I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, line 47, to delete " rendering " and to substitute " supply ".
SECTION 9.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 12, line 31, after " then " to insert ", unless regulations provide for apportionment of the consideration".
This amendment is designed to provide for exceptions to the general provision that a mixture of items liable at different rates shall be liable at the highest relevant rate when sold for an inclusive consideration. Any relief found to be necessary under this proposal will be provided by regulations.
The reason for seeking powers to implement this proposal by regulations is that it would not be possible to anticipate the categories of transactions for which relief would be considered desirable. An example of a package for which relief would be desirable would be an inclusive charge for a coach tour, which would be exempt, and hotel accommodation, which would be taxable, and there is the sort of package which we could not anticipate. That is why it is proposed to provide by regulations where relief would be given rather than specify in the Bill.
The question of relief would be dealt with as it would come up.
When there are two different rates VAT would be charged at the higher rate.
Yes, where a package is sold for an inclusive consideration it would be liable at the higher relevant rate, but clearly there would be a number of cases where relief would be necessary in order to avoid creating undue hardship. Therefore we are providing that regulations can be made to determine what relief could be given in relation to such packages.
Let us forget about services for a moment and take the person involved in, say, some aspect of building on which he would be charged 3 per cent effectively. Suppose for a package of site development, hiring machines which would be liable to a charge of 10 per cent, and operations which would be at 3 per cent, he gave a total price of £1,000. If there is the hire of a JCB, some clearance plus some building work on, say, building a wall, would this alter his liability?
I do not know if the example which Deputy McCreevy picked illustrates his point, but in that case the total building job would be liable at 3 per cent irrespective of whether he is involved in the hire of a JCB or whatever.
On the question of procedures, would these regulations go before the Committee on Statutory Instruments or be published in Iris Oifigiúil? I suppose they would be laid in the Oireachtas Library and would be published in some form.
They would have to be laid before Dáil Éireann which would have the power to annul them within the next 21 sitting days, but without prejudice to anything previously done under those regulations.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.