Finance Bill, 1964—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The principal purpose of the Finance Bill is to implement the Budget proposals in legislative form and in that way to provide the revenue necessary to meet the year's expenditure. This year the Finance Bill is comparatively short and there is little in it which was not mentioned in the Financial Statement. I shall refer specifically to the additional items later; none of them is of a contentious nature. The explanatory memorandum, which was circulated with the text of the Bill, described the purpose of the various sections individually and it is hardly necessary for me to repeat this information in detail. The Bill is essentially a Committee Stage Bill and I shall, of course, be glad to explain any points of detail on that Stage. I will now deal broadly with the effects of each part of the Bill.

There is only one matter dealt with in Part I which was not mentioned in the Budget speech. Section 12 enables interest to be paid without deduction of tax on securities issued by the air companies. This provision, and the provision in section 32, are being made to facilitate the air companies in raising some of their capital requirements from non-Government sources. Similar provisions already apply to borrowing by the Electricity Supply Board, Córas Iompair Éireann, Bord na Móna and local authorities.

As regards the other sections in Part I, the first section imposes income tax and surtax for the current year at the same rates as were in force last year and sections 2 to 11 carry into effect certain of the budget proposals. The proposed reliefs comprise a new form of income tax age allowance, relief for small incomes and exemption from income tax of the business of the Voluntary Health Insurance Board. The other measures deal with tax avoidance, tax simplification, taxation of foreign profits of companies and recovery of tax arrears.

Five of the nine sections in Part II relate to the budget increases in the rates of duty on beer, imported spirits, hydrocarbon oils and tobacco. It is proposed not to extend the increased duty on imported spirits to Northern Ireland whiskey; section 15 provides the necessary relief. Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, deal with matters which were not mentioned in the budget speech. These comprise revision of the rates of duty for firearm certificates, exemption from road tax for snow-clearing vehicles and provisions in relation to proceedings for hydrocarbon oil offences. A Financial Resolution will be necessary in connection with the firearm certificate duty which, as the explanatory memorandum pointed out, follows an enactment of the Firearms Act, 1964.

Part III contains only one section. This is designed to exempt from death duties Government and other securities on the surrender of a life-interest in a trust. Such securities would not have been liable had the trust been terminated by the death of the lifetenant.

Part IV contains some measures to simplify stamp duty which were foreshadowed in the Budget speech. Certain duties, which yield an insignificant amount of revenue, are being abolished and the composition arrangement for payment of stamp duty which the Revenue Commissioners are empowered to operate under section 45 of the Finance Act, 1963, is being extended.

Part V contains four corporation profits tax proposals, all of which were referred to in the budget speech. They deal with the carrying-forward of losses, the application of corporation profits tax to private unlimited companies, the raising of the deduction allowable in respect of directors' remuneration and the assessment and collection of corporation profits tax.

Part VI of the Bill deals with miscellaneous items. The usual provisions regarding the Capital Services Redemption Account are contained in section 29; section 32, as I mentioned already, extends to securities issued by the air companies the tax concessions given to non-resident holders of certain Irish government securities. Section 33 deals with repeals. The content of sections 30 and 31 was adverted to in the budget speech. Section 30 retains for bacon curers the benefit of exports tax relief which might otherwise have been lost as a result of the now compulsory marketing arrangements. Section 31 provides for the collection of the amount of tax not in dispute when an assessment is under appeal.

The two remaining sections in the Bill and the Schedules do not call for specific comment. As I have mentioned, I shall be glad to deal with any points of detail on the Committee Stage.

As the Minister said, this is the Bill that gives legislative implementation to the Budget. The views we have expressed, and the views I have expressed on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, are already on record, but there are some points which it is necessary to repeat. Before doing that, however, there are a few details I want to mention, not so much for the purpose of getting an explanation from the Minister now, but because it might be of advantage to him to have notice of them before Committee Stage. As he said, this is a Committee Stage Bill as regards details.

Although I read the Bill several times, I do not understand the exact significance of the change in the allowances from unearned income which is brought in under section 2. A more elaborate explanation than is included in the paragraph dealing with it in the explanatory memorandum might be desirable. As I understand it, whether I understand it correctly or not, a person gets the combination of the two allowances up to £500 and if one allowance falls short of that amount he gets the other. He can make the first calculation on an allowance of £100 on one side and £400 on the other, or exactly as it works out. I should like it to be clear beyond question that the full amount of the £500 limit can be made up between different allowances.

I have never been quite clear as to what benefit was expected in relation to the centralisation of tax collection in the hands of one collector general. That is a matter on which we might get some information.

There is also in the Bill a section which deals with firearm certificates and firearm licences. I do not understand whether there is, in fact, any change from the existing law in that respect. I am a bit puzzled to know why, when we have the imposition of a firearms duty in the Finance Bill, there has not been a financial resolution on which to base the section. I understood that every charge made in a Finance Bill had to be based on a financial resolution. It would be interesting to know why that was not required in this Act, under the Standing Order.

In its detailed provisions the Bill also gives very wide powers of interrogation to Revenue under section 19. While I understand and appreciate the necessity for wide powers in relation to the investigation of smuggling offences, at the same time it seems to me that the powers given in this section are drastic, to say the least of it.

I want to pay tribute to the manner in which section 22 has been introduced, and the manner in which Revenue quickly appreciated the problem when it was brought to their notice under the Finance Act, 1951. I also appreciate the manner in which the Minister dealt with it so expeditiously. It is quite clear that the section is now brought in to legislate for what I believe was intended by successive Ministers for Finance when they were introducing national loans and saying that national loans would not be subject to any taxation if in the hands of non-Irish residents. Once the point was brought to attention that the 1951 Act had been framed in a way that was rather wider than was anticipated, it was dealt with very speedily. It is only right that that should be acknowledged.

There is very considerable unrest in the country because of the fact that in this Bill, and in his Budget statement, the Minister has not taken any account of the decreasing value of money so far as income tax allowances are concerned. People hoped and expected that the tax which would be collected out of the wage increases would be offset to some degree by an enlargement of the personal and marriage allowances. As I said during the Budget debate, there has been considerable dissatisfaction because the principle has not been accepted that it costs two people twice as much to live as one, and that the marriage allowance for tax purposes is not twice the single allowance. Even if the Minister was not in a position to go the whole way in increasing the marriage allowance this year, it would have been worthwhile making some move in that direction in acknowledgement of the principle involved.

