. I would like to see Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo developed to a significant degree, with trains and high speed buses running on a regular basis between Dublin and the various cities. It should take only an hour and a half to get to Cork, the same time that it currently takes to get from Firhouse in County Dublin to the centre of Dublin. It is only by increasing the population in those areas as against increasing it in Dublin we will be able to manage supply-demand in regard to housing, and it would also reduce the need for cars. If there is further development within 20 or 30 miles of Dublin, families will require two cars to allow them get into the city to bring their children to school, visit the theatre or whatever.
If the Fine Gael motion and the Labour amendment are the best the Opposition can come up with, those of us on this side of the House will have to strengthen our resolve and work harder to develop even more innovative ways of achieving a successful society because the Opposition is a disaster.
Up de Valera. That is the last Civil War speech we will hear in this House.
Coming from a business background, I want to acknowledge the achievement of the Government in developing our economy into the success story it is today. It has become a model for, and is the envy of, the rest of Europe. It is not so long ago that we were trying to attract industry from abroad by tax breaks, which were promoted by the IDA. We have now come full circle, in that investors are now looking for a skilled workforce.
The time has come to examine in connection with the preparation of the budget what is happening in regard to the availability of skilled workers. Skilled Irish people who emigrated some years age are now anxious to return. The time has come for us to advertise, whether on the Internet or as a Government, to ensure that foreign investors have skilled workforces available to them. We will have to advertise tax breaks for returning emigrants, as we did in the past to attract foreign companies, in order to resettle qualified, skilled Irish people who are abroad. That is essential to ensure the further development of industry here. The Government should target specific areas of skill shortages. We should examine the possibility of giving a once-off tax break to Irish families living abroad who possess skills that are in short supply at home.
We have developed our economy to the point where we must look at innovative ways to deal with business in the future. E-commerce offers this country a better possibility for future success than any other industry. E-commerce runs across every section of our community and we must encourage its use by indigenous industry and by Government. I believe in the phrase "e-government at the speed of light". In order to achieve that, we must encourage people to become more involved in e-commerce. Tax breaks should be given to those who are willing to invest in e-commerce, particularly those who create new jobs.
Information technology is the future basis of development here. Every home that purchases a PC should receive a once-off £1,000 income tax break. That is essential in order to achieve inclusiveness, in terms of information technology.
I referred during the Private Member's debate on agriculture to a group which we have almost not acknowledged; that is, the people who worked hard and invested in banks and shares over the years to build the economy we are enjoying today. They did so on the basis that they would have a reasonable income when they retired. They are now getting little or no return on the money they invested. Given that we can afford to do so, it is time to give a break to those people who helped to build our successful economy, so that they can earn a decent income on the money they invested. If we cannot do that, we should devise some method of bonds or other instrument which the Government can sell to them, which would give them an opportunity to earn money on investments they made in the hope of earning good money from them in their retirement years. That has not happened and the onus is on the Government to ensure that sector is given a break.
There are people living on the land in hardship, while the rest of us benefit from the economic boom. There should be some way of reaching out to those people, whether by way of tax breaks, a special retirement scheme or extending the existing retirement schemes, to bring them into the net so that they can receive a proper income in their retirement. These people are often on their own on the land. They did not work it as a business but because they are part and parcel of the land and see it as a way of life. They are now left on their own because their families have taken up employment in other sectors. Any developing community or society is best judged on how it treats the less well-off. If we are a mature economy and a mature political structure, we should acknowledge the input of these people into the building of our very sound economic base.
I support the request by carers for greater recognition, in terms of personal assistants. That scheme has given them the opportunity to participate fully in the economic growth of the country. It has given them an enjoyable quality of life and has afforded them the opportunity to get out of their homes, where they were once prisoners. It has given employment to people. Those schemes should be adjusted so that that employment as a carer does not have to be terminated at the end of 12 months but can be extended beyond that. If we do that, we will give a better life to people who, up to now, have been locked in their homes. We should extend that service.
I would love to see an allowance introduced for child care. There are untapped skills in homes where women had to leave their place of employment and stay at home to rear their family and be a homemaker. These women, who may have skilled themselves up to participate fully in information technology, e-commerce or other new developments, should be given the opportunity to return to the workforce, by providing them with child care. That would alleviate problems that are occurring throughout the country, where a skilled workforce is locked at home caring for children and the household and are anxious to get back to work. It would give them the opportunity to participate fully and would lighten the burden on employers who are having difficulties in getting employees.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the tax policies pursued by the Government over the past two years. This motion reminds me of a Committee Stage debate on the Finance Bill, where the Opposition tries to up the ante on what has been proposed by the Government. I note from the amendment tabled by the Labour Party that it is upping the ante on Fine Gael. Fine Gael wants the first £170 of weekly income to be tax free and the Labour Party wants that figure to be £195. Fine Gael wants the standard rate band to be £17,500 for single people and £35,000 for married people, and Labour wants it to be £20,000 for single people and £40,000 for married people.
