asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the tax-free concessions on profits from exports, as agreed with the EEC, form part of the arrangements he has made to attract 15 new US industries which will provide 5,500 jobs.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tax Free Concessions.
27.
The export tax relief was part of the package of incentives for new industrial investment which led to the interest of 13 US firms in establishing new manufacturing industries here to employ about 4,500 people, as announced by me on 29th September, 1973.
Is the Minister aware that several trade papers in the United States and in Canada have commented most unfavourably on the announcement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce regarding the removal of these concessions from the mining industry.
No, I am not, and if they did I would say they were under a misapprehension. This was explained very clearly by the Taoiseach—and I will come to it in a later reply—in a speech to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce last week in which he gave a categorical assurance that there was no question of the tax incentives being removed.
Can the Minister say whether the report that one concern has already withdrawn its application is true or false?
I do not know to which report the Deputy is referring but if he is referring to a report in the Cork Examiner a few days after the announcement that report was false. Negotiations are still in progress.
Is the Minister giving us an assurance that the Burroughs Corporation will set up a factory in Cork?
I cannot give that assurance because I do not know. This is a matter for the IDA. I understand that the negotiations are still in progress. I am saying that no prospective industry has pulled out as a result of the proposed new legislation in regard to taxation on mining.
Is the Minister aware that a spokesmen for Burroughs Corporation made a statement to the effect that because of——
This is Question Time, Deputy. We cannot have a statement.
They are now pulling out of Cork.
My understanding is that negotiations are still in progress.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that Burroughs Corporation will set up a factory in Cork?
No. That is a matter for the IDA and Burroughs Corporation.
The Minister must know——
The Deputy has got a lot of mileage out of this matter.
——that the IDA and Burroughs Corporation had finalised plans for the erection of a factory in Cork and, as a result of the statement on mining, Burroughs Corporation have now withdrawn?
I do not accept that at all. I think that is a most mischievous statement.
It is not mischievous. It is accurate.
Is the Minister aware of any American firm which has called into question the credibility of the IDA advertisement in the Wall Street Journal as to relief on taxes derived from exports?
No, I am not.
I will have pleasure in bringing it to the Minister's attention.
Pleasure?
Quite unsolicited.
28.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the unease existing among foreign industrialists in this country concerning relief of corporation profits tax, he will make a statement assuring them that the agreements entered into by them with the Industrial Development Authority and the Government will be honoured.
29.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will give an undertaking that the Government will not, in any circumstances, renege on committed export tax reliefs for new exporting industries.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 28 and 29 together.
I would direct the attention of the Deputies to the statement which was made by the Taoiseach recently in an address to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and was widely reported. The Taoiseach made it clear that the Government did not intend to deprive manufacturers of the benefits of the export tax relief and had, in fact, authorised the Industrial Development Authority to give, on their behalf, an absolute assurance to manufacturers and industrialists that they regard the granting of this relief as a contractual obligation.
Does the Minister agree that the more often the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce repeat that type of reply the better because credibility has been shaken?
Could the Minister indicate to the House why he thinks potential industrialists would be more impressed with an assurance by the Taoiseach or a member of the Government than by legislation passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas?
Legislation in this regard was passed in 1956 by a Government comprising both parties on this side of the House. As was outlined by the Taoiseach last week to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, this Government have no intention of amending that legislation.
Is the implication that legislation, which gives a statutory guarantee and makes a statutory contract, passed by this House will not be honored because it was passed during the term of office of the Government now in Opposition?
No, certainly not.
That seems to be the clear implication.
What I mean is that this Government would be most unlikely to amend that legislation because it was introduced when they were in office.