There is also very great anxiety about the manner in which the scope of the tax net has been widened to bring the man who produces broiler chickens in under the Schedule D assessment instead of the Schedule B assessment. That has caused very considerable anxiety in many parts of the country and particularly, I understand, in the Monaghan-Cavan area. I am afraid it is perhaps only the thin end of the wedge and that there is the danger that it may pass on to people producing pigs in any intensive fashion. Certainly that was not the intention when the original Act was being framed.

It is particularly unfortunate in relation to the broiler chickens because in that industry you have a type of house that has a very short life and yet I understand that depreciation, with the charges under Schedule D, is limited to two per cent, that is to say, putting the life of the house at 50 years. Ten years would be a much more realistic figure, and perhaps a maximum figure, for the building used for chicken rearing. I am told that from eight to ten years is the basis upon which the ordinary person frames his estimates. It is wrong that they should be taxed under Schedule D at all but if they are it is absolutely monstrous that depreciation should be permitted only at a rate of two per cent, equivalent to, and appropriate perhaps, much more for the solid type of industrial building that is usually envisaged.

I understand that it is alleged that Revenue have no discretion at all in relation to that and that they are completely caught by the Act which provides that a two per cent building depreciation should be allowed. Frankly, I have never quite been able to discover the basis of reasoning under which market gardens were assessed in the same way, but that type of assessment has gone on for a long time. Because to some extent this is a new sector in agriculture, it is something that should be amended.

I also understand that there is a new outlook in relation to the road taxation of certain vehicles used for road construction. That is something which will require amendment. The position is that machines used on the road are not liable to pay tax to the Road Fund but the machine that takes the drill or the compressor into the quarry where the road material is raised is so liable although it is only used for going from one quarry to another. It seems to me that that is wrong and I hope on the Committee Stage to be able to persuade the Minister by means of an amendment to change it and go back to the practice we had.

I should like also an assurance from him at the same time that whatever the law may be at present in relation to the broiler chicken industry there will not be any question of going back retrospectively to earlier years because people genuinely did not believe they were liable for assessment under Schedule D under the existing law, if they are so liable, and it would thus seem to be wrong for the matter to be taken up retrospectively now.

The Bill, although it does not mention the tax in so many words, is, of course, a general taxation Bill and, therefore, it would be appropriate to say a word on the turnover tax in relation to it. Everybody is finding that the administration of the tax is costing more than was anticipated. It may be costing the Minister very little, from his own revenue point of view, to administer the tax but that is because he has passed off the job on to the business community. There should be some system of discount to offset the additional charge which the business community have to provide. Only the other day I came across certain information regarding turnover taxes on the Continent in the European Economic Community. I want to mention this for the purpose of showing that what we said at that time was right and the information that was given by the Minister was wrong. He contradicted us flatly when we said then that on the Continent turnover taxes for the most part exempted basic foods.

The position in relation to Belgium, for example, where they have a multistage cumulative tax on all transactions up to but not beyond the retail level, is that basic foods and most services are exempted, The position in France, where they have the added value tax, is that basic food products are exempted. In Germany where they have a multistage cumulative tax, basic necessities are either exempted or are charged at a lower rate. In Italy they have a multi-stage cumulative tax with many modifications and few exemptions. I do not know the position in relation to Luxembourg but in the Netherlands there are many exemptions.

Therefore, it would have been quite in accord with the European pattern for the Minister to have done what he was asked to do in relation to that tax, to exempt the essential foodstuffs. It is also unfortunate that the House was misled, if you like, in relation to the practice on the Continent and that there was not some authoritative document available at that time, but there is, of course, the great difficulty in dealing with Continental taxation that one is not only dealing with a system foreign to our way of taxation but, in addition to that, books on it in English are not very readily available.

I also found it interesting to discover that the taxes on capital, in so far as death duties are concerned, in the Community are very much lower than here. With the exception of Great Britain, no country appears to have the type of death duty taxation we have. I appreciate that ours is changed from the British model and that we have a top rate of 40 per cent compared with the British 80 per cent, but, even so, the difference between our rates and the rates of the Continent is very striking. In Belgium, where the beneficiary is a child, the rate rises from 1¼ per cent at the bottom to a maximum of 14 per cent. That is where the beneficiary is a child and that is the type of case we would naturally like to have here.

There is a much higher rate where property is given to someone who is not a relative. In France, between 1956 and 1960, the tax levied on the total value of the estate of a deceased person was at a maximum of five per cent. I think that has been varied since 1960 and now the position is that relatives get a different rate. It runs ultimately up to 15 per cent on both bequests andinter vivos gifts.

In Germany, again where a child is concerned, the rate rises from two per cent up to 15 per cent. In Italy, it is more like our pattern, rising to 35 per cent in the highest cases. I am not quite clear what the position is in relation to Luxembourg. It probably follows the pattern of the other Benelux countries but I am unable to say. In the Netherlands, again in the case of a child beneficiary, the rate rises from three per cent up to a maximum of 17 per cent.

Those figures show that the pattern we have here in relation to death duties is more penal than those of the six members of the European Economic Community. I appreciate that because of special circumstances here, we must give consideration to the position in Britain under the double taxation agreement, that a person coming in here must not merely become resident or domiciled here but must in addition transfer into Irish securities of some sort if duty is to be avoided or imposed at the lower rate.

One of the indications is that it would be worth while as a means of attracting additional capital if we follow the pattern on the Continent rather than that of Great Britain. The Minister has in section 15 of this Bill abrogated the idea that used to be held strongly that it was not possible to make a differentiated tax in that respect. If it can be done in relation to Scotch whisky, it can equally be done in relation to death duties and should be done for the purpose of attracting more capital.