The Deputy is a better accountant than Deputy Ardagh.
Deputy Ahern, without interruption.
The Labour Party is trying to up the ante but I do not think that cuts ice with anybody.
Deputy Noonan mentioned £25 per week for children under five years of age, which I am sure he will explain to me when he replies. I do not know what the law is in that regard, but I wonder if restricting that to children under five years of age would stand up in court.
There is already a differentiation between first and second children.
The reason for such a weak motion is quite clear – the effectiveness of the progressive economic policies, including the taxation policies, pursued by the Government since 1997. I take some small pleasure in those policies, having worked with the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, while in Opposition to prepare policies to turn around this economy. The tax burden has been reduced considerably for all taxpayers in the past two years. There has also been an increase in employment due to the incentives introduced and large numbers of low income earners have been taken out of the tax net. The burden of tax on the lower paid, the elderly and widowed parents has also been reduced. In addition, there has been a significant move towards a progressive system of tax credits and I hope the Minister will continue in that direction in the forthcoming budget.
In the last two budgets the Minister delivered £1.1 billion in tax reductions, far above the level called for in the national agreements. He has implemented the most significant tax reform measures of any Minister in the history of the State. Over 80,000 taxpayers have been taken out of the tax net in the past two years and special reliefs have been provided for the most vulnerable in society. The Minister outlined these measures in his contribution to this debate. People over 65 years of age are benefiting from up to 40 per cent increases in the exemption limit. The increased bereavement allowance and the job assist scheme were introduced to benefit the long-term unemployed and show the social and caring concerns of the Government.
Last year saw the introduction of a move towards tax credits, another of our important policy objectives. This had been called for during the past 15 years and will ensure a fairer distribution of tax benefits to all taxpayers, particularly those at the lower end of the scale. I await further details of the timetable for the completion of the move to a full tax credit system in next month's budget.
In our policy document we made it clear that we would reduce the higher and standard tax rates. A combination of measures involving PRSI, levies and income tax has reduced contributions and will ensure that no one on the higher rate will pay more than 50 per cent. We have already reduced the standard rate. To promote job creation, special tax allowances were granted to employers who take people off the long-term unemployment register. These workers are allowed to retain medical cards and other benefits and to receive unemployment benefit for three years at a reduced yearly rate. These measures have been successful as can be seen from the fact that employers are experiencing difficulties finding workers. Given the dearth of employees it is worth considering Deputy McGuinness's call for a special tax allowance to bring people back from abroad.
The Minister's capital gains tax proposals were originally scoffed at but have stimulated investment in the economy. These measures were needed at the time and have proved extremely successful, however, they must be continually reviewed to see if it is necessary to change policy direction. Capital acquisitions tax is a problem which raised its head due to the increase in house prices. A mathematician informed me that, if the price increases in housing were used as a criteria for the exemption from CAT, the level would be at £3.5 million. The Minister is considering increasing the CAT exemption allowance in the forthcoming budget which is important for many people caring for their parents.
The success of the Government's policies are there to be seen. GNP increased by 25 per cent between 1997 and 1999, the numbers at work have grown by over 10 per cent in the past two years, unemployment has fallen from 10 per cent to just over 5 per cent and inflation is under control at less than 2 per cent, one of the lowest rates in the EU. Government debt has reduced significantly, the tax burden on all taxpayers has been reduced and more than 80,000 people, at least, have been taken out of the tax net. This trend will continue in future years.
I call Deputy Deenihan. Do I understand that you are sharing with Deputies Yates, Crawford, Sheehan, Perry, Coveney and Ó Caoláin?
Yes. I compliment Deputy Michael Ahern on his role in forming Fianna Fáil's taxation policy when in opposition. However, the Deputy must be disappointed that he was not rewarded for his efforts.
I serve the people. I thank the Deputy.
When the Government took office two years ago I drew an analogy with a football manager taking over Manchester United. I was proven correct in that Manchester United and the country have thrived. The term "Celtic tiger" was coined during the period when the rainbow coalition was in office. Government speakers could be a little more magnanimous in recognising the contribution all parties have made over the past ten years towards the economic boom we are experiencing. However, they are disingenuous about most things, particularly in regard to the economy. They forget the bad years between 1977-82 when Fianna Fáil was in office and almost destroyed the country, but they always refer to the better years.
