Financial Resolution No. 10: Stamp Duties.
(1) THAT in this Resolution—
"Principal Act" means the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999 (No. 31 of 1999);
"assessable amount", "premiums" and "insurer", in paragraph (2)(a) of this Resolution, have, respectively, the meanings assigned to them in section 125(1) of the Principal Act;
"assessable amount", "premiums" and "insurer", in paragraph (2)(b) of this Resolution, have, respectively, the meanings assigned to them in section 124B(1) (inserted by paragraph (3)(b) of this Resolution).
(2) THAT this Resolution shall have effect—
(a) in relation to paragraph (3)(a) of this Resolution, as respects so much of the assessable amount as is comprised of premiums received on or after 1 June 2009 in respect of offers of insurance or notices of renewal of insurance issued by an insurer on or after 8 April 2009, and
(b) in relation to paragraph (3)(b) of this Resolution, as respects so much of the assessable amount as is comprised of premiums received on or after 1 June 2009 in respect of contracts of insurance whensoever entered into by an insurer
(3) THAT Part 9 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in section 125(3) by substituting "3 per cent" for "2 per cent",
(b) by inserting the following after section 124A:
"Certain premiums of life assurance.
124B.— (1) In this section—
‘assessable amount', in relation to a quarter, means the gross amount received by an insurer by means of premiums in that quarter for policies of insurance referred to in classes I, II, III, IV, V and VI of Annex I to the Directive, to the extent that the risks to which those policies of insurance relate are located in the State (being risks deemed to be located in the State by virtue of section 61);
‘Directive' means Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance;
‘due date' means, in respect of a quarter ended on—
(a) 31 March, 30 April in the same year,
(b) 30 June, 31 July in the same year,
(c) 30 September, 31 October in the same year, and
(d) 31 December, 31 January in the following year;
‘insurer' means—
(a) a person who is the holder of an assurance licence under the Insurance Act 1936,
(b) the holder of an authorisation within the meaning of the European Communities (Life Assurance) Framework Regulations 1994 (S.I. No. 360 of 1994), or
(c) the holder of an official authorisation to undertake insurance in Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway, pursuant to the EEA Agreement within the meaning of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, who is carrying on the business of life assurance in the State;
‘life assurance' means insurance of a class referred to in Annex I to the Directive; ‘premium' has the same meaning as in the Insurance Act 1936;
‘quarter' means a period of 3 months ending on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September or 31 December.
(2) An insurer shall, in each year, not later than the due date for the quarter concerned, commencing with the quarter ending on 30 June 2009, deliver to the Commissioners a statement in writing showing the assessable amount for the insurer in respect of that quarter.
(3) There shall be charged on every statement delivered in pursuance of subsection (2) a stamp duty of an amount equal to 1 per cent of the assessable amount shown in the statement.
(4) The duty charged by subsection (3) on a statement delivered by an insurer pursuant to subsection (2) shall be paid by the insurer on delivery of the statement.
(5) There shall be furnished to the Commissioners by an insurer such particulars as the Commissioners may deem necessary in relation to any statement required by this section to be delivered by the insurer.
(6) In the case of failure by an insurer—
(a) to deliver any statement required to be delivered by the insurer pursuant to subsection (2), or
(b) to pay the stamp duty chargeable on any such statement on delivery of the statement, the insurer shall—
(i) from that due date until the day on which the stamp duty is paid, be liable to pay, in addition to the stamp duty, interest on the stamp duty calculated in accordance with section 159D, and
(ii) from that due date, be liable to pay a penalty of €380 for each day the stamp duty remains unpaid.
(7) Where during any quarter but before the due date—
(a) an insurer ceases to carry on a business in the course of which the insurer is required to deliver a statement (in this subsection referred to as the ‘first-mentioned statement') pursuant to subsection (2) but has not done so before that cesser, and
(b) another person (in this subsection referred to as the ‘successor') acquires the whole, or substantially the whole, of the business, then—
(i) the insurer is not required to deliver the first-mentioned statement, and
(ii) the successor shall
(I) where the successor is, apart from this subsection, required to deliver a statement (in this subsection referred to as the ‘second-mentioned statement') pursuant to subsection (2) in respect of the same quarter but has not done so before that acquisition, include in that second-mentioned statement the assessable amount that would have been required to have been shown in the first-mentioned statement had the insurer not ceased to carry on the business concerned,
(II) where subparagraph (I) does not apply, deliver the first-mentioned statement as if the successor were the insurer.
(8) The delivery of any statement required by subsection (2) may be enforced by the Commissioners under section 47 of the Succession Duty Act 1853 in all respects as if such statement were such account as is mentioned in that section and the failure to deliver such statement were such default as is mentioned in that section.",
and
(c) in section 126B(1) by substituting the following for the definition of "specified section":
"‘specified section' means section 123, 123A, 123B, 123C, 124, 124A, 124B or 125.".
(4) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
Financial Resolution No. 5 decreases the three tax free CAT group thresholds applicable to gifts or inheritance taken on or after 8 April 2009 by 20%. These tax-free group thresholds, which are indexed each year in line with inflation, are based on the relationship between the disowner and the beneficiary of a gift or inheritance.
The new tax free thresholds will be €434,000 for group A, inheritance and gifts from parents to children, €43,400 for group B, which is inheritance and gifts between brothers and sisters, grandparents to grandchildren, uncles and aunts to nieces and nephews and €21,700 for group C, inheritance and gifts between all other persons. Deputies will note that the proposed new threshold amounts do not represent a precise 20% reduction. They have been rounded down to the advantage of beneficiaries. It is estimated that the additional yield arising from the budget proposal will be in the order of €15 million in 2009 and the full year yield is expected to be in the region of €18 million. The impact of the rate increases has to be considered in tandem with the proposed 20% decrease in the three tax free CAT thresholds.
In overall terms, the estimated yield from the rate increase and the threshold reduction is €16 million in 2009 and €24 million in a full year. Deputies should also note that the legislation does not contain the current tax free group threshold figures. Instead, it contains figures which were set in 1999, indexed to the CPI. In order to achieve the intended reduction in the tax free group thresholds, it is necessary to insert the figures shown in the resolution, into the legislation. In other words, when the current figure of €381,000 for the group A tax free threshold is replaced by €304,775 and is multiplied by the appropriate CPI factor, it gives us a new group A tax free threshold, which will be €434,000.
Financial Resolution No. 6 increases the rate of tax on gifts and inheritance, taken on or after 8 April 2009, from 22% to 25%. It is estimated that the additional yield from the budget proposal will be in the order of €15 million in 2009 and the full year yield is expected to be in the region of €18 million. The impact of the rate increase must be considered in tandem with the proposed 20% decrease in the three tax thresholds. In overall terms, the estimated yield from the rate increase and the threshold reduction is €31 million in 2009 and €42 million in a full year.
The receipt of a gift or inheritance can constitute an important benefit and a potential source of income for a beneficiary through the acquisition of assets such as property or money. As such, these individuals must be expected to contribute to the requirement to raise additional revenue for the Exchequer at a time of serious pressure on the public finances.
