Could the Minister indicate what the tax would be on a salary of £11,413 in respect of a man with a wife and no other dependant?
Committee on Finance. - Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 1973: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The practice in the House has been not to give any particulars in relation to the income of any individual. However, it is impossible to say what would be the tax in respect of a person such as the one described by the Deputy because there would be several factors involved— bank interest, et cetera—and several other deductions would be made from a person's income before it could be assessed for tax purposes. I accept the point that the Deputy is making, that is, that it is not improbable that a substantial portion of the salary would be subject to tax at a high rate. It would be undesirable that unnecessary envy be stimulated by the reason of the extent of the remuneration without having regard to the amount of tax that would be payable.
Would the Minister be prepared to hazard a guess as to how much tax would be payable?
It would be invidious to depart from the very proper practice of not identifying the tax payment that any person would be subject to.
It would be reasonable to assume that, in the case of remuneration at the level we are discussing, the recipient would be paying both income tax and surtax.
That would not be an unreasonable assumption.
It would not be far off the £6,000 mark.
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Briefly, I should like to take up the point raised by Deputy Colley on Second Stage when he expressed surprise that I was acknowledging the partial responsibility of the previous administration for this measure. I thought it appropriate that, where there was agreement on both sides of the House, that fact should be recorded. But I also thought it rather odd that the last Government, on the day before the change of Government, concerned themselves with this problem and did not concern themselves with other problems about which many speeches have been made in this House, including the remuneration of Deputies and Senators. The only decision the last Government took in this sphere on the day before leaving office was the one that has been put into effect now. In those circumstances, I considered it appropriate that that peculiar development should have been underwritten.
I do not wish to engage in any acrimonious debate with the Minister. However, for the record I want to point out that the previous Government were in the position where they could not introduce legislation and there were, of course, more difficult problems arising in other matters to which the Minister referred but he will find, if he has not already found, that there was available in the Department of Finance a memorandum for submission to the Government in regard to the other matter to which he referred.
As far as this Bill is concerned, the point which I made is still valid and is still acknowledged by the Minister in that on this occasion he did admit, acknowledge and draw attention to the part played by the previous Government in relation to the preparation of this Bill. Speaking offhand and from recollection I think it is the only Bill the Minister has brought in where he has acknowledged such a fact although in virtually every other Bill he brought in the fact was the same but he did not acknowledge it.
Deputy Colley has suggested that there was some difference between what was required to be done following a decision on the Presidential remuneration and the remuneration of Deputies and Senators and office holders. Of course, legislation was required in both cases to give effect to the decisions.
This was not subject to the Employer/Labour Conference report as the Minister will appreciate.
The Employer/Labour Conference reported on the 22nd December but no decision was taken on foot of that report before the change of Government. It was only at the last meeting of the last Government that a decision was taken in relation to this matter so quite clearly there was not a possibility of legislation being discharged to give effect to it except by the incoming administration. We can take up the matter, if the Deputy wishes, on the other Bill dealing with remuneration for Members of the Oireachtas this afternoon.
Surely the Minister is not suggesting that there is disagreement on this side of the House about the other Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.