Fine Gael's tax policy at the last election was to target all tax concessions at the lower to middle income groups. That policy is now being pursued by the Government. In its first budget, the Government examined the tax rates but has now come round to our way of thinking on taxation. The way to ensure that SMEs survive, particularly those in rural areas, is through tax cuts rather than pay increases. This is a simple fact. Any new national agreement will have to be driven by tax reductions rather than large wage increases which reduce competitiveness locally and nationally. That is what Fine Gael's policy is all about. The next agreement will have to be driven by moderation in pay demands and major taxation concessions.
The Fine Gael motion before the House would benefit lower income groups. I compliment Deputy Noonan on introducing an innovative tax proposal. Many of our proposals were taken up by other parties in the past and we have driven the issue of tax reform for a number of years.
During last year's debate on the budget and the Finance Bill I stressed that in so far as possible lower income groups must be removed from the tax net. The removal of the first £170 is reasonable and is not a major concession. It would create a wedge between being on social welfare and working, especially for families. A major problem in rural and other areas is that people are less attracted to work in low paid jobs than to stay on social welfare.
The introduction of a new 35 per cent middle income tax rate seems very practical. Certainly the leap from 24 per cent to 46 per cent is too dramatic. Like VRT where there is a middle rate, there should be a middle rate of income tax. I stressed this during the debate on the Finance Act last year and I think I tabled an amendment in that regard. I am glad Deputy Noonan took up this very creative proposal when he was producing his tax policy. It is unfortunate Deputy Ardagh is not present as he deserves to be answered by Deputy Noonan. The average industrial wage is £15,400 per annum while the average wage is over £17,000 per annum. This proposal will ensure all taxpayers earning up to or just above the average wage will pay tax only at the standard rate, something which should be welcomed by everybody. I think the Minister for Finance will address this matter in the budget and I would not be a bit surprised if he took on board Deputy Noonan's proposal.
Despite the Government's promise that 80 per cent of taxpayers would pay tax at the standard rate only, currently about 44 per cent of taxpayers are liable at the higher rate while 56.1 per cent are liable to tax at the standard rate. Fine Gael's proposed extension of the standard rate band would remove 186,000 taxpayers from the higher rate. Some 70 per cent of taxpayers would pay tax at the standard rate while a further 25 per cent would pay tax at the middle income rate of 35 per cent.
Overall Deputy Noonan's proposals are very creative and futuristic. I am not a betting man, but I am sure many of these proposals will be taken on board by the Minister in the budget. If we are to remain competitive and if small SMEs are to survive, we need a package similar to that proposed by Deputy Noonan.
I strongly support this motion and my front bench colleague, Deputy Noonan, on the work he has done in relation to tax policy. As far as I am concerned, the commitments given in our tax policy are manifesto commitments we will be putting forward in the next general election irrespective of the budget or responses by the Government. We feel very strongly that the timing of this debate, in a week in which talks have opened with all the social partners on a successor to Partnership 2000, sets a proper context for continuing the trend of a trade off between lower competitive pay increases and bigger increases in net take home pay by virtue of tax reform and tax reductions.
Over the lifetime of Partnership 2000 a consistent feature has been a gross underestimate of income tax revenues in each budget and a substantial overshoot of actual revenues. This is because the number of people at work and the total income payable have drifted upwards on an enormous scale. The cost of a £2 billion package must be seen in this context. Each year successive Ministers for Finance have given away £400 million, £500 million or £700 million only to find their targets completely over-shot and a significantly smaller net cost.
The basic features of our proposal are to extend the standard rate of tax so 160,000 will pay the lowest rate of tax, to deal with the most crippling inequity in the European tax system, namely, the feature here where a single person hits the top rate of tax at £14,000, and to ensure a single person does not pay more than 35 per cent tax on an income up to £50,000. We believe the super rich should pay a top rate of tax and that the Progressive Democrats are wrong to say everybody should have a lower top rate of tax. Middle income earners should pay a middle rate of tax. It is absolutely outrageous and fundamentally contradictory to introduce by law a minimum wage of £4.40 per hour, giving a total of £179 per 39 hour week, and to confiscate some of that income in tax.
These features, together with our child care policy of paying an increase in child benefit of £25 per week for children under five years of age, are fundamental to making more people attracted to the workforce The biggest impediment to the continued growth of the Celtic tiger is not interest rates or a crash in the NASDAQ, but the shortage of workers. Virtually every business in the public and private sectors in this city finds there are insufficient applicants for many positions. A fundamental feature of managing a business today concerns the shortage of people with skills – I am talking about relatively semi-skilled jobs – available to satisfy the current growth in jobs. This must be resolved and it can only be done by moving from welfare to work and attracting more women into the workforce.
Our comprehensive series of proposals deal with child care, namely, the supply side in terms of capitation grants, and the fundamental problems of housing, infrastructure and transport. These are the issues on which the next general election will be fought. This tax policy commends itself not only to the Government but will ultimately commend itself to the people.