Financial Resolution No. 7 increases the rate of capital gains tax applicable to the disposal of other assets from 22% to 25%. It applies to disposals made on or after 8 April 2009. It is estimated that the additional yield arising from the budget proposal will be in the order of €30 million this year and the full year yield is expected to be in the region of €45 million. It will be appreciated that it is difficult to accurately determine the effects of a rate increase in Exchequer receipts because of declining asset valuations and a decrease in the number of transactions. There is a degree of confidence that the rate increase will not determine disposals, however. Capital gains on the disposal of an asset constitute an important source of income to the owners of these assets and as such these individuals must be expected to contribute to the requirement to raise additional revenue for the Exchequer at a time of serious pressures on the public finances.
The CGT rate increase of 3% to 25% is mirrored by the 3% raise in the CAT rate and a rise in DIRT by 2% from 23% to 25%. As a result a similar rate applies across the three taxation areas which cover sources of incomes based on assets and savings. This is part of the base broadening process which this Government started in budget 2009 when these rates were also increased. Change of this nature helps to ease the additional tax requirements on labour and consumption by increasing taxes on wealth and on sources of wealth.
Financial Resolution No. 8 gives statutory effect to the budget announcement that the rate of tax applying to life assurance policies and investment funds is being increased with effect from 8 April 2009. This amendment applies to the rate of exit taxes and domestic life assurance policies and investment undertakings under the gross roll-up regime introduced in the Finance Act 2000. It also increases the rates of tax that apply to profits and gains on life assurance policies and investment funds in other EU member states, EEA states and OECD countries with which Ireland has double taxation agreements. Under gross roll-up, investments may accumulate without the imposition of tax. However, an exit tax applies where a chargeable event occurs, such as receipt of payments from or the disposal of investments in the life policy or fund, or the ending of each eight year period following the acquisition of the policy or units in the fund.
There are varying rates of tax in these investments depending on the frequency of the payment to the investor and, in the case of the foreign investments, whether the income or gains are correctly included the investor's tax return. The rates are generally at the standard rate of income tax, currently 20%, plus 3% or at the standard rate plus 6%. As an anti-avoidance measure, where the investment is held in a personal portfolio investment undertaking or personal portfolio life policy, the tax rates applied are the standard rate plus an additional 26%. Similarly, where a payment is in receipt of a foreign life policy and is not correctly included in the investor's tax return, the rate of tax that applies is at the investor's marginal rate plus an additional 23%. Each of the above rates is being increased by 2%, which is expected to yield the Exchequer an additional €5 million in 2009 and €8 million in a full year. The combined projected additional yield from this measure and the 2% increase in deposit retention tax and tax on special savings accounts and special term accounts is expected to be €50 million in 2009 and €70 million in a full year.
Financial Resolution No. 9 gives legislative effect to the budget announcement that the rates of direct interest retention tax would be increased by 2% with effect from 8 April. The resolution amends section 256(1) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to give statutory effect to the new rates of DIRT applicable to deposits held in banks and other financial institutions. The changed rates are as follows: the general 23% rate which applies to deposit interest, including deposit interest arising on special savings accounts and special term accounts, has been increased to 25%; and the 26% rate is being increased to 28% in the case of interest which was not payable annually or at more frequent intervals and where the interest cannot be calculated until the maturity of the investment. This includes investments such as tracker bonds, where the amount of interest payable depends on the changes in a financial or other index or the number of years.
The resolution also amends section 267B of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to increase the 23% rate which applies to special share accounts and special term accounts held in credit unions to 25%. This measures is expected to yield the Exchequer €45 million in 2009 and €62 million in a full year. The combined projected yield from this measure and the increased exit tax on life assurance and investment funds is €50 million in 2009 and €70 million in a full year.
Financial Resolution No. 10 provides for an increase in the current 2% non-life levy by 1% to 3% and by a new 1% levy on life assurance policies. The non-life insurance levy, which has been in place for many years, does not apply to voluntary health insurance, reinsurance, marine, aviation and transport insurance, export credit insurance and certain dental contracts. The increase in the levy is unlikely to deter people from taking out insurance because it is a relatively small part of the cost of insurance. People are legally required to have certain types of insurance, for example, drivers are required to have motor insurance and mortgage lenders usually require borrowers to take out home insurance. It is important for people to take out home insurance and business property insurance to cover future unforeseen events. The increase in the non-life levy will apply to premiums received on or after 1 June 2009 in respect of offers of insurance or notice of renewal of insurance issued by an insurer on or after 8 April 2009. The new life levy will also apply to premiums received on or after 1 June 2009 in respect of life insurance policies. The new levy will be a very small part of the cost of life assurance, the purpose of which is to provide for expenses of future events. The yield from the measure in respect of the non-life levy is estimated at €40 million in a full year and €27 million in 2009, while the yield from the life levy is estimated at €114 million in a full year and €83 million in 2009.
The majority of these resolutions provide for increases in capital taxation. I share the view that capital taxes in Ireland should be considerably higher because it is wrong to tax income from work at such a high rate while taxing wealth not gained through work, such as inheritance or capital gains on property, at a lower rate. That is why I have no difficulty in seeking significant increases in capital taxes provided that they form part of a wider package involving reduced taxes on income.
These resolutions, however, merely comprise yet another major tax grab by the Fianna Fáil led Government. Death and gift taxes are being increased, as are taxes on life assurance and savings. These come on top of the horrendous increases in tax on work through PRSI increases, the Lenihan levy, the health levy, excise increases and the previous budget's increases on VAT and taxes on second homes and parking spaces. The Minister for Finance has indicated his intention to tax children and homes in the next budget. I have not even mentioned the travel tax on those flying to this country. The Government's entire economic and budgetary strategy appears to be tax and more tax. My party opposes this view because we do not think one can tax one's way out of recession. A much more sophisticated approach is required. First, one needs to control spending. The adjustment should come two thirds from spending and one third from tax increases. Some measures also need to be included which will stimulate demand and employment. We have put those views across for reducing both VAT rates, abolishing the travel tax, and bringing the pension fund back home to invest in infrastructure and new State enterprises. The Government's strategy, however, is just about tax.
What really defines this budget and the entire policy is subhead C15 which refers to gross current expenditure at €62.4 billion this year, €64.5 billion in 2010, €65.4 billion in 2011, €67.4 billion in 2012, and €68.9 billion in 2013. It is spend, spend, spend and when the Government has finished doing that, let us spend some more. How will the Government manage that? It will hit people on tax. Tax revenue will be €34.4 billion this year, €35.3 billion in 2010, €38.9 billion in 2011, €41.3 billion in 2012 and €43.73 billion in 2013. This is the budget that Fidel Castro or Kim Il Sung would have eaten their hearts out for. These are the pure tax-and-spend, old-fashioned policies of the early 1980s, the kind of failed policies that ended up with a national debt of 120% of our gross domestic product, unemployment of 20% and a recession-depression for the best part of a decade. That is where the Government is going.
We have learned nothing from our economic history in this State if we think this kind of approach will work. It will not work because the Government will not get the returns from tax increases that it expects. It will find out that these attempts to tax everything that is not already taxed while taxing everything else more will not bring increased revenues. It will drive money out of the country and drive people out of jobs. The Government will have to come back here either in three or six months' time with a new budget that involves some of the measures that are necessary, including reduced spending. One cannot increase spending from €46.3 billion to €54.5 billion in five years. The Government has already spent too much. We already spend 48% of our gross national product, our national income, on public spending. It will be well over 50% within two years, so the Government cannot go on like this.