The Bill itself implements the Budget. It is the legislative enactment which puts up the price of beer. It is the legislative enactment responsible for the increase in customs duty on whisky. Apart from any other aspect, I may say in that respect that it is not at all certain, and is not considered at all certain in the trade, that that is likely to be of benefit in the long run. I agree it may be of short term benefit to the trade and, of course, to the revenue. However, it is utterly impossible to reconcile the increase in the customs duty over the excise duty here with our application to GATT or with our anxiety to level out for adherence to the EEC in 1970 or, indeed, with the dismantling of tariffs which is being dealt with already in two instalments.

The Bill also is the legislation that imposes the additional tax on petrol and on diesel oil. Somebody said here in the Budget debate that the duty on petrol had been increased during the time we were in office. Of course it was, but at that time Governmental policy was to try to push as much traffic as possible on to the railways and it was in keeping with that policy.

This increase comes on top of that, so that it is entirely irrelevant to refer to it in this respect. The cost of distribution will be felt everywhere and such a tax is bound to have its effect in increasing the cost of living. Virtually all heavy goods are now carried in diesel lorries.

If the Minister had wanted to deal with the matter from a pleasure point of view he could easily have exempted heavy hydrocarbon oil. If he had done so, it would not have had the effect of adding to the cost of distribution and, therefore, to the cost of living. Apart from that, this increase will put a very distinct brake on productivity and will mean that business people, manufacturers, will find it hard to keep their costs down and to compete in the export market. The Bill follows a bad Budget, and because it is an implementation of a bad Budget, it follows also that it is a bad Finance Bill.

I should like to follow the line taken by Deputy Sweetman, particularly in its brevity and in not endeavouring to open a general Budget debate on this Finance Bill because I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to reiterate our attitude towards the various measures in the Budget and to the criticisms we have of the Government's administration over the past 12 months or five years. Therefore I do not intend to repeat my own Budget speech or to repeat the comments and opinions I had to offer then. It would only lead to a refutation of these opinions by the Minister.

I find it necessary to restate our stand on certain of the Budget proposals introduced here a couple of months ago and to reiterate our opposition to the measure which introduced the turnover tax last year. We still think it is deplorable that this tax should include a tax on food and medicines. I do not know the source from which Deputy Sweetman quoted but he did indicate to the House that in countries which we were told have a turnover tax, certain food items and other necessaries of life are excluded.

The Minister introduced this tax last year, a tax on everything purchased. He has had experience of its working for a year and a half and his officials have had time to sit back and see how it operates. After even a cursory exmination of its operation over the past 15 months, the Minister must now conclude that there is no justification for taxing essential foodstuffs. We are told that to exempt foodstuffs would mean that the tax would have to be much more than 2½ per cent but I think there is no moral justification for a tax on food and I should be interested to hear from the Minister what countries operate a turnover tax on foodstuffs, medicines and other articles regarded as essential if people are to have minimum comforts.

This turnover tax was introduced as a permanent method of gaining revenue and, as somebody said, it is a sure-fire way of getting money. Whilst having regard to the responsibility of the Government for the economy of the country, we ought also to be concerned with the moral question of whether we should tax bread, meat, butter or clothing. We have been told in recent years that we will have to conform to certain standards in other countries, to their industrial practices, to their ideas of agriculture, and we are being told that we will have to adjust ourselves to the methods employed in other countries, particularly the six countries that are now members of EEC. I suggest that we ought to have a look at their taxation methods as well. I would also suggest that the system under which we work, with an emphasis on indirect taxation, is entirely different from the pattern of taxation in other countries in Europe and is different from the percentage of indirect taxation in Britain.

The Labour Party deplore the emphasis on indirect taxation. It is stated Government policy to increase indirect taxation and to reduce direct taxation. That is contrary to social justice and does not get the proper results. There should be an attempt to reverse engines and to bring up direct as against indirect taxation on the same pattern as obtains in many countries in western Europe at present.

The Minister was good enough, in his reply to the Budget debate, to refer to the capital gains tax suggested by me and he said that we would not get a lot of money out of it. I do not know if he could give, when replying to the debate on this Bill, an estimate of what he might get, because I do not think we can afford to cast aside any source of tax revenue as long as it brings in any money. All these small things add up and the revenue from a capital gains tax would mean assistance for some section of the community. If it did, it would be worthwhile.

Earlier today we were told that the increase in the tax on snuff would bring in £10,000. It was referred to as merely £10,000 but obviously the Minister wants that money. I suggest that he should consider taxing money which, at the present time, has little or no tax whatever on it. I cannot pretend to be an expert on capital gains tax but I know that it operates successfully in Britain. I may be told that there is not sufficient wealth in this country to warrant the imposition of such a tax but I believe there is moral justification for it and that if it brought in only £5, it would be well worthwhile.

The Minister, in his reply to the Budget debate, also dealt with social welfare and with the criticism by the Labour Party that not enough money was given for social welfare. He went on to show that from 1954 to 1957 and from 1948 to 1951, there were certain increases but that they were not at all comparable with the increases given in the past five years.

As far as the amount of the increases is concerned, one might say the Minister is correct but there are other factors to be considered in relation to social welfare. There is the cost of living and, from 1948 to 1957, the subsidisation of foodstuffs. There is also the point I made on the Budget that at that time more was spent on social welfare as a percentage of tax revenue. I went on to say then that as far as the past five or six years are concerned there has been a gradual decline in social welfare payments as a percentage of tax revenue. I believe, therefore, that when people are prone to talk of the national cake, they are inclined to forget that social welfare recipients are not getting their fair share. They were getting a bigger share from 1954 to 1957, a bigger share in 1948.

That is the net point I wish to make. I shall concede anything else the Minister for Social Welfare or the Minister for Finance says on this question. When you talk about the amounts, you must relate them to the cost of living and to other things, as I have been pointing out. The big test in this matter is that while we all agree social welfare recipients are now getting more than they were getting, their share of the national cake has been getting smaller during the past five years.