I thank Deputy Noonan for providing an opportunity to debate this issue over the past two nights. The proposals he has put forward on behalf of Fine Gael have led to an open and frank discussion throughout the country. Employers and workers have serious problems. The social welfare system and low paid jobs cannot go hand in hand unless there is a change in taxation. There are 3,000 people in County Monaghan on the live register. Yet almost every company or business has difficulty finding employees because of the high level of taxation imposed on those in lower paid jobs. One has to ensure that those on low and middle incomes are removed from the tax net as far as possible.
The low turnout in the recent by-election can be clearly seen as a result of problems associated with tax. There have been promises in past budgets that many people will be better off following their implementation. However, people find that when they get a slight increase in wages they enter a higher tax bracket and are very little better off. Century Homes in my constituency is an example of an enterprise which has a factory floor awaiting employees. It has had to move to Longford because of the difficulty in getting employees, a very sad and serious situation. Other businesses are seeking employees far afield.
I support the proposals put forward by Deputy Noonan, not just because he is Fine Gael's spokesperson on finance, but because they are real and give people an opportunity to opt for work rather than social welfare.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be aware of another group which is outside the gates of Leinster House tonight which would love to have tax to pay. It is important the Minister for Finance finds the few pounds necessary to help the pig farmers who have suffered as a result of a fire, a calamity outside their control. It has put many of them out of business. Contrary to what the Minister, Deputy Walsh, said in last week's Irish Farmer's Journal, it is not two farmers who have gone out of business in the Border region but dozens. More will follow if the necessary £4.8 million is not found quickly.
It is important to ask the Minister to act now. The Minister of State, who is a pig farmer in his own right, met farmers' representatives today and failed to give them any encouragement or commitment. The Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development must get together and solve this problem once and for all. If that once-off payment were made, these farmers could be in the tax net next year.
I support this motion which calls on the Government to be aware of the increasing labour shortage in the economy, be conscious of the deterioration in industrial relations in the public sector and support the negotiation of another partnership agreement. The most important element in the motion, however, is the call for the introduction of a new middle rate of income tax at 35 per cent which would apply to incomes ranging from £17,500 to £50,000 for a single person and from £35,000 to £100,000 for married people.
There is a growing need for the introduction of a three tier system of income tax. The poorest sector of the community is the middle income group. They are being bled white by the amount of income tax taken from them each week. It is a necessity for a young married couple to have two incomes to repay the colossal mortgage they are obliged to incur to purchase a home if they wish to settle down and rear a family. The Minister for Finance would be wise to accept this motion, particularly the introduction of a third tax rate. It is virtually guaranteed that we will not have to wait long for the mortgage rates to start increasing. When that happens, the people on middle incomes will be in serious trouble.
The underprivileged section of the community is also feeling the pinch. Take as an example the old age pensioners living in rural areas. They do not have free transport like their urban counter parts. There is no such thing as a bus service to collect people in outlying rural areas. What good is that to the pensioners and other people who are entitled to free travel? What use is it if they live 20 miles away from a bus route and might only see the doors of a bus once or twice a year? These people are neglected. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, to urge the Minister for Finance to give favourable consideration to promoting a system of transport to aid these forgotten people. They must hire a taxi to go to mass on Sunday. These old age pensioners, many of them disabled, should be looked after.
The winter fuel scheme provides them with only £5 per week. That sum would not buy a bucket of coal, and heat is a most important commodity for elderly people. I urge the Minister to at least double that amount to £10 per week in the forthcoming budget.
It is well known that farmers' incomes have dwindled. I challenge the Minister to call to the local mart in his constituency and see cattle of 500kg being sold for £450. A calf made that price three years ago. No wonder the farmers are parading outside Leinster House. In the past two years sheep farmers would not be given £1 for a mountain ewe in a fair in any part of west Cork or south Kerry. Then we are told about the massive influx of money and what the Celtic tiger is doing for the economy. The Celtic tiger is invisible in rural Ireland.
I ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister for Finance the necessity to give small farmers a decent measure of relief. They were offered the farm assist scheme this year. The farmers who were in receipt of unemployment assistance were told to reapply as they would be entitled to more. Instead, their unemployment assistance was cut off because the social welfare officers took potential sales into consideration. Live horse and one will get grass. The Minister is applying a penal system to assess farm incomes. The potential sales might never accrue. Many of the cattle and sheep could die during a bad winter so why assess them as potential sales? Why not assess the sales they have in the relevant year? Common sense should prevail.
I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, will influence the Minister for Finance to at least give recognition to the fact that life is extremely bleak in rural Ireland.
Mr. Coveney
I congratulate Deputy Noonan on bringing this matter before the House. The Minister for Finance will announce the budget in a few weeks and, in broad economic terms, it must deal with two important issues. First, it must ensure continued and stable growth in the economy and, second, it must address the growing divide between rich and poor which is the result of our prosperity.