Tax and spend is not the solution. That is my argument in a nutshell when it comes to these particular issues. We will certainly be voting against this. I could countenance increases in capital taxes if they were part of a process that involved reducing taxes at work but certainly not in this scenario. This policy will lead us to ruin. It is back to the 1980s.
It is extraordinary that this is the Government's economic policy. I cannot believe it. We will be back here very soon.
The batch of financial resolutions before us covers quite a wide range. If taxes on income are to increase — and they clearly are in this budget in the form of the increased income levy and changes in PRSI — then there is a consistent logic in applying similar increases at least to capital taxes. On the issue of capital acquisitions tax, I understand why and I agree that in times when property values are falling the threshold for capital acquisitions tax should also be reduced. I have some difficulty however in following the logic of what is being done here. The Tánaiste took us through the reductions which are being made and then took us through the upward adjustments that are then being made on that figure in line with indexation. I am not entirely clear how that indexation works, so she might return to it in her reply.
The Labour Party does not have any difficulty with the increase in the rate of capital acquisitions tax from 22% to 25%. I suppose the same logic applies to capital gains tax, although I am surprised at the yield the Tánaiste suggested would arise from that increase. Given the extent to which capital gains are not being made at the moment and also the likely impact on transactions, the estimated yield is probably on the optimistic side.
I note the Tánaiste said there was a policy to have a consistent level of capital taxes at 25% in the context of the Government's policy to widen the tax base. When he was presenting the budget, the Minister for Finance indicated that it was intended to introduce a property tax, probably in the next budget but certainly in a future budget. From what the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance have said, can we anticipate that the level of a property tax will also be at 25% whenever it is introduced?
I do not agree with the proposed increase in DIRT, which is a tax on people's savings. In this context, we are talking about people, many of whom have worked hard all their lives and have paid their taxes. The savings which attract DIRT are after-tax income. Many pensioners have seen the value of their private pensions decline. People were advised in pre-retirement courses to take out shares in banks, but have seen the value of those declining. This is a further tax on pensioners who have lost their entitlement to the medical card and may have some small savings on deposit. It is not something with which I can agree.
As I understand the stamp duty changes in financial resolution No. 10, the effect of the proposed increases is that the levy on life insurance will increase. In addition, the levy on mortgage insurance will increase, which will drive up the mortgage bill. Mortgage holders who have been benefiting from a reduction in mortgages, which is welcome, will find themselves facing a double whammy on their mortgages as a result of this budget. They will lose their mortgage interest relief and the insurance portion of the mortgage will be increased. Similarly, this resolution will also increase the cost of motor insurance, which comes on top of an increase in the price of diesel, thus hitting people whose pay packets are already being hit. When one adds up all the different hits on a person at work, they include the cost of travelling to work, the loss of the early childhood supplement, a large reduction in income as a result of levies, the loss of mortgage interest relief, an increase in mortgage insurance, and increased diesel and motor insurance costs. The Labour Party agrees with some of the proposals contained in this batch of financial resolutions, such as the change in the capital acquisitions tax threshold and the rate of capital taxation, but other measures are unfairly impacting on people.
I wish to make a final comment in respect of what Deputy Varadkar said and I understand the point he is making. The Government envisages that tax revenues in 2013 will be €43.7 billion. If our economy is in such a state that it will only produce tax revenues of €43.7 billion by 2013, we have a much greater problem than we believe. The Government has argued that as a result of what it is doing, it will restore order to the public finances, the economy will recover and people will presumably return to work and start spending again. We have had a large decrease in our tax revenue not because of our tax rates but because people are losing their jobs and fewer people are paying income tax. As a result of job losses and concerns about the future, people are not spending as they did previously and there has been a significant decrease in revenues from expenditure taxes. We also know what has happened to the property market, with the consequential decline in taxes from transactions.
If there is not a bigger recovery in tax revenues by 2013 than the €9 billion provided for in the projections, the budget will not have been a road map to recovery but, at best, a "business as business is" in 2009 and we are in for a much grimmer period economically than the Government has suggested might be the case. The Labour Party certainly hopes for and wants an economic recovery such that as a result either of increased domestic economic activity and, hopefully, an upturn in the global economy, tax revenues — by virtue of buoyancy and the activity that will take place in the economy — will have improved much more substantially than projected in the Government's figures.
The Tánaiste is faced with a diversity of opinion on this side of the House. I have no problem with the change in capital acquisitions tax and not much difficulty with the change in capital gains tax. However, I have a major problem with the introduction of a levy on life assurance policies and the increase in the levy on non-life assurance policies. The vast majority of those fortunate enough to be able to take out a mortgage from a financial institution are required, upon doing so, to take out a life assurance policy. As part of the deal, it is unavoidable. Such people already face a problem arising from the decision in the budget to slash mortgage interest relief after seven years. As a result of the economic downturn they are in substantial difficulty. The ordinary person in the street will be forced to dip even deeper into their pockets to meet the cost of the new levy and the increase in levy on non-life assurance. I have a major problem with this measure because it is grossly unfair to catch people in this manner.
The Tánaiste travels around the country as much or more than any Member of the House and will be aware that people are in serious trouble. This is not a cliché but a statement of fact. We know the overwhelming majority of people with mortgages, most of which are substantial coming off the back of the boom, are genuinely struggling. As with many other aspects of the budget, the Government's strategy, in introducing this measure, was to take a short-sighted, individualistic and blinkered option. It chose to grab €140 million from people who, if they are lucky enough to get mortgages, will have to pay a substantial amount. This is an unfortunate decision, particularly when measured against the broad range of tax measures.
On the one hand, one has the ordinary Joe and Josephine soap who have to dig deep to pay for life insurance, while on the other end of the income scale we have people who can employ tax consultants to provide the best of advice — in their terms — to enable their clients to get off very lightly. The position is grossly unfair. The Government's stab in the dark, as it were, in raiding a particular pocket was extremely short-sighted. The budget did not contain any strategic long-term measures.
I do not have a problem with the increase in DIRT tax which probably does not go far enough. Deputy Varadkar argued that Government policy was one of tax and spend. The Budget Statement indicates that savings in transport will amount to €300 million, including a reduction of €150 million or 8% in investment in roads.
The Deputy is referring to capital investment, which I accept will be cut.
That is fair enough but we must examine what the Government is doing on the expenditure side because the cutbacks are scary.
The centrepiece of this budget should have been job retention and job creation. Deputy Gilmore and I both made the point that the revenue stream will not improve unless we maintain existing jobs and create new jobs to cater for the 370,000 people on the live register. As ever more people join the dole queues, the drain on revenue through unemployment benefits and welfare payments becomes larger. This is the element of the budget that disappoints me most. I do not say this to make a party political point but because I genuinely believe the jobs issue needs to be tackled most. While we can argue about the other issues, the crisis will not begin to bottom out until such time as the issues of job retention and job creation are addressed.
It is probably appropriate in the discussion on this group of proposals to say something about wealth and I am encouraged to do so by the Tánaiste. The first thing that strikes one when one looks at the yield across the ten measures is the relatively low figure they produce when aggregated. In assessing the budget one should contrast each one of these low figures with the high yield figures arising from the cuts and the implications on the other side of the budget speech.
