Deputy Molloy could not be here to move his amendments because he was at Question Time in the House. If the committee agrees, I will call Deputy Molloy to move them. Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendments Nos. 47(a) and 140 (a) are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 46.
Chairman
I move amendment No. 47a:
In page 72, subsection (1), line 38, to delete "or VII" and substitute" VIIor VIII".
The purpose of these amendments is to include the south ward of Galway County Borough in the list of qualifying resorts to benefit under the terms of the Bill, which extends the scheme of tax relief. I understand it has been introduced with the aim of promoting the renewal and improvement of certain resort areas. The Minister in his budget speech, and subsequently the Minister for Tourism and Trade, stated that the intention was to achieve improvements in the traditional seaside resorts. No reasons were mentioned by either Minister as to why certain resorts were chosen and others omitted.
The seaside resort of Salthill, which is in the south ward of Galway County Borough, is one of the traditional seaside resorts and an area which is urgently in need of the type of investment which would be attracted if the tax incentive scheme was extended to it. A recent report by a firm of consultants, Frank Benson & Associates, in conjunction with Murray O'Leary Associates, identified some of the weaknesses in the Salthill region which included urban blight and dereliction, poor visual quality commercial facades, lack of interest in presentation and maintenance of some properties, patchy maintenance of public infrastructure and relative lack of investment in attractions and amenities.
Chairman
The Deputy will not have time to read the entire list.
I do not have time to make a case for this area, but since I was a youth- I was reared there- 19 hotels have lost their registration. That fact should be sufficient indication that this area has lost out badly. There is a strong case for adding Salthill to the list and I hope the south ward will be helped.
I welcome Deputy Molloy's support for my campaign to help Salthill to become a designated area. I and the Salthill 2000 committee which has undertaken a report on this area met the Minister responsible and its members agreed to tidy up certain aspects of the report. I hope it will be included as a designated area in the next announcement.
Salthill is an integral part of the suburb of Galway city and a geographical definition. It already has the benefits of urban designation and is a university town with a substantial young population. The purpose of this proposal, as Deputy McCreevy will testify since he was its progenitor during his time in the Department of Tourism and Trade, was to identify towns which were exclusively dependent on traditional seaside holiday resort activity. Many of these are left with nothing because developments mean that such trade now goes to Benidorm instead of Bundoran. I understand the pressures which Deputy Molloy, Deputy McCormack and other Deputies from Galway West are under as a result of this.
I am not under pressure because I see the legitimacy of the case.
Chairman
I cannot allow further debate.
I do not see the legitimacy of the case. Galway is a wealthy city. Property values and housing construction prices have always been higher in Galway than anywhere else. The external indicators would not validate the point the Deputy is making. It would invalidate the legitimacy of what we are trying to do in the pilot scheme.
What about Westport, a thriving country town, which has been included?
Chairman
I cannot allow any further debate.
Westport is now a designated area.
Chairman
I cannot allow further debate. I am sure Deputy Molloy will agree that I have been lenient to him.
Amendment put.
Votáil.
Chairman
That means that three votes have been called. The division is postponed.
I appeal to Deputies to accept the line we have adopted.
Chairman
All further discussion is now out of order. I am obliged to put the question.
I can see why we are making such little progress when the Deputies from the constituency will not support it.
I have it under control and I will let the Deputy know as soon as I deliver the result.
Chairman
We know that all politics is local.
The Deputy will probably hear it on the radio first.
Fairy tales of Ireland.
The difference is that I know what is going on.
Sections 60 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
Chairman
There are two amendments in the name of Deputy McCreevy and one in the name of Deputy Molloy before the committee for decision.
I wish to draw the committee's attention to a typographical error in amendment No. 61. With the agreement of the committee, the words "of the Capital Gains Tax Act, 1975." should be inserted in the opening lines of the new section.
I wish to give notice to the committee that I may be proposing amendments on Report Stage to the sections inserted by amendment Nos. 61 and 62. The object of the Report Stage amendments will be to ensure that the inserted sections do not offer scope for tax planning.