Many of the financial control mechanisms which the Government had at its disposal in previous years are no longer available because those decisions are made at European level. However, the Government still has control of income tax, its most important weapon in formulating the budget. I am proud that Fine Gael is leading the way in the debate on income tax reform, with new and imaginative proposals that are tailor made for modern Ireland and the challenges it faces. I hope the Government is not too proud to take on board our policies on tax reform because they make sense.
We propose that people who earn less than £170 per week should not have to pay income tax. This will ensure that when the minimum wage is introduced next year a person on that wage will not pay income tax. This step would ensure a move from the mentality of social welfare reliance that some people still have to a desire for employment. A simple increase in take home pay would mean such a move would be financially beneficial and it would make sense to work rather than draw the dole.
Consistent with Fine Gael proposals last year, we want the standard rate of tax band widened from £14,100 to £17,500 for a single person and double that amount for a married couple. As a result, people earning an average wage or a little more would be taxed at only the standard rate. That would remove 186,000 taxpayers from paying the higher tax rate and ensure 70 per cent of workers would be taxed at the standard rate.
The most radical reform in our proposals is perhaps the introduction of a new 35 per cent tax band for incomes between £17,500 and £50,000 for a single person and double that amount for a married couple. This would eliminate the major jump in income tax rates for middle income earners who start to make a little more money. Only the top 5 per cent of earners – the very wealthy – would pay tax at the higher tax rate of 46 per cent.
These proposals, if implemented, would attract home many young and middle aged Irish people who went abroad for economic and social reasons, and it would make financial sense for them to come home. Our economy needs them. A major threat to the growth of many small and medium sized businesses is the lack of availability of skilled and unskilled labour. We want to create a taxation policy that focuses not only on the needs of the majority of taxpayers, both employers and employees, and ensures sustainable growth for our economy, but which also deals with social injustice and poverty. The best way to tackle poverty and social division is to attempt to create full employment by giving people every feasible financial incentive to work. Fine Gael tax proposals attempt to achieve that.
A total of 160,000 small firms currently operate in our economy, but only 4 per cent of those firms employ more than 50 people and the average number employed in them is 13. The higher tax rate of 46 per cent must be reduced. I compliment Deputy Noonan on tabling this imaginative motion. It provides some encouragement to business at a time when employers find it difficult to retain staff. In a high skills and high earning economy such as ours, incentives must be provided to ensure that our skills base is maintained. A tax rate of 46 per cent in tandem with employers' PRSI, as introduced in last year's budget, is, effectively, a tax on skills and must be alleviated. A major part of the problem is the vast difference between people's gross and net salaries. I welcome the proposal to introduce a minimum wage, but given that almost half of what most people earn is taken back in taxation, major tax reform is required.
Jobs created in the service industry must be decentralised. Well serviced supertowns with independent infrastructure would provide suitable alternative locations for many small businesses. The Government must give a firm commitment to such a policy and must invest in it. It must be seen to lead by example by the further decentralisation of Government Departments and State agencies. Employers find it difficult to retain staff and the lack of child care facilities also poses a major problem in this regard.
In speaking on this motion I will not join in any simplistic chorus, which calls for giveaway tax cuts. What we need is taxation justice, not taxation reduction.
After a very disappointing first budget from the Government, there was some progress in the 1999 budget towards taking the lower paid out of the tax net, but much more needs to be done. The gap between the higher and the lower income groups has widened. It is essential that two measures are undertaken by the Government in the forthcoming budget, first, a measure to increase significantly the level of income at which people enter the tax net and, second, a measure to introduce a minimum wage at the rate of £5 per hour with a firm commitment to increase this very modest rate in due course.
I am totally opposed to the continuing cuts in corporation tax being made by the Government. It is squandering revenue, which is vital for our health and education services. The Government is throwing away a rich funding vein for our health care and education needs.
Instead of tax cuts, we must have more of our revenue take spent on redressing the economic imbalance within and between the regions in this State. The Border counties still lag far behind the rest of the economy in real terms. We, in the Border region, continue to suffer the legacy of partition and years of neglect by successive Governments.
I advocate progressive taxation, which will harness the unprecedented revenue available to the Government, so we can provide the services for which citizens are glad to see their tax money used. Housing, health care, roads, public transport and education are all vital needs. Targeted public spending can provide real improvements in these services and in the quality of life gener ally. Tax cuts, on the other hand, will lead to spiralling personal spending on consumables in the main.
Special taxation measures are needed to tackle the housing crisis. I advocate an increase in capital gains tax on property speculators. An increase in taxation on speculative house purchasers should be introduced. I support the Labour Party amendment.