I ask the Tánaiste to respond to one or two points I will make. Will she explain the reason there is such antipathy to the study of wealth in the Department of Finance and other Departments? I tabled a question to the Minister for Finance recently asking how many studies had been carried out in the past ten years on the transfer pattern and accretion of wealth. The answer, when one deconstructs it, was that hardly any studies had been done on wealth. The reason I asked the question is that most of the commentary in the financial press in the run in to the budget concentrated on the balance between, on the one hand, what would be its impact on income and what needed to be done by way of raising tax and, on the other, what cuts in expenditure should be made, with considerable emphasis on the high proportion of expenditure on the social welfare budget. There was, however, almost a deadly silence about wealth and what took place during what is described as the Celtic tiger. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, travels the world talking about how he built the Celtic tiger.
It is very interesting to note what has happened to the wealth accumulated during the Celtic tiger. I throw in, as a casual comment, a statement of the obvious, namely, that property values have fallen. Nevertheless, property values increased dramatically as a result of the disgraceful decisions taken by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, when he was a Member of the House. For example, I saw a figure on what happened when capital gains tax was reduced. A great deal of the money went into property straight away. In 1981, for example, housing related property was valued at €39 billion whereas this figure had increased to €553 billion in 2006. Perhaps that is irrelevant to many people. What was happening in between with that money?
I will, on another occasion, go into the implications of claiming to have a successful economy. Today ours is referred to by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan as one of the best in the world in the final paragraph of his speech. In fact, there was high growth rate and exports had flattened out. Why was the Government doing that? It was because it was revaluing the property base of the economy. This was preceded by a whole series of transactions from which people made an enormous amount of money. I understand one of the reports of the Revenue Commissioners suggests the cost from 1999 to 2006 of urban renewal was some €1.423 billion. Where is there a single line in this budget that suggests there is any clawback by way of capital regained from the people who benefited from that?
In 2003 three of the top 400 earners had reduced their effective tax to zero and 48 others had kept their tax liability under 5%. Has the Government gone after any of these people? Building car parks, spas and so forth were the top choices of such people who referred to "effective tax" and were advised by people on tax avoidance. A total of 86% of the people who benefited from that policy earned more than €200,000. I fire these figures in to show it is not a case of "we" lived beyond our means and suddenly have to reduce our income, as the Minister for Finance said, to 2007, 2005 or 2003 levels.
Some people did awfully well. I would be less than honest if I did not say the Tánaiste's party knew many of them very well. She knew the people who benefited from urban renewal.
I thought the Deputy's party were champagne socialists.
I will be very direct about it, in so far as she encourages me to be. The banking element of the budget follows the consequences of the speculative economy abroad to the four winds to try to suggest we, as taxpayers, must recover stability in a banking system which was ransacked by people who behaved disgracefully.
Let us be clear about why we are raising all of this. What does it cost per day to run the country? It costs some €55 million. We borrow a significant proportion of that and pay two or three points over the borrowing rate because of Mr. FitzPatrick and his little toxic clique. The Tánaiste knows that toxic clique and it was well placed across the corporate sector and all of the banks.
That is a charge I will not accept.
After I have listened to all the guff today, the various banking elites are still in place. We will return to that issue another day.
I wish to discuss capital gains tax. This Government, which created the problems the budget is addressing, has no interest in wealth. It is one of the great scandals that the media has neglected. It is as if it does not matter. Once one has it, one can hide it. Once one has made one's gains from all of the different schemes available, it does not matter. Who are the easy people to go after? The laziest way to go after the people most easily targeted is through levies. One can even achieve this in an eight month period. On the expenditure side one can get rid of the Christmas bonus.
What about all the people who shifted, when capital gains tax was initially reduced, into property? They borrowed from banks which were not real banks but were, in fact, speculators' clubs. What we had, and what the former Taoiseach describes around the world as the most successful economy in the world, had moved from being a real economy with a real banking system into a speculative economy that had a little racket going for people who were shifting their balances from one balance sheet to another at the end of the year.
I appreciate the detail which the Minister and Members of the Government go into to explain the yield and everything like that. I acknowledge the officials are preparing real figures and there are exceptions. Auditing, accountancy and public finance have been significantly degraded by the people involved in auditing accounts in our banking system. It has reached a point where they have not only dragged the economy down but have dragged fine professions down too. That is the real truth of it. The changes and the different ways we have to respond to different property values are like discussing Hamlet without the ghost. I am very interested to hear the Tánaiste being realistic in replying to what I have to say.
I ask the Tánaiste to tell me what studies have been carried out regarding wealth, the contribution of transfer patterns regarding the increase in wealth and the Commission on Taxation. Will the commission suggest how the Government can claw back money from those who abused every one of the property related, tax driven systems? It is a small group of people. How will the Government access the wealth? It has not all gone away. These are real issues. To be frank, most of the other issues are simply small potatoes which could waste our time late at night when there is no political intention or will to ever address the question of making those who are wealthy contribute in the same way as people who pay income tax or who are trying to benefit from the other side of transfers.
The phrase used in the financial press is that one is looking at the "transfer pattern". When it editorialises and questions, one finds it is talking about social welfare. There has been another major transfer pattern. There are people who reduced their tax contribution to the State in effective tax terms, in some cases to zero and other cases to nearly 5%, not to speak of the several thousand who moved themselves out of the country altogether and who were happy to have an Irish passport but were unwilling to pay their tax. These are the people who are the real scum of our society.
I want to refute the charge made by Deputy Higgins but I can discuss it later.
I support the remarks of my party leader and Deputy Higgins. The story of the budget has been one of a savage attack on the incomes of working people in particular and on people who live on social welfare benefits. That is its fundamental impact.
There is major anger which is now boiling over in people and we have heard it on the phones and in e-mails. I met a person who was weeping thinking about the kind of threats and implementation in the social welfare budget today. It is something the Tánaiste should be profoundly aware of because the tumbril is coming for her and the Government. This budget marks a watershed and the public will feel the need for vengeance on 5 June and on any other date the Government decides to seek a mandate.
I did not have the opportunity over the six or seven months of this intense financial crisis to make the point that this Government has no mandate. When people voted two years ago, if they voted for anything they made a last minute decision to stick with the then Taoiseach, for whatever reason. They were not happy with who they thought might be the alternative Taoiseach. They stuck with the then Taoiseach and we then got a Government nobody had voted for, led by Deputy Cowen, the Tánaiste and a number of senior Ministers. The Government has no mandate whatsoever to introduce these fundamental changes. It is a Government that has an air almost of illegitimacy about it because people have not had a chance to vote on these matters and take decisions about where the country should go. If a general election was held, no matter what the outcome, people would be prepared to consider all the options prepared by such a Government. However, the Government does not have that backing, as our spokesperson said, and that is a fundamental problem for our democracy.