Chairman
In order to adhere to the orders of the House, the question which, procedurally, I should put is the following: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance to Chapters III and IV of Part I of the Bill and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and in respect of each of the sections undisposed of in the said Chapters, that the section or as appropriate the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to." However, as all the Minister's amendments have been dealt with and as there are only three amendments remaining, the question is: "That sections 46 and 55 proposed to be amended stand part of the Bill."
Question put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 9.
|
Tá |
|
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Mitchell, Jim. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Nealon, Ted. |
|
Kenny, Sean. |
Penrose, Willie. |
|
McCormack, Padraig. |
Quinn, Ruairí. |
|
McDowell, Derek. |
Ryan, John. |
|
McGahon, Brendan |
Sheehan, P.J. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Cullen, Martin. |
|
Ahern, Noel. |
McCreevy, Charlie. |
|
Ahern, Dermot. |
McDowell, Michael. |
|
Brennan, Mattie. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
Browne, John (Wexford). |
Question declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 4.34 p.m.
NEW SECTION.
Chairman
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are related and may be discussed together. As we have 40 section and 33 amendments to deal with between now and 6 p.m. I hope that the committee will understand if I keep a very tight rein for this part of the debate.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 101, before section 65, but in Chapter IV, to insert the following new section:
65.—Section 20A (inserted by the Finance Act, 1993) is hereby amended, as respects disposals of assets on or after the 20th day of May, 1993, by the addition of the following subsection:
‘(4) (a) In this subsection "reinsurance contract" means any contract or other agreement for reassurance, or reinsurance, in respect of——
(i) any policy of assurance on the life of any person, or
(ii) any class of such policies.
(b) Where apart from this paragraph a reinsurance contract would not be a policy of assurance on the life of any person for the purposes of this Act it shall be deemed to be such a policy for those purposes.
(c) Subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply to, and shall be deemed never to have applied to, reinsurance contracts:
Provided that where, apart from this paragraph, a reinsurance contract would not be a relevant policy within the meaning of section 20B (inserted by the Finance Act, 1994) for the purposes of that section, it shall be deemed not to be such a policy for those purposes.
(d) (i) Subject to paragraph (e), where, apart from paragraph (c) of this subsection, subsection (2) would apply to a reinsurance contract in respect of any policy of assurance on the life of any person, being a policy issued on or after the 1st day of January, 1995, section 20 (2) shall not have effect in respect of any disposal on or after the 1st day of January, 1995, of, or any interest in, rights of the insured company under the reinsurance contract to the extent that——
(I) those rights refer to the said policy, and
(II) the insured company could receive, otherwise than on the death, disablement or disease of any person, or one of a class of persons, to whom the said policy refers, payment on a disposal of those rights the aggregate amount of which would exceed the aggregate amount of payment made by it in respect of those rights.
(ii) Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) (b) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as if for "the 20th day of May, 1993" there were substituted "the 1st day of January, 1995".
(e) Paragraph (d) shall not apply to any disposal of, or any interest in, the rights under a reinsurance contract, being a disposal resulting directly from the death, disablement or disease of a person, or one of a class of persons, to whom the reinsurance contract refers.'.".
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 101, before section 65, but in Chapter IV, to insert the following new section:
66.- Section 46B of the Corporation Tax Act, 1976, is hereby amended in subsection (1) by the insertion of the following proviso:
‘Provided that as respects chargeable gains or allowable losses accruing on disposals of rights under reinsurance contracts (within the meaning of section 20A (4) (inserted by the Finance Act, 1995) of the Capital Gains Tax Act, 1975) deemed by virtue of section 46A to have been made in the accounting period or part of an accounting period falling wholly within the year ending on-
(i) the 31st day of December, 1995, this section shall not apply to five-sevenths,
(ii) the 31st day of December, 1996, this section shall not apply to four-sevenths,
(iii) the 31st day of December, 1997, this section shall not apply to three-sevenths,
(iv) the 31st day of December, 1998, this section shall not apply to two-sevenths, or
(v) the 31st day of December, 1999, this section shall not apply to one-seventh,
of those chargeable gains and allowable losses.'.".
Amendment agreed to.