Yesterday, my colleague, the Minister for Finance, welcomed the opportunity for a debate on taxation policy facilitated by this Private Members' motion. Over the past two nights, speakers have identified many of the main challenges – emerging labour shortages, difficulties with child care, problems in the housing market – which face this country as we approach the new millennium, and their vision of the role taxation measures can play in confronting these challenges.
The Minister proposed an amended motion and I urge Members to support it for a number of reasons. Members will recognise that major steps have been taken by the Government to date to secure and build on our economic achievements. The Government's vision of how this success can be built on into the future involves strategic investment in key areas of physical, economic and social infrastructure, renewal of social partnership to maintain and improve our competitiveness and achieve fair distribution of the fruits of our economic growth, prudent management of the public finances, including taking into account the longer term challenges such as changing demographics and further reform of the tax system to support these objectives.
These objectives will be addressed through a coherent set of strategies over the next three years of this Government encompassed by the Government's new Action Plan for the Millennium published last week; the national development plan, which will be published next week, and, we hope, the outcome of the new partnership negotiations, which were opened yesterday by the Taoiseach. The next three budgets of the Government will be prepared within this overall strategic framework.
Deputies will appreciate that I cannot outline here the measures the forthcoming budget will contain. However, I assure the House that the personal taxation measures are being carefully framed to continue on the programme of tax reform, which has been so successfully advanced in the last two budgets of this Government. It is worth reiterating the basic elements of our approach, removing low paid taxpayers from the tax net altogether, reducing current income tax rates, increasing the numbers of taxpayers on the standard rate and moving to a full tax credits system.
As far as the specifics of taxation measures are concerned, I welcome the exchange that has taken place during this debate. There is a measure of agreement about the priority issues for personal taxation and there is some shared vision about the goals for tax reform, such as continuing to remove lower income taxpayers form the tax net and widening the standard rate bank to increase the entry point to the higher 46 per cent rate.
While the overall thrust of the package proposed by Deputy Noonan is not totally out of line with the Government's tax reform programme, the emphasis and balance of different measures will vary. As was said last night, we do not see the need for a new 35 per cent intermediate rate proposed, as a new and more complicated rate structure is not needed to achieve our objectives of tax reform and lower tax for all taxpayers. I question the focus of the Fine Gael income tax proposal that would target a large element of the budget tax packages on higher earners. Similarly, the proposal from Deputy McDowell to widen the standard band by more than 40 per cent would not do anything for those on income levels below the top of the standard band, single people earning less than £14,000 per annum and married couples earning less than £28,000 per annum.
As regards the amendment proposed by Deputy McDowell, and in particular his call on the Government to abandon its 4 per cent ceiling on public expenditure increases, the Government does not intend to pursue such a course. We will not jeopardise the success which has been achieved through the efforts and sacrifices over more difficult years through a short-term and short-sighted approach to public spending. We will continue our prudent management of resources so that we meet clear and necessary public spending needs and plan for the longer term costs, such as those associated with the ageing of our population.
Deputies spoke at length last night about how budgetary measures should be designed to help the labour market and to ease child care difficulties. These are important issues which will be addressed in the budget. Deputies spoke less about increasing equity in the tax system which was such a fundamental part of last year's budget. This was the radical change in our personal taxation system with the beginning of the move to a tax credits system through the standard rating of the basic personal allowances. The basic philosophy of this move is that tax credits mean, for a given Exchequer cost, that more resources are devoted to those on lower incomes. Tax credits will herald a major sea change in attitudes to welfare and work for many and an unquestionable improvement in the incentive to work. We will announce our timescale for moving to a full tax credits system on budget day.
Three weeks from today the Minister for Finance will outline the details of the Government's tax package. This will set out the measures to continue our ambitious programme of tax reform so that the fruits of our economic success are shared by all, our taxation system supports the continued development of our country and the needs of the less advantaged members of our society are addressed. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask Deputies to support the amendment proposed by the Minister for Finance.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Timmins, Neville, Gay Mitchell and Noonan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this motion and I commend Deputy Noonan for tabling it.
The motion proposes to eliminate from the tax net all PAYE workers earning less than £150 per week, to extend the standard tax band rate to remove 160,000 workers from the top rate of tax and to create a new 35 per cent rate for all workers other than the top 5 per cent of earners. These welcome measures are long overdue. If implemented, they would make it more attractive for people on low incomes to work and to contribute to the economy. It is also a family friendly package. In the past our high tax rates caused many young professional people and skilled workers to leave Ireland at a great loss to our workforce and to our economy and its potential growth.