It is a pity we do not have the report of the Commission on Taxation in assessing the resolutions. It must be said that the resolutions on capital gains propose relatively minor changes. It is striking that the most important change to capital taxation was made by former Deputy McCreevy, who slashed the rate. Due to the massive property bubble the resulting gains to the Exchequer were considerable, although that was not predicted by the Department of Finance. Looking at the overall figures put forward on the capital side by the Department, one can see that for the rest of this year a return of €61 million is predicted, but who can believe the predictions of the Department of Finance? I have a fundamental problem with the management of our economy by that Department over the past 12 years. I have raised the issue of forecasting by the Department at the Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, and I will be delighted to raise it in two or three weeks' time when the Secretary General and his staff come before us again. I will ask them to provide an account for the whole financial system over the past 12 years. What on earth happened to the senior Department of State when casino banking took over our banking system, wrecked this economy——
——and indebted our people for decades and perhaps generations? Was the Department of Finance on the bridge when that happened? How can I accept its predictions when it has been wrong year after year on so many issues, including tax returns and gross domestic product? Will the yield, for example, be a great deal higher than it predicts? We had the balance right when we were in the territory of 40% capital taxation, whereby people who had made serious gains were required to give some of that super-normal profit back to the people, the community and the State. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, the former Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and former Deputy McCreevy dismantled all that during their great 11-year regime. They ran the budget on a phoney basis, relying on the property bubble. That is the central problem we experienced. Today we are told, and we will be told over the next week, that working families on €40,000 or €50,000 and much less will be paying for this for the rest of their lives. That is what the Minister has done in his pay-back budget, and the Government will be paid back on 5 June — it had better believe it.
I do not know where Deputy Varadkar has been over the past year and a half or two years, but his Milton Friedman-Chicago school economic system has collapsed. It has fallen apart; it has failed.
The Deputy should vote for the budget then.
It does not work anymore. We are now trying desperately to rebuild a different model. There were parts of the world in which that rotten, corrupt style of capitalism, the Anglo-Saxon model, never really took hold. One could cite, for example, the Scandinavian democracies. Proudly led, for the most part, by Labour Party or social democratic Governments, they were prepared to find the right balance of taxation, including capital taxation, to provide high employment economies with large budgets and considerable spending on health, education, welfare and public transport, whatever was necessary for those states. We, unfortunately, had the kind of Government Deputy Varadkar still seems to yearn for.
I agree with the comments of my colleagues with regard to DIRT and the implications of the second last resolution increasing the levy on non-life insurance premiums, which will surely be another deflationary influence and will make things that little bit harder. Tonight many people following this debate will say this is the straw that broke the camel's back. This must end. Working people cannot support this approach anymore. Therefore, I say to the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance that, in the words of the AIB shareholders, they should just go. Let us have an election and a proper Government with a mandate, which will bring in policies that will suit the whole country.
I do not know about Deputy Varadkar's attitude to Milton Friedman, but it was the great American investor Warren Buffett who said recently that it is only when the tide goes out one can see who is swimming naked. After 12 years with the tide in, it has now gone out, and Fianna Fáil is swimming naked tonight.
It is better to have me that way than the Deputy.
Is it a good idea to talk about who is naked?
I think the water is colder off Donegal than around my way.
The Deputy should be down my way.
They have the Gulf Stream.
Actually, we could tax that.
They can hop in and out in Cahirciveen every day.
There is a chill wind blowing.
The constituency calls are coming in already and I have just one question to ask the Minister, which is with regard to the withdrawal of tax reliefs for nursing homes. I do not want to comment on the merits or demerits of the issue, but will the measure apply from midnight tonight or will provision be made for persons who have poured foundations? Will they have to go up to the wall and template? Will they get it with full planning permission? It seems that anyone who has made arrangements to the extent of obtaining full planning permission should get the relief. If they do not get it they will not build anyway so there is no loss to the Exchequer, but there is a possibility of extra nursing home beds being provided in certain cases. The Minister's colleague, the former Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, might be interested as well because the same provision gives tax relief for PPPs for private hospitals. Some of these would have gone to planning permission stage and some of them would have made financial arrangements. Thus, we would both be interested in the answer to that question, although perhaps for different reasons. I am particularly interested in nursing homes, but there are certainly implications for private hospital projects as well. I presume there is some transitional measure. As there is no financial resolution, I assume the measure will not come in from midnight tonight.
Consequently, the provisions must be made in the Finance Bill. Will the Minister indicate whether these have been worked out?
There will be transitional measures, which will be dealt with in the context of the Finance Bill. Although it would be appropriate to speak to the officials in order to have absolute clarity, the transitional measures will address the concerns raised by the Deputy.
One must be reasonable. Deputy Morgan said we may not necessarily get agreement from all sides of the House when it comes to the issues we are discussing here in an amalgamation of all the financial resolutions. This is correct. I would normally concur with Deputy Varadkar's views on capital gains. A tax on capital would be the preferred option in normal circumstances, but unfortunately we are not in normal circumstances as we have had to deal with major difficulties in our public finances. However, I accept his view that increasing CGT and CAT is the right thing to do. It is a question of widening the tax base.
Deputy Gilmore raised the issue of property tax. The Minister for Finance indicated that it is intended to examine the introduction of such a tax. That has not been finalised by the Government but the Commission on Taxation will put forward its views in the autumn and we will work through how best it can be implemented.
I have been in this House many years and have listened on many occasions to Deputy Higgins speak about issues to which he clearly has an emotional attachment, particularly in regard to foreign policy and aid. He and I may not be in agreement in terms of our views on various aspects of social policy, but I appreciate his views. However, it is slightly disingenuous to talk about the Nordic model of social policy. In places such as Sweden, although one can spend a great deal of money in providing social services on the back of extreme wealth, diversity is the way in which any culture or any family can make decisions. Having a situation where one can determine by diktat how people are reared or how they live is not necessarily a good social policy.
That is not the Swedish model.
It is nothing to do with the Swedish model.
There is a social policy model whereby there may be good social services but it is the Government which dictates that everybody must do X, Y and Z.
In what country is that model in place?
The Tánaiste should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I am saying there is need to have a greater diversity of opinion in respect of our social policy as opposed to the Nordic model——
I was not aware that the Government had any social policy.
——not to mention the expense attaching to the latter and the fact that personal taxation in the Nordic model is astronomical.
The Government is in favour of some degree of inequality, as espoused by the former Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell.
I appreciate that the Labour Party has a certain view about wealth. I cannot articulate that view in such a way as to ensure I am not thrown out of the House.
The Labour Party is of the view that wealth should be shared.
Deputies Higgins and Broughan should be reminded that in recent years, the Department of Finance has evaluated the issue of tax evasion measures. The Minister has introduced procedures whereby we can move away from non-productive means of investment. Deputy Higgins raised one specific case in this regard. It is often forgotten that in the last budget we introduced a situation whereby everybody would be liable for an effective income tax rate of approximately 20%. This supplementary budget deals with the removal of other shelters. As he indicated in his speech, this will be the continued view of the Minister for Finance.
I asked about wealth studies.
As I said to Deputy Gilmore, the Commission on Taxation will deal with that issue. We must await the outcome of the commission's deliberations so that we can ensure broadening of the tax base.
The Government is using the commission as a cover for its lack of ideas.
That is the best way forward. The Commission on Taxation has given a great deal of time, energy and effort to listen, evaluate, analyse and discuss. It will bring forward its report in the autumn, at which stage the Government will make a decision on the broadening of the tax base. The Labour Party or any other party is more than welcome to make a submission to the commission, as many others have done.
Why did the Government not study wealth when there was wealth to be studied?
We must await the outcome of the deliberations by the Commission on Taxation before introducing any further taxation measures in the next budget.