I do not know whether the Minister, in his speech today, dealt with the question of tax, particularly on tobacco. Last year many people accepted his statement that tobacco, and incidentally drink, could not be taxed because taxation on them had more or less reached saturation point. Would the Minister in his reply now tell us what change has come about in the past 12 months that has induced the Government to fall back on those old sources of revenue? There was an implication in the Minister's Budget Statement that this tax was designed to ensure that people would either cut down or give up smoking. At the moment we do not know whether this tax on tobacco is a deterrent or a revenue tax. There must be an explanation for the Government's change of feet on the question of tobacco and drinking. Last year we were given to understand that these forms of taxation had reached saturation point.

My main purpose in contributing—I shall be very brief—was to raise the question of income tax on co-operative societies. In the 1963 Budget, the traditional exemption of co-operative societies from income tax was brought to an end but the exemption was continued for agricultural and for fishery co-operatives. This was in order to ensure that the non-genuine co-operative societies would not receive this income tax advantage. I do not believe this is the real cure. The real cure—and this is not a matter at all for the Minister for Finance but for the whole Government—is an amendment of the law so that these non-genuine co-operatives will be cut out.

At the present time the income tax exemption applies to those societies engaged in agriculture and fisheries. In 1957, the Minister for Industry and Commerce set up the Committee on Co-operative Societies. For seven or eight years, that committee rather disappeared from view, did not seem to be taking any action. Then, last summer, there was a report which contained certain recommendations. I suggest these recommendations should be considered for the purpose, particularly, of offering exemption from income tax for the purpose of encouraging the growth of co-operative societies.

I should like to quote part of this report of the Committee on Co-operative Societies. At page 41, it states:

The present position is satisfactory in so far as genuine co-operatives are concerned. There is, however, a probability of abuse by societies which, though holding themselves out as co-operatives, do not observe true co-operative principles in their activities. This situation could lead to the withdrawal of the tax privilege from all societies, including the genuine co-ops. The arrangements which we recommend for restricting the use of the term "co-operative" to genuine co-operative societies would provide a means of eliminating these tax abuses. While having regard to the recommendations in the Fifth Report of the Commission on Income Taxation and to the intentions of the Government as indicated in the Second White Paper on Direct Taxation laid before the Oireachtas in April, 1963, and in the Financial Statement of the Minister for Finance when introducing the Budget, 1963, we feel generally that the current tax exemption should be preserved for genuine co-operative societies.

Most of us are in general agreement that there should be encouragement of genuine co-operative societies. Those engaged in agriculture and fisheries are being encouraged as far as income tax is concerned and I should like to appeal to the Minister to include genuine industrial co-operative societies, because, as far as I know, such societies have not got any income tax exemption at the moment.

I know there are not very many industrial co-operative societies in the country—I suppose not more than half a dozen—but if the Ministers for Finance and Industry and Commerce are satisfied these industrial co-operative societies are genuine, they should apply the tax exemptions to them. I have a case before me—I do not intend to give the name—of a co-operative society which was established four or five years ago. One could call it a genuine co-operative society. It employs 18 people, has a management committee of 12 people who are equivalent to a board of directors but who are unpaid. The society engage in all types of co-operative work and do good social work. It is a genuine, non-profit making concern as far as the individuals are concerned.

I believe such an effort should be encouraged by inclusion in the income tax exemption now applied to agricultural and fishery co-operatives. The Minister may not be in a position to comment on it now but I would ask him between now and Committee Stage to see how he could include this type of society.

There are one or two points I should like to raise on the Bill which, possibly, the Minister might prefer to deal with on Committee Stage. I do so in order to give him an opportunity to consider any suggestions I might see fit to make. If the Minister gives me a reply it will, perhaps, give me an opportunity to deal more fully with the matter on Committee Stage

In theProgramme for Economic Expansion, No. 77, there is a reference to the net income from abroad. It is indicated there that the gross national production in 1960 benefited to the extent of £34 million from the inflow of capital from different sources—remittances, external investments, and so on. It goes on to state that, by 1970, it is anticipated that this inflow will be reduced by half. That means that the gross national production will benefit to the extent of £16 million at that period as against £30 million today.

It strikes me that with a heavy adverse trade balance of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £110 million, it will be necessary to endeavour to replace in some way that reduction in the inflow of liquid money into this State. The Minister will probably reply that the economy is supposed to be expanding to such a vast extent that that will entirely offset any difficulties that may accrue from this problem. Again, I come back to the fact that, with this huge adverse trade balance, for a country such as this which is practically bereft of raw material so that we have to import so many raw materials for the servicing of our industries and the continuation of employment here, it is a matter that must be given the gravest consideration.

Deputy Sweetman has dealt with this point to a lesser degree already. I refer to the imposition of estate duty here. Before I go any further, I want to say that, to my mind, the imposition of estate duty is one of the most compelling factors in a reduction of employment. Take a well established industry—even a farm, for that matter. The principal dies and there is this imposition of death duties which, to all intents and purposes, is a capital levy. It embarrasses financially the business firm or whatever the undertaking may be which, very often, is being divided among several members of the same family. To that extent, it creates a situation that is not desirable from any angle of employment.

The Minister will have to consider seriously, in regard to the figures he gave me the other day, whether the State as a whole, in its financial structure, is or is not benefiting from these impositions. Deputy Sweetman gave a briefrésumé of the position with regard to estate duty within the EEC countries. We are assured by the Taoiseach that we shall be a member of the EEC by 1970. I do not accept that. However, suppose the Taoiseach is correct and that we have become a member by that time. We shall then have to try to bring ourselves in some way into alignment with the other member countries. Our financial structure and our tax system are based entirely on the British system.

The yield of death duties, according to a reply the Minister gave me to a question the other day, sets out the figures for the past three years. In 1962, the amount collected from death duties was practically £2½ million. In 1963, the amount was just under £3 million and in 1964 the amount was just over £3 million. I tried to get from the Minister the cost of collecting this tax but he was unable to give me the information. I can appreciate that situation. He gave me a rough figure of £105,000 a year. It probably costs a great deal more than that. The Minister could not break it down absolutely and completely.

To come back to our inflow of capital from overseas investments, and so on, which the Minister says will be cut by half, I submit that if we take a courageous step and we wipe out to a large extent the imposition of death duties, it will be to the immense benefit of our economy. Estate duties are something which we have inherited from the British tax system and adhered to with an undying devotion. Every time I mention this matter in this House, I am told that, because of the reciprocal arrangements which we have with the United Kingdom and with other countries, it is impossible for us to do anything about it. Have we not a different percentage rate of income tax from that of the United Kingdom? Is there not a reciprocal agreement which is working well, without any difficulties?