It is a disgrace, given our current wealth, that there is a shortfall in the number of services for our most vulnerable citizens. On behalf of all people and groups representing the sensory and physical disability sector, I ask the Minister to allow tax relief on personal donations to domestic charities and to allow them to reclaim VAT. This would mean that vital funding would be freed up which would have a great impact on the most needy in our society.
I ask the Minister to include the middle Shannon area in the rural tax renewal designation pilot scheme. An area from Ballinasloe to Portumna and across to the Clare border is caught in a no man's land between the Shannon free tax zone and the upper Shannon incentives area. I ask the Minister to level the playing pitch for those who cannot attract investment into this area.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I congratulate Deputy Noonan on tabling this motion.
This Government has singularly failed to deal with the child care crisis. Ireland is the only country in the EU with such a crisis. Steps must be taken to supply well managed, regulated and affordable child care facilities. Tinkering with the issue will not be enough. If an earthquake hit this country, money would be found to deal with the problems that would follow. Money must now be found to rectify this child care problem.
In 1998 there were 146,000 children in paid child care, of which 58 per cent were of working mothers. We must urgently provide child care for these children up to five years of age. Minders are more popular for children from five to nine years of age. There were 860,000 children under 14 years of age in the State in 1996. There will be little change in the total number of child care places in the medium term. In 1996 the female labour force was 589,000. It is predicted that by 2011 there will be 807,000 females at work. This will significantly increase the demand for more child care places. It is predicted that the minimum increase will be 40,000 extra places, or 25 per cent of an increase, while the maximum increase will be 75,000 extra places, which is more than 50 per cent of an increase.
Employment has increased, particularly for female workers. This has contributed significantly to the continuing success of our economy and our economic growth. With more people employed, there are fewer people able to stay at home with their children. The cost of living, particularly that of providing a home, gives young couples no choice, yet some are forced to discontinue working or to provide inadequate child care. The child must be central to any decision. If parents are forced to accept inadequate child care, it will have severe negative effects on the development of the child.
The Government must take action. New guidelines specifically state that an affordable, accessible and high quality care service for children and for their dependants must be provided. The Government must introduce an employment action plan to recognise the crucial role parents play in ensuring that every opportunity is given to their children to have a safe, secure and loving environment in the most formative years of their lives. The plan should facilitate choice and combine parenting and work in the paid economy. This would help to recognise the crucial role both parents play in the formative years of their children's lives. The plan must include the development of a child care strategy, promote flexibility in the work organisation and provide affordable and targeted child care.
The cost of care is prohibitive. Depending on the area of the country, the cost of child care is between £44 and £71 per week per child. This is the highest cost in Europe and is equal to 20 per cent of the average earnings. What chance does a young student mother, a lone parent, an unemployed person or a low income family have if such charges must be paid? Child benefit for children under the age of five must be increased to at least £25 per week. In Norway payments of £400 to £500 per month are paid for each child under five years of age.
There is a crisis in the supply side. The Minister must introduce capital grants and capitation payments to providers to enable them to increase the quality and quantity of child care and pre-school facilities. There is a crisis in training child care workers. The Government must introduce incentives for training child care staff to promote quality employment opportunities in the sector and it must provide funding for local measures to develop after school and child care networks, D510–C4
particularly in disadvantaged communities, using existing infrastructures wherever possible. It must introduce new planning regulations to facilitate the provision of child care services close to local communities.
This is a timely motion and its importance can be gauged by the number of speakers wishing to contribute to the debate. I congratulate Deputy Noonan on bringing it forward. He has produced a very imaginative and realistic tax plan. Despite the early efforts to discredit it from the Government side and from the less enlightened sections of the Opposition it has stood the test of scrutiny and following detailed examination has been welcomed in many quarters.
Last night the Minister outlined some of the reasons for the recent success of our economy and spoke about the decisions taken in the area of education. I have encountered many families who cannot afford to send their children to third level institutions because they are not in receipt of the education grant. In many instances these people are in good public service jobs but they represent the new poor. I hope the Minister will make provision to raise the income level for eligibility for this grant.
Approximately 117,000 people receive widows and orphans contributory and non-contributory pensions which range from £73.50 to £82.10 per week. I hope these people can be given a meaningful increase in their pensions. I realise it is easy to look for payments but these and other such cases should be addressed even if we have to wait for tax cuts, particularly at the upper end of the scale. In last year's budget the Minister improved the position of carers at an annual cost of £18 million. I look forward to an improvement on this in the coming weeks as this area should be addressed.
I congratulate the Minister for Finance on proposing the concept of town renewal and I ask the officials of the Department of Finance – I know that the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works finds it difficult to communicate with the Minister for Finance – to relay to the Minister the idea of including smaller villages in this scheme. One or two villages in a province or county could be chosen for special tax relief. I am thinking in particular of Ballyknockan in County Wicklow which could be a wonderful granite theme village if it were granted the appropriate tax incentive.