I have listened to Deputy Varadkar speaking for the past hour and a half in the course of which he referred several times to another budget. I am sorry to disappoint him in this regard but it is not the Government's intention to introduce a further budget. That is important to say in the context of the decisions we are making today. Deputy Varadkar stated that there should have been greater reductions in spending, while Deputy Morgan was of a contrary view. These are the disparate views we are likely to encounter from different sides of the House. The reality is that expenditure has been reduced considerably.
No, it has not. The Tánaiste has not even read the budget.
We have dealt with both capital and current expenditure.
There have been some cuts in specific areas but overall expenditure has increased.
We have also dealt with the issue of taxation. This has been done on the basis of very difficult decisions. No Member of this House would take from that. The Minister for Finance referred in his opening remarks to the difficulties arising from the impact of these decisions on individuals and families. I agree that sustaining employment and creating export growth is the only way to trade ourselves out of this situation.
There is no mention of that in the budget.
The Deputy missed the discussion on aspects of the budget that are outside the scope of these financial resolutions. For example, in the case of my Department, more than €500 million will be spent this year on enterprise, science and technology through Enterprise Ireland, the IDA, a new investment and stabilisation fund and through the county enterprise boards.
What is different this year when compared to last year?
In comparative terms, my colleagues have seen a huge reduction in their allocation, particularly in terms of their capital spend. They have made sacrifices so that my Department can continue to support enterprise despite the difficulties we currently face. An investment of €500 million represents a considerable commitment to employment creation and sustainability.
The stabilisation of the banking system is vital if we are to return to a situation where credit is available to businesses and enterprises.
I agree it is not happening. The work that will be carried out by the Minister in the context of the new agency being set up and the consequent stabilisation of the banking sector will get us back to where we want to be.
That will take a year or longer.
Deputy Gilmore referred to the changes in regard to DIRT. Exemptions remain in place. For individuals aged 65 years and over, since the enactment of the Finance Act 2007, there is an exemption from DIRT where the total income, including interest, is below the annual exemption of €20,000 for a single person and €40,000 in the case of a married couple. This exemption also continues to apply in the case of permanently incapacitated individuals.
We are framing a method by which we can increase our tax base to deal with the specific issues we currently face. Deputy Morgan asked about life assurance schemes. Such schemes do not relate solely to mortgages.
I am sure Mr. Fingleton has made adequate provision in this regard.
None of us would encourage people not to take out life assurance. In the present difficulties, it is a method by which we can accrue investment.
Deputy Broughan referred to a capital gains tax estimate of €45 million, which is a full-year estimate of the 3% tax increase from 22% to 25%. The investment we expect to accrue in 2009 will be €625 million. Not everybody will be happy with these increases. However, they are methods by which we can increase our tax base and accrue further income to the State outside of taxation on labour. I am sorry about the increase in the cost of cigarettes. Also, I am desperately sorry I was not in a position to retort to the Deputy's view. I suggest if cigarettes cost €100 per packet Deputy Stagg would still not give them up, which I appreciate.
Smokers are giving more than the wealthy.
By my calculations, smokers are giving the Government approximately €1.3 billion.
The figure is €1.1 billion.
I was close enough. I was only €200 million out.
How much are the property speculators giving?
Excise on tobacco is a considerable method by which taxation is collected for the Exchequer. It is also true to say — this has not been said previously on the floor of the House — that a percentage of that money is allocated to the health budget to deal with issues appertaining to smoking.
I have answered as many questions as I can. The methods by which we are increasing taxation on capital and wealth are, in my view, the best in current circumstances in terms of expanding the tax base.
What incentive will people earning more than €289, who will now enter the tax bracket, have to go to work?
Deputy Sheahan is not in order now. I call Deputy English.
I have grave concerns about the life insurance levy for two reasons. Perhaps the Tánaiste will clarify if non-life insurance includes critical illness?
There will be no increase of 3% in respect of critical illness.
That is definite. We should be encouraging people — in fact it should be made law — to take out life insurance and critical illness cover. In some cases, people have no choice and are forced by the banks to do so. I believe people should be legally required to take out critical illness cover. It is wrong to introduce a deterrent that will put people off taking out life insurance and critical illness cover, which are important. These policies result in enormous savings to the State and should not be penalised further. While I accept an increase may be necessary in respect of life insurance policies which pay out a lump sum, general straightforward life insurance policies which provide no lump sum payment should not be hit. It is wrong to do so. Also, it sends out the wrong message. We should be encouraging people to take out insurance. Critical illness cover is just as important as life insurance. It is a pity the the Government is going down this road.
On the banks, earlier I asked the Taoiseach from where the figure of €80 billion to €90 billion arises. We have been told numerous times at committee meetings by the Financial Regulator and others that total loans in respect of land and development, potential bad debts, is €41 billion. The Financial Regulator also claimed €24 billion of that sum was doubly secured with other assets.
That figure has now risen to €80 billion. Perhaps the Tánaiste will outline how this figure, which appears to have landed out of the sky, was arrived at. I accept an attempt is being made to address the bad debts issue. We all agree the issue must be addressed although we may differ on the method by which that is done. The proposed method will in my opinion take a long time. We were told by the Taoiseach that this will be the answer to freeing up money to businesses and so on. However, that is no good if it is going to take six or eight months to take effect. Small businesses need money now. Six months time will be too late. This year is about survival.
This measure will not deal with the issues and problems of the next six months. We could be facing a serious situation come October or November. The crisis is happening this year, not next year. I am concerned it will take too long to establish the proposed National Asset Management Agency. I hope the Tánaiste heeds my concern. There is a perception among the public that officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment are asleep on these issues. There are serious problems out there.
On being smart, the Government fails.
What we got today is a promise of 400 new CE places. One small town in Sneem, County Kerry, would take up 400 CE places.
The Tánaiste is also Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. How will she sleep at night when there are 520,000 unemployed at the end of this year?
I call on the Tánaiste to wrap up.
I do not know if how I will sleep at night is a technical question. I will certainly do so with a clear conscience.
I ask that question in the context of benchmarking and doing a good job.
Benchmarking relates to salaries. On Deputy English's question, critical illness cover is exempt. On the banking issue, a colleague of the Deputy stated earlier in the debate that this is a complex issue. I agree with that statement.
We cannot provide for a quick fix on the floor of the House before midnight.
I do not disagree that businesses continue to encounter difficulties in terms of accessing working capital and the normal methods by which they involve themselves in business. That being said, it is important we have a critically well examined outcome in terms of setting up the new agency. These complex issues will have to be addressed by experts and evaluated by this House. It is appropriate, therefore, that we await the technical outcomes and that the complexities of this issue are worked through as quickly as possible. In the meantime, serious decisions must be made by Government. This Government will make decisions on the basis of the sustainability of the banking system to ensure the country can move forward, thus returning us to a situation whereby enterprise, employment and access to working capital and the methods by which we continue to operate business and create export potential take place. This is the most critical issue in the context of the banking sector. This will marry into supporting people in enterprise. I referred earlier to the €100 million fund——
It is €50 million this year.
——€50 million this year and €50 million next year — the parameters of which I will announce soon. The matter has been worked on with Enterprise Ireland and signed off on by the European Commission under the State aid rules. We will continue to deal with the issue of competitiveness, one of the biggest challenges we face.