If the Minister is not prepared to go the whole way and to abolish the estate duties, then if he will greatly reduce this tax, he will get an inflow of capital from abroad which will offset the £16 million which his Government anticipate, according to this document, they will lose within the next ten years. Not only will he get that inflow but we shall have a stupendous inflow of capital into this country which could rise even as high as £100 million of hot money and which would be invested here.

It is further stated that if there is an abolition of death duties and if people bring money in here from another country, it means that the outside individual's rights are being filchea brought the actual money into the country and invested it here to the extent to which I believe they would, then all the Government's problems with regard to capital investment, social expansion, and so on, would be solved overnight. It is a matter that is worth considering. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and do something about it. I am raising it now in order to give the Minister and those who advise him a chance to consider it well. Those who advise the Minister are naturally conservative. It is their job to be conservative and to safeguard the finances of the country. Fundamentally, the point is that we want the Minister to get as much capital as possible into our country.

We are a country whose economy is expanding and is bound to expand. If our economy does not expand and does not get the opportunity to expand, then we shall not be able to check the two critical ills that exist in this country, namely, unemployment and emigration. I do not care what Ministers may say when they come into this House about our economic situation improving and that, by 1970, emigration, and so on, will be cured. I do not accept that. I am an elected Parliamentary representative who knows what is going on. These are views expressed to the Minister by his economic advisers who read balances of payments, economic trends, and so on. Even if they offer that advice, I personally find it hard to appreciate how they can do so because there are so many disquieting features in our economy today.

In the 1963 Budget, the Minister introduced a system whereby it was mandatory on whoever are responsible for banks to issue to the Revenue authorities, on request, particulars of the finances held by any client in the banks. That was a revolutionary step of which many people disapproved. In the bureaucratic age into which we are moving, when the State is supposed to do everything and the private individual's rights are being filched from him, I suppose that we have to accept it. Maybe we are moving to the left: I do not know. Can the Minister give this House any indication of the benefits that accrued from that step? Did he collect a lot of extra taxation? Was it worthwhile creating a situation whereby financial secrets held by the banks to whom the client entrusts his money and the individual concerned are being divulged? Did the State get sufficient revenue in return?

Before finishing on that subject, I want to tell the Minister of a case, several cases in fact, that came to my notice at the same time the other day in my capacity as a public representative. Three or four persons were written to, to the effect that they were not disclosing their full incomes. The agent or person acting for them endeavoured to find out from the income tax official what particular section of their income they were not disclosing. The inspector said he could not divulge that, that it was a secret matter. He would not let the agent know what they were supposed to be concealing in the way of moneys legally due to the State under laws passed here. Eventually, the people concerned, not knowing what the income tax official had mind, asked if it had anything to do with banking. The guarded reply they got was that if they went along something on those lines, it would be all right.

I mention that to show how utterly farcical the situation is. If private individuals, or those acting for them, must disclose to these officials their private affairs if the State is questioning anything, why should the State be so cautious in return and the official not be able to tell them what the particular items are? It seems absolutely farcical that the State should have power on the one side to seek all information and the private individual none whatever and cannot even be told what charge the State is making against him. Perhaps the Minister would consider these matters and try to clarify the position in regard to our tax laws which are complicated and I believe in many cases, wanting in justice.

The turnover tax, I gather, is now operating fully and to the satisfaction of the Government, though perhaps not in regard to the return they expected in view of the Budget we were presented with the other day, the financial provisions of which we are now discussing. As Deputy Barry reminds me, the turnover tax income exceeds their expectations by £3 million and yet they are "in the red" and had to come along and blister the backs of the people. Possibly they felt safe in doing so after their recent victories in two by-elections. Many big businesses are concerned and are collecting the tax for the Government whose officials have nothing to do but rake in the money. Has the Minister given due consideration to this in remission of income tax expenses to the firms concerned in respect of the staffs necessary? Some firms have had to employ considerable staff to do the book-keeping necessary to collect for the Minister the money payable under the turnover tax.

I should like the Minister to consider the three points I have raised. If he can reply on the Second Stage, I shall be happy to hear him because it will place me in a stronger position to discuss the matter on Committee Stage. If the Minister can give a full and clear answer, if his officials can advise him in that respect, it might considerably shorten the Committee Stage discussion.

It appears that the Government are to be blamed for everything. All kinds of promises are made by those not in office and those who cannot hope to be able to fulfil the promises but the peculiar position is that those who promise us heaven on earth can offer no alternative to the Government's method of raising the necessary finances. Members have advocated doubling pensions, even doubling salaries in some cases, and, generally speaking, colossal increases which would run into scores of millions of pounds but they have not stated the source from which they will obtain the revenue. It is hard for people with commonsense to accept these suggestions. If these people are prepared to come in and place concrete proposals before the House regarding the methods by which they will raise the necessary money, many members would carefully consider such proposals. But that has not happened and until it does, my mind will not change.

It appears that we have now reached the position in which only the rich man is to be considered. The Opposition have decided to defend him against everybody else. It is stated here that the Government have power to look into the financial position of various rich people. But is it not true that for the past 30 years the Government have had power to look into the financial position of the poor people? If a man applies for the dole or the old age pension; if a widow applies for a pension, are the Government not in a position to inquire into their means? Why should there be any clique in the happy position that the Government are not able to inquire into their means? That would not be right or fair.

It is a shocking travesty of justice that people should stand up here and take up the attitude that it is wrong to inquire into the rich man's means. Nobody has stood up and said it is wrong to inquire into the poor man's means. Let nobody be foolish enough to believe that the people outside do not see through this joke: you can examine the means of the applicant for the dole, or the old age pension but you cannot inquire into the means of the billionaire. What kind of Government or what kind of law would we have if that were the position? It would be completely wrong. It is well past time that inquiries should be made into the means of some of these people because they have been getting away with murder, as we know.