I join other Deputies in congratulating Deputy Noonan on the thought he has given to the question of tax, including income tax and capital acquisitions tax. The proposals he has put forward regarding capital acquisitions tax which affects brothers and sisters, particularly in Dublin where residential property values have got out of hand, are equitable and fair and should be implemented by the Government.
Twenty eight per cent of children in Ireland are born outside wedlock. The way in which the income tax and social welfare systems interacts creates an incentive for some fathers not to take seriously their responsibilities to their children or to the mothers of their children. We now have the phenomenon of serial fathers who do not take seriously their responsibilities to any of their children, often by more than one mother. It is time the income tax and social welfare systems, in an integrated way, looked at how we can redress this and support families. We must take a broad view of what constitutes a family. I do not simply mean a husband and wife and children because we must take account of the many instances where marriages have broken down. However we do so, we must support families because we have created a trap which gives an incentive to some fathers to walk away and leave the taxpayers to pay the cost and these taxpayers are the fathers and mothers who are paying their way.
I thank those who contributed to this debate. It is clear that the Fine Gael party sees taxation policy, not only as an instrument of social policy but of economic policy. The main policy question facing Government is how to sustain growth in the economy. The issue is sustainable growth and all policy must be measured by its contribution to that objective. Income tax policy can be used to sustain growth in our economy in circumstances where the biggest threat to growth is the shortage of workers in all sectors of the economy.
I am glad I brought the Fine Gael tax policy before the House because this debate has illustrated the differences in our approaches. Fianna Fáil, over two years, were induced by us to put the major resources at their disposal into taking people out of the tax net and into reducing tax for the lower paid. We won that argument but the debate must go on and we ask the Government to adopt other aspects of our policy. Not only do we need a more equitable tax system and one which allows people to perceive that they are sharing in the benefits of the Celtic tiger but we must have a tax system which acts as an instrument of policy and puts people back to work. We want everyone with an income up to the minimum wage taken out of the tax net by removing the first £170 of weekly income from the tax net completely. We want an extension of the standard rate band. Other parties have committed themselves to policies along the lines of these two elements. We want a major shift from the top rate by the introduction of a new rate of 35 per cent, principally to attract extra spouses back into the work force and also so that some of the 190,000 young Irish who have expressed a wish to come home and work in Ireland will not be inhibited from doing so by a marginal rate of tax which is far too high. The Government will not achieve the objective I have in mind if it simply tinkers around with dropping a point or two from the 46 per cent rate. The real marginal rate of tax for people who earn between £14,100 and £25,000 is 52.3 per cent. That is not sustainable. People will not return to the country with that level of taxation and the problem will not be cured by taking a couple of points off the 46 per cent rate.
The Minister objected to the 35 per cent rate on the grounds that it would be too compllicated. Sometimes I believe the Minister does not understand the magnitude of the change to tax credits. This is no wonder because he never believed in tax credits and this is another policy he stole from elsewhere. Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have advocated this policy for many years and it was forced on the Minister in the ten days before the last budget. Now that we are moving to tax credits, the difficulties which would have arisen by applying an additional table allowance at the 35 per cent rate is gone. There is now not any complication in introducing a third rate and it can be strictly applied.
I was disappointed by Deputy McDowell's comments last night. He accused Fine Gael of populism, of writing an imaginary cheque to its target voters and he said this was a temptation we should resist at this time. I remember studying Sheehan's Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine when I was in school and we learned of the eight proofs of the existence of God. The contrast between Deputy McDowell's statement and the Labour Party motion is an absolute proof of the existence of the devil. No sooner had Deputy McDowell lectured us in this Jansenistic fashion than he went on to make a proposal whose total cost would be £2.5 billion compared with the Fine Gael tax proposal which would cost £2 billion. He then committed the Labour Party to spending all surpluses on expenditure measures, tossing another £1.8 billion into the equation, and came up with a figure of commitments to expenditure either in tax reliefs or services of nearly £4.5 billion and then Deputy McDowell lectures me on giving in to temptation.
It depends on how you give in to the temptation.
Deputy McDowell must have been taken to a high mountain and shown the wonders of the world.
There is commonality between our approach and that of the Labour Party. We want to take a huge number of people out of the tax net completely by not taxing the minimum wage and we certainly want to extend the standard rate band so that the incidence of high taxation does not fall on those on middle income.
Tomorrow's Book of Estimates will show that Deputy McDowell will get his wish. The Minister never stuck to 4 per cent. He always comes in with increases in expenditure between 7.5 and 8.5 per cent in real terms. At the end of next year's exercise I doubt if the outturn will be any less than an increase in expenditure of between 8 and 9 per cent.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gregory, Tony. |
Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Sheehan.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan. |
Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Sheehan.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.