There has been a reduction in energy costs with further reductions to come and this will address the issue of the cost of doing business. We have worked within this framework during the past couple of months and will continue to do so on the basis that critically we must revert to a situation whereby wealth — I regret Deputy Higgins has left the House — to this State will be such that it will come from the export potential which I believe we will continue to have. A number of announcements were made in the previous budget in regard to research and development. Today, there have been announcements in regard to intellectual property, which will deal with the absolute necessities of this economy.
It is important to reiterate that my Department will spend more than €500 million on enterprise in 2009, not to mention what will be spent by other Departments involved in other aspects of science, technology, innovation and education. Although I accept there will be difficulties attached to the increases introduced through some of the measures discussed here this evening, there is equally an acceptance that some of these measures are the correct way through which we continue to expand our tax base.
I wish to clarify a point. I was not suggesting we rush through the establishment of the national asset management agency. My concern is that its establishment will take a long time and rightly so.
It is a delicate issue. In accepting that establishment of the agency may take a long time, the Tánaiste should take on board our concerns in regard to small business. If it takes six months to sort out the problem, that is six months during which small business will not have access to money, which is my concern. That is what I meant. What will happen in the next six months to a year has not been addressed. Today's budget does not set out what will happen to small business if movement of toxic assets takes a long time, which it could given it is a delicate matter. Also, it is exposing taxpayers to a great deal of money.
My question in respect of the figure of €80 billion has not been answered. The Tánaiste is the second person to whom I have put the question today. It has not yet been explained how the figure rose to €80 billion.
On the €500 million at the disposal of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, what is the Tánaiste's projection for job creation? In the context of the 520,000 people who may be unemployed by the end of the year, what is the Tánaiste's projection for the €500 million job creation fund?
Unlike the Fine Gael document, I will not cod the people by saying that 100,000 jobs can be created by setting up a new agency.
It is performance budgeting.
What will the Tánaiste spend the €500 million budget on?
On the projected value of the——
Listen to Willie the gun.
The figure of between €80 billion and €90 billion came from the banks.
We have never heard of him.
I said nothing to the Minister.
We have never seen him before.
There will be a process by which this will be valued and that valuation will be determined in due course.
The Minister is not very good at the sums himself.
Deputy English also raised the issue of the timeframe and asked what will happen in the interim. I feel that liquidity in the banking sector will improve on the basis of the decisions to be made by this House, which were indicated today on the floor of the House by the Minister for Finance. Along with all of my agencies, I will continue to work with the banks on a constant basis to put forward the view that there is an absolute necessity to support enterprise. A new framework has been introduced by me and my agencies to ensure that happens. We will continue to do that ad infinitum until the liquidity of the banking sector is such that it enables businesses to improve and prosper.
How many jobs will we get for the €500 million?
I would like to finish my point.
How many jobs will we get for the €500 million?
I cannot say that. That is not the way it is done.
I just need a couple of seconds.
If Deputy Kehoe wishes to give way, that is okay.
Will the Tánaiste speak to the Taoiseach and her colleagues? Will she go back to the regulator and his staff, who came into our committee on two occasions to tell us that having scrutinised, researched and checked the loans in the banks, they had come up with a figure of approximately €39 billion? I accept that the Tánaiste cannot give the answer now. There is a big difference between €39 billion and €80 billion.
Did the regulator tell the Deputy that?
The Deputy had better have a chat with him so.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am not going to take smug stupidity from a Minister who should know better.
The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, does not have the cop on to realise that the difference between €40 billion and €80 billion is a hell of a lot of money. He should not make a laughing matter of it in here.
The Irish taxpayer will not make a joke of €40 billion. It is a lot of money.
The regulator told the Deputy something.
The regulator came into a committee of this House.
Yes. The Deputy should talk to him.
He spoke about loans of approximately €40 billion.
The Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach came in and said that the relevant figure is €80 billion. There is a hell of a difference.
Talk to the regulator about that.
I know you are interested in guns and defence. Maybe counting is hard for you.
(Interruptions).
I can count. There is a big difference.
The Minister is not great at sums.
Do not make a laughing matter out of it.
I ask the Deputy to address his comments through the Chair.
I would have thought that the Ceann Comhairle had more control than that. The Minister is making a joke out of the whole thing.
This is a very serious budget. We are being watched by those interested in world affairs.
The regulator told you something.
We are getting no jobs for the €500 million we are spending.
That is not true. I will explain that to the Deputy some other day.
The Tánaiste has not said anything to the contrary.
I must call Deputy Kehoe. Time is running out.
I have asked the Tánaiste to get somebody to come in here tomorrow and clarify who is telling the truth.
(Interruptions).
The Minister can laugh all he wants, but this is serious.
I must call Deputy Kehoe now anyway.
Can the Tánaiste ensure that somebody clarifies the matter tomorrow?
We will let her clarify it in a minute.
I am only asking for an explanation of this, one way or the other.
It is a serious matter. There is a big difference between €40 billion and €80 billion.
I must call Deputy Kehoe.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Tánaiste cannot just bow her head and avoid my question.
She will answer in a minute. Deputy Kehoe is next.
The debate on these resolutions is coming to an end.
Some €500 million is being provided, but no jobs are being created.
If the Tánaiste wants to reply to Deputy English now, I have no problem waiting.
I assure her that I do not mind waiting while she replies to him.
She will reply to all the questions at the end.
I am not asking her to give an answer now. I am asking her to get an explanation in advance of tomorrow's debate. Is that too much to ask, on behalf of the Irish taxpayer, who has been hit for thousands of euro today?
Is it too much to ask for an explanation to be provided tomorrow?
I ask Deputy Kehoe to continue.
Why has the figure increased from €40 billion to €80 billion?
Where does the €80 billion figure come from in the first place?
I am being very reasonable.
I will ask the Deputy to leave in a minute if he keeps this up.
I am being very reasonable.
You are, but it is Deputy Kehoe's turn to speak. I do not want to have to ask Deputy English to leave.
The Tánaiste spoke about the need to support enterprise. Over the last number of months, I have not seen any evidence of Government support for enterprise.
What about Coca-Cola? Is that not in the Deputy's constituency?
It left Dublin and went to Wexford. There was no additional investment in this country.
We made a big investment in the local network.
It is interesting that the Tánaiste and the Minister for Defence are present, as they comprised the Cabinet delegation that went to the United States to try to save the Dell facility in Limerick. They came back with their tails between their legs, unfortunately.
The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, said that this is a global thing and everything like that.
What does the Deputy mean by "everything like that"?
I was in Limerick when it all happened.
He was well able to mind himself.
I was reminded of Minnie Mouse when I saw that the work he did to try to save the Dell facility in Limerick was unsuccessful. I was not a bit surprised. This economy will not move into the recovery stage until we create new jobs and look after small and medium-sized enterprises. Fine Gael produced an excellent document last week. The Labour Party brought out its document yesterday. I do not feel that anything in this budget will protect small and medium-sized enterprises. Nothing in it will encourage outside investors to come to Ireland and replace companies like Dell which have gone.