I congratulate the Minister publicly on his efforts to catch up with them and to bring into the State's coffers the millions of pounds of which the State has been defrauded over the years. A poor man in my area applies for the dole and an official investigates his case thoroughly but in the case of a big shopkeeper there should be no inquiries at all. Do they think it is in Tibet or on Mount Athos we are living? It is time we had a change.

A great hullabaloo has been made about the turnover tax. That has been going for the past 12 months and is continued here today. Where are we to get the revenue we require otherwise? Is it to be the position that the only person who must pay for the running of the country is the person who drinks, the person who smokes and the person who drives a car? It is an absurdity that that position should obtain in any country. The man who drinks, the man who smokes and the man who drives a car are probably very foolish people. I do not see any reason why the country should be run at their expense. The people who do not drive, smoke or run a car are saving money and making the best livelihood. I see nothing wrong with the turnover tax and most people in this country see very little wrong with it. The people in general, independently of whether they smoke, drink, drive cars or do any other foolish things, should bear equally the expenses of running the State. That applies also in any other State.

I suppose too many people smoke, drink, and run cars, and if we could get rid of these people we could probably get rid of a lot of trouble in the country, but apparently it has not occurred to anybody so far either to penalise these people or to get rid of them and it would seem that to penalise them or to get rid of them would create an extraordinary problem. If such people did not exist, if nobody drank, if nobody smoked, if nobody ran a car, if nobody bought petrol, the country would still have to go on.

I suggest that the Minister should look at the running of the country from that point of view. There is no use trying to operate a country on the basis of the people who do what others consider to be foolish things. The Minister removed the tax on dancing. The tax on betting and such things has been reduced. Why tax three categories of persons in the community as distinct from all the others? It is only fair that all members of the community should pay their fair share towards the running of the country. I make no apology to anybody for supporting the turnover tax because it was the first fair tax that was introduced in this country for a long time and it should have been introduced 20 years ago instead of last year.

A good deal of propaganda is made about the poverty-stricken position of our country to-day. A few minutes ago I left a man who went to the United States as a child and who has returned. His attitude appears to be that we are even ahead of the United States.

I do not know where this alleged poverty exists. I have to travel 200 miles to Dublin from my home. I do not see any poverty across the country. There are certain diseases existing at the moment. A great campaign is being waged against cancer. There was a similar campaign a few years ago against TB. A campaign against the worst disease of all—downright laziness—is overdue.

That does not arise on the Bill before the House. The Bill relates to taxation.

I know, Sir. But the position is that if a man is lazy, he could not earn enough to pay his taxes.

He may be too lazy to spend it also.

Perhaps in the Deputy's county but not in Mayo.

Not in Louth, which is a good working county.

One of the big bogies confronting us is that there are more people who are well off than there ever were before. A man becomes rich, not because he spends money but because he saves money.

The millionaire is a millionaire simply because he saves money. I do not know about the Minister for Finance. The extraordinary thing is that we are reaching a position in this country where too much money is held by too few people. There are certain rich people who, because they are rich, succeed in becoming richer.

It is very important at this stage that the Minister should take steps to redistribute these riches. If I have any grouse with the Minister, it is on the question of the distribution of social welfare benefits. The Minister could have gone a good deal further in that respect. I believe he would have got the unanimous support of the House for an increase in social welfare benefits. I realise that in order to increase the benefits, the Minister must get the necessary money, but I honestly believe that the House would have supported him in such a proposal. I suggest that in the very near future the Minister should take steps to bring the ordinary social welfare payments up to the standards which are accepted across the Border, in a part of a country which is regarded as anathema by many of us, but, nevertheless, where they have decided to look after the poorer sections of the community.

The rich are capable of looking after themselves. I suggest to the Minister that his main objective should be to look after the poor in this country. The rich will get on quite well on their own.

We have had a useful discussion on some points raised by various Deputies and I should like briefly to refer to some of these points.

First of all, Deputy Sweetman raised a point about section 2. He said he did not understand exactly how section 2 would apply. Before this year there was a provision for those living practically entirely on unearned income, people who have investments and people to whom we sometimes refer as living on fixed incomes. In the past, they got a certain amount of relief where the income was up to £600 per year but, where the income was above £600 per year, the relief was shaded off again and they reached the stage where they got no relief. That created a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst those slightly over £600. This year we have changed it and section 2 now provides that in the case of a person who has investment income or unearned income, the first £600 income from unearned sources of that kind will qualify for the age allowance, no matter what his total income may be.

We go further than that, however. In the past, if he had earned income as well up to a certain amount he got no relief. Now he gets the relief up to the £2,000 limit as if the £600 income from unearned sources were part of the £2,000. That means that, if he has £600 unearned income and £1,400 from earned income, he gets a fourth relief on that, as if it were all earned income. If his earned income goes over the £2,000 total, he does not, of course, get any more relief.

Deputy Sweetman also asked about the Firearms Act. The reason a Financial Resolution will be necessary is that some new licences are brought in under the Firearms Act.

A Financial Resolution will be necessary?

It will be necessary. I mentioned in my speech that it will be necessary to bring in a Financial Resolution. Deputy Sweetman also drew attention to section 19 where there are certain penalties and restrictions on those who are using untaxed diesel when they should really be using taxed diesel. There is always a certain amount of trouble in collecting duty where certain users are entitled to use the same article free of duty on occasion and the only excuse I can make for the severity of the section is the difficulty of administering a duty of this kind.

Deputy Sweetman also said that, because of the decreasing value of money, we should have considered giving greater reliefs on the income tax side. That just was not possible.

With regard to broiler chickens, this is a matter of interpretation of the law. As Deputies are aware, the Revenue Commissioners have the law and they interpret it as they think correct. In their interpretation in relation to this matter, they decided that the rearing of broilers was not an agricultural occupation. I think we must agree with that because we know it is possible to rear broilers without any land at all or, in fact, without being even near land; broilers can be raised in the middle of the city. The Revenue Commissioners must interpret the law as they see fit. If the Dáil thinks a change should be made, then the law will have to be amended.

Another point Deputy Sweetman made was that the depreciation allowed in relation to buildings used for this broiler business is too low. It is two per cent and Deputy Sweetman thinks it should be ten per cent. Again, if the Dáil decides that Deputy Sweetman is right in that, we will have to change the law.

Certain vehicles are exempt from road tax. I think I did not quite get the Deputy's point and I mean to read his speech before the Committee Stage. I am not sure whether he was referring to the clause exempting certain snow-clearing machines from road tax.

That is in this Bill?

There is one in an earlier Act.

I shall read the Deputy's speech.

I do not think my speech was as clear as it might be. Anyway, I am going to put down an amendment for Committee Stage.

Very good. We have now had experience of the administration of the turnover tax. Deputy Sweetman says he thinks it is costing more than anticipated. He did not refer to the Exchequer cost but he did refer to the cost on traders. I must say any trader I have met recently seems to have modified his ideas a bit about the turnover tax. They were very hostile to it in the beginning. Any I have met lately tell me it is working smoothly on the whole and they have no complaint with regard to any great expense.

There are no complaints.

I want to make it quite clear that I do not believe I can be quoted as saying that the turnover tax in Europe applied generally to food. I said it applied in some cases. Having looked the matter up, I find it applies fully, or almost fully, or partially in a number of countries. The two countries I did quote several times were Norway and Sweden. I did say on many occasions that we were adopting the tax as applied in these two countries as our model. In those countries, the tax applies to every sale. Certain exemptions are made. We have also made exemptions. There may be some slight difference as between ourselves and these two countries, but it is of no consequence. In general, the tax applies at the same level all round. In both countries they started at about two per cent or 2½ per cent. As Deputy Corish raised the matter in particular, I should like to remind him that in both countries it was a Socialist Government who brought in the tax and it is a Socialist Government who are still in favour of it. At the moment the tax in Norway is ten per cent and in Sweden it is six per cent. It applies fully to food as well as everything else.

Deputy Sweetman said that, on looking up this matter, he came across other bits of information, including information on death duties. He quoted various countries in which death duties are lower than they are here. I accept the Deputy's figures naturally but I should like to say that, in all probability, you have in many of these countries a capital tax of some sort. I do not say in all, but I think a number have a capital tax. In this country and in Britain, with one exception which I shall mention later when I come to deal with a point made by Deputy Corish, the only capital tax is death duties. It is quite hefty in Britain; it is not quite so hefty here. Now, we take capital duty off only once in a lifetime and it is therefore higher than if one were taking a smaller percentage of capital every year in the same way as income tax and surtax is taken.

I agree with Deputy Sweetman, if I got his point correctly, with regard to the increased customs duty on spirits coming into this country. If GATT is applied generally all over the world, including this country, then we may not have power to impose a revenue tax at a higher level for customs than for exise. The Deputy is probably right there but we can only wait and see what we will do about it.

Deputy Corish, in speaking about the turnover tax, said that, when we were bringing in the tax last year, we had come to the conclusion that a tax on drink and tobacco would be ineffective and he wants to know now why we have changed our minds about it this year. There are two reasons. My own observation from studying the imposition of a tax on drink or tobacco is that when you put a tax on, it usually reduces the consumption, but after six months, or so, the consumption, as a rule, comes back to what it was, and you then have a yield from the tax. That means that to put a tax on drink or tobacco two years in succession would have a very bad effect from the Revenue point of view. You would get less than you would get if you did not put it on at all. That is the first reason.

Secondly, for a couple of years, we were, if you like, considering a turnover tax on all retail sales. We knew that after the first year, a turnover tax would bring in a considerable amount of revenue in a full year, which could not be got, no matter how far you went in taxing drink and tobacco. The turnover tax is now in operation, and we expect it will bring in £14 million this year. It is rather futile, to say the least, for any Party to talk about abolishing that tax. So far as I can see, it would be impossible to replace it with any other tax, and to talk about doing away with it is, therefore, not realistic politics at all.

Are we to talk about increasing it?

I cannot guarantee that some Government may not at some time increase it.


I am quite sure that no Minister for Finance will ever say that any particular tax is at its highest level. He knows that practically every year some tax must be put on, and he realises that consideration must be given to the best source from which to get taxation.

Deputy Corish talked about a capital gains tax. I cannot say that I have investigated it minutely and thoroughly, but from the investigations I have made, and what I have learned from those who advise me, I think the possibility of having a capital gains tax in this country is very small. In England the matter of a capital gains tax was discussed, and eventually it was imposed in a very limited way. A capital gains tax on gains made on disposal of certain assets was imposed but with some exceptions, only in respect of gains made within six months of acquisition of the assets. Obviously what they had in mind was the big take-overs and matters of that kind, in which a person knows there will be a take-over in a certain industry, buys shares, and when the take-over is announced, gets a big increase in the shares and sells them again. That is why they had the six months provision. I think that is the only form of capital gains tax they have in England

What form could it take here? No Deputy would suggest we should put a tax on ordinary industrial gains or industrial shares. If a group come in here and start a factory and, after a few years, the shares begin to increase in value—as they will if the industry is a success—we must keep in mind that if it is not a success, they will lose their money. Therefore, they are entitled to a certain amount if they succeed, because they took a chance. I do not think we should discourage people from putting money into industry by saying we will have a capital gains tax. That would be a very foolish thing to do.

As regards the Stock Exchange, there are no opportunities here, if you like, for a person to make big money on the Stock Exchange. The Stock Exchange is a comparatively tame business here. There would not be much object in putting on a capital gains tax, because some margin must be left to the person who invests on the Stock Exchange. He may lose or gain and, therefore, he must have a margin. As Minister for Finance, I am very anxious, from the point of view of the economy of the country, that the Stock Exchange should do well. We want people to come here and invest money, and they will not do that unless the Stock Exchange is fairly lively.

The only thing left then is the land. There may be a case—and I dare say there is a case—for taxing people who buy land near a town and get a big increase for it after a few years. Perhaps they buy the land because they know its value will increase. There might not be much in that, but I admit there may be a case for a capital gains tax in that respect. The whole idea of a capital gains tax would have to be approached from the point of view of equity rather than of getting money out of it.