It is great to see Coca-Cola in County Wexford. In 1997, County Wexford lost out when the Fianna Fáil-led Government took Coca-Cola out of the county and moved it to another part of the country. We are only getting what we were due ten years ago. The Coca-Cola jobs comprise the only employment this Government has ever brought into County Wexford. I assure the House that it was not the Government's work and commitment that brought Coca-Cola into County Wexford. One of the major factors that enticed Coca-Cola was the infrastructure that is available at Rosslare Europort.
Was it the fairies who built it?
It was not the current Government anyway.
There is life over there.
I will tell the Tánaiste one thing——
It was Seánie who ran away with the fairies.
I assure the House that the Government has not invested much in Rosslare Europort over recent years. I do not think the Tánaiste has been there since she was appointed Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I was there on my holidays last year.
I suppose that is the way the members of this Government treat enterprise.
The Tánaiste is well able to answer the easy questions.
They laugh and talk about their holidays.
I have been to County Wexford at least twice.
We do not need to talk about our holidays.
I have been to Gorey, Rosslare and Wexford town.
I am disappointed that there is nothing in the budget to support enterprise. The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, seems to think it is great that we lost Aer Lingus from Shannon Airport.
I assure the Minister that he did not get it back.
He did not get it back because he did not try to get it back.
I need to call the Tánaiste to conclude this debate.
He went off with his tail between his legs on that occasion as well.
He said it was "armageddon".
He did not say it was armageddon when 1,800 jobs were lost in Dell.
Do not mind armageddon now.
I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
We need subtitles for this debate.
I ask the Tánaiste to wrap up the debate.
Can I have an answer to my question? If not, can I have a commitment that it will be answered tomorrow?
Perhaps the Tánaiste feels she has already wrapped it up.
I wish to reiterate what the Minister for Finance said earlier today.
I know what he said. I have read it into the record.
He said:
The potential maximum book value of loans that will be transferred to the agency is estimated to be in the region of €80 billion to €90 billion [although] the amount paid by the agency will be significantly less than this to reflect the loss in value of the properties. In the longer term, if the agency were to fall short of recouping all of the costs, the Government intends that a levy should be applied to recoup any shortfall.
The Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has indicated that the "potential maximum book value" of the loans is between €80 billion and €90 billion.
On a point of information——
That information would have come from the banks in the first place.
When we talk about the budgetary framework, it is important to emphasise that this country's 12.5% rate of corporation tax has been reiterated. That is very important to this country, especially if it is to attract foreign direct investment. I accept that it will be difficult to attract further such investment. We have done that in the past on the basis of our rate of corporation tax. Our research and development tax rates are 20% and 25%. We have introduced a new taxation measure on intellectual property. That is where we want to be in this country over the next number of years.
It was not enough to keep Dell here.
If we are to attract high-potential, high-value employment and jobs into this country, we have to provide incentives to facilitate that. This Government has done that.
The Deputy asked how many jobs are being created this year. It is planned that IDA Ireland will spend €73.5 million and Enterprise Ireland will spend €103.6 million. The county and city enterprise boards will spend €20.2 million on microenterprises. Enterprise Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland will spend €295 million on research and development and innovation.
We do not doubt the capacity of the Tánaiste's party to spend money. It is getting results that is the problem.
Further investment will be made through Shannon Development, InterTrade Ireland and the INTERREG programme.
How many jobs will be created?
We will continue to invest in the creation of jobs and sustain the jobs we have in the economy.
How many jobs will be created?
One cannot do a simplistic transaction whereby X amount of jobs equals Y amount of money. That is farcical——
So €500 million could equate to 1,000 jobs.
——but it is true to say that IDA Ireland, with my support, will continue to encourage and entice people to come to this country——
She has a budget of €500 million.
——to invest and to create jobs.
She has €500 million and she cannot say how many jobs it will deliver.
Creating new jobs is the absolute necessity of the work that we will continue to do. Irrespective of whether Deputy Sheahan wants to take a simplistic view on that, we must have key messages to give and those are the key messages we will continue to give — the flexibility of our workforce,——
Hold on, €500 million is not simplistic.
——our investment in research and development, our investment in intellectual property and the methods by which we will attract FDI and sustain new opportunities for indigenous companies, which are the only way,——
Does the Ceann Comhairle like the sound of my colleague? She is babbling all day.
——in my view, we will continue to create further trade opportunities and export value.
In one sentence I will clarify what I seek. I am only asking that the Tánaiste send somebody else in tomorrow with the answer if possible.
No, this is too serious. The Minister for Finance, in his speech earlier today, stated what would be transferred over, and the Members opposite can laugh all they want. I read it back to the Taoiseach earlier. According to the Government's question and answer document, the eligible land and development loans of each bank involved will be transferred. That is development-led land that is partly built on, built on and not built on at all. I asked repeatedly at committee meetings, and I have been assured by the regulator's staff that they have checked the loans and counted them up, and the exposure was €39.4 billion to be exact. They were adamant about that. I raise a big problem here. I am not blaming anybody.
It is the foreign assets. That is the difference, is it?
The problem is I need to find out why all of a sudden——
The land is not even in Ireland.
——-€40 billion has become €80 billion. If there is an answer I will sit down happy if I get it tomorrow, but we cannot debate a potential transfer of toxic assets——
Deputy English said that.
——without knowing what the figure is,——
——and it is not simple arithmetic.
We will not know the figure until we get the valuation.
Deputy English must revisit it.
We are only working on the book value at present and it will be based on the valuation.
I will not be sneered at. At committees of this House the staff of the regulator who work on behalf of the people clarified twice, in October last and again in January, what the figure was and it is not good enough to state that the Government will take the banks' word for it. The regulator, who had checked all their loans, told us it was €40 billion.
Deputy English has made his point at this stage.
This is a serious point and I will not be brushed aside on it because it is too important.
The Tánaiste should be compelled to reply.
Nobody is brushing the Deputy aside.
It is a very serious point.
The Chair has no authority at all to compel anybody to reply.
To be fair to the Chair, we are completely out of order because this is a financial resolution.
It is a financial resolution.
The Tánaiste should be compelled to reply on behalf of the taxpayer.
I am going to put the question anyway.
Can I be happy that I will get an answer tomorrow? Will somebody come in and explain it?
The Chair has no power over that.
Question put: "That Financial Resolution No. 5 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 84; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- Perry, John.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and David Stanton.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That Financial Resolution No. 6 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- Perry, John.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and David Stanton.
Question declared carried.
Ní foláir dom an cheist seo a leanas a chur de réir Ordú an lae seo ón Dáil: "Go n-aontaítear leis an tairiscint maidir le Rún Airgeadais Uimh. 7." I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the motion on Financial Resolution No. 7 is agreed to."
Question put: "That Financial Resolution No. 7 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- Perry, John.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and David Stanton.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion on Financial Resolution No. 8 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 71.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Ní foláir dom an cheist seo a leanas a chur de réir Ordú an lae seo ón Dáil: "Go n-aontaítear leis an tairiscint maidir le Rún Airgeadais Uimh. 9." I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the motion on Financial Resolution No. 9 is agreed to."
Question put: "That Financial Resolution No. 9 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Ní foláir dom an cheist seo a leanas a chur de réir Ordú an lae seo ón Dáil: "Go n-aontaítear leis an tairiscint maidir le Rún Airgeadais Uimh. 10." I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the motion on Financial Resolution No. 10 be agreed to."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 84; Níl, 71.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