Deputy Corish also spoke about the social welfare recipients. I dealt with that matter in detail in my Budget speech and I do not want to go back over it again. It may be true, as Deputy Corish says, that the social welfare recipients are getting less of the national cake, as he put it, than in 1956-57. On the other hand, as I pointed out before, from 1954 to 1957, the increases the old age pensioners got amounted to 12 per cent, and the cost of living went up during those years by nine per cent, so the net increase to the old age pensioners was very small—about three per cent. In our time the increases the old age pensioners got amounted to 56 per cent, and the cost of living went up by 20 per cent, so the net gain in recent years is far more than it was at that time. However, I do not want to go back over that controversy, and I shall leave it at that.

Deputy Corish talked about income tax as it applies to co-operatives. I remember when I was Minister for Agriculture this was being pushed by the business people, who said it was ridiculous that co-operatives should be free of income tax while they had to pay it. Indeed, when I was Minister for Agriculture, I had to meet those people at times and argue with them that the co-operatives were not interfering with the business people to any great extent. Anyway, they co-operated in the business and, therefore, in my opinion, they were entitled to be free from income tax.

What happened then, and what brought this to a head, was that the Income Tax Commission set up by Deputy Sweetman considered this, amongst other matters, and recommended that the profits of a co-operative company should be subject to income tax, except in certain cases. The certain cases were principally agricultural cases. They had agricultural production societies—they would be creameries and so on—they had marts and they also had societies which were set up under the Provident Societies Act for educational or philanthropic purposes. I believe they were exempt in any case so they did not need to be included in the legislation. Therefore, we included the agricultural co-operatives and also the fishery co-operatives which would naturally go with them. We did stick practically to the recommendation of the Income Tax Commission.

I do not know whether we should reconsider this matter. I take it the Commission gave it very full consideration and it would be necessary to get an outside body to consider it again if we thought it was necessary to have it reconsidered.

Does the Minister not think that the genuine industrialist should be included?

Does the Deputy mean consumer or producer?


Producer—I do not know; there may be something in that.

There is only one example that I know of and that is what prompted me to mention this. Perhaps it is the only one.

I should not like to express an opinion on it. It would be rather an expert job to examine it. If the Deputy will write to me, I shall have it examined. Deputy Esmonde talked about death duties. I know from his speeches here before that he has a great belief about what we would derive from a lowering of the death duties or the abolition of the death duties. He has a great belief in the economic advantage of doing such a thing. First of all, he asked a question about the amount we collect each year and the cost, and he had some doubt whether I gave him the true figures with regard to the cost. If the Deputy looks at the total collected by the Revenue Commissioners and the total cost he will see that the figure I gave him in this case is not very far out. I have not the same belief as Deputy Esmonde in this case because some few years ago we brought the top rate down considerably—it was 53 per cent and we brought it down to 40 per cent—and I remember saying at that time, when I brought that proposition before the Dáil, that I wanted to see what good effect it would have, would it mean that people with money would come over here and invest money so that they would get the benefit of our death duties——

That seems to have happened. They have come in.

Have they? I am glad. I was not aware that they had. Perhaps the Deputy is right. I remember saying that if we saw that good result, we might go further and induce more people to come in but I should like the Deputy to give me some assurance that they have.

All who qualified have passed on.

Not yet. Deputy Esmonde also spoke about our balance of payments difficulties between this and 1970 as outlined in ourSecond Programme for Economic Expansion. He thought they would be considerably eased if we took off the death duties and induced people in with their money. I do not think it is necessary or that we need go that far. I pointed it out on the Budget that we are in a position to meet any deficit there may be in 1970. It was, as a matter of fact, also dealt with in the White Paper, paragraph 74 or 75. The Deputy also spoke about some person whose bank, in obedience to an order from the Revenue Commissioners, had given a return of this man's income from deposits in the bank and the Deputy said the man had asked the inspector to give him a copy but the inspector had not done so. The man has a very simple remedy because, after all, if he goes to the bank I am sure the bank will give it to him just as they gave it to the inspector. The final point which Deputy Esmonde made was about the expense of keeping accounts for income tax. Of course, all expenses are allowed for income tax, including these.

Deputy Leneghan was quite right in regard to the point he made that if we choose to claim the right, and every Government have claimed the right, to examine the means of an applicant for an old age pension—and our officials go to a great lot of trouble to find out an applicant's means before recommending him for a pension, whether partial or full—he could not see why we should not have the same right to examine the means of a person who has a bank deposit to see whether he should pay income tax or not. In fact, there is a better case for looking into the means of a person who should be an income taxpayer.

Deputy Leneghan also said, and I cannot agree with him, that if I had proposed to give more to the old age pensioners, widows and so on, I would have had the unanimous backing of the House. I would agree with that all right; I would have had the unanimous backing of the House, but Deputy Leneghan knows I would not have had unanimous backing for getting the money. That is where the difficulty arises. I cannot propose to give an increase to anybody unless I know where I am to get the money.

The Minister could have given less to the farmers and more to the old age pensioners.

Even now the two Parties are waiting to vote against the Bill. I am quite sure that when it comes to the Committee Stage, they will vote against every clause dealing with tobacco, beer—perhaps not spirits —and petrol, so, therefore, I have to say to Deputy Leneghan that while I have always got the unanimous backing for giving more to everybody, the opposition always turn up when I ask for more money. Whether it is on beer, cigarettes, petrol, income tax or anything else, it is always opposed.

The Minister often did it himself when he was in opposition.

I think there is no wealth tax in Belgium, France or Italy; there is in Germany and possibly in Luxembourg and in the Netherlands.

Not in Belgium, but there is some degree of food tax in Italy.

According to my information, there is in the——

Does the Deputy mean the wealth tax? I am not sure about that. What I said was that I ventured to say there was no capital tax in some European countries.

There is in Germany, for example.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 54.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Fianagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • ÓBriain, Donnchadh.
  • ÓCeallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.


  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barron, Joseph.
  • Barry, Anthony.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Browne, Michael.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Carroll, Jim.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Everett, James.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan D.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Thomas G.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
  • O'Keeffe, James.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers:- Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Tully.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 26th May, 1964.