Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are cognate and can be discussed together.
Finance Bill, 1975: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 13, lines 13 to 15, to delete "within a time specified in the notice, such information on the matters specified in the notice as is in his possession." and to substitute "within twenty-one days after the date of the notice or such longer period as the inspector may allow, such information relevant to the ascertainment of the duration of the lease on the matters specified in the notice as is in his possession.".
This amendment and amendments Nos. 2 and 4 arise from points made by Deputy Colley on Committee Stage, which I undertook to examine before Report Stage. The present amendment relates to paragraph (c) of section 19 and inserts a new subsection (5) in section 8 of the Income Tax Act, 1967. Deputy Colley expressed concern that the words "of the matters specified in the notice" were too wide and could be interpreted as including matters not directly concerned with the duration of the lease referred to in the opening words of the section. I did not quite accept the Deputy's representations in the matter but in any event I have been anxious to meet him and the amendment now put forward ensures that the matters specified in the notice must be relevant to the ascertainment of the duration of the lease. The amendment also takes account of the point made on section 21 (7) of the Bill where it was suggested that the provision requiring the furnishing of information should ensure that a reasonable time would be allowed for supply of the information, with discretion for an extension of time. Accordingly, the words "within twenty-one days after the date of the notice or such longer period as the inspector may allow" are being inserted. Would the House agree that I should also comment upon amendments Nos. 2 and 4 at this stage?
I am quite happy, if the Minister wishes to do so.
Again, amendment No. 2 is aimed at meeting another point made by Deputy Colley on section 21 (2) about the possibility of some affected person being unable for one reason or another to give notice within the time limit of 21 days. It is proposed to meet the point by bringing in the provision of section 416, subsection (7) of the Income Tax Act, 1967, which deals with the situation where a taxpayer is prevented, owing to absence, sickness or—and this is the relevant phrase—"other reasonable cause" from giving notice of appeal against an assessment to income tax made upon him by an inspector. That subsection empowers an inspector to admit or refuse a late appeal and enables the taxpayer to appeal to the appeal commissioners against a refusal by an inspector to admit a late appeal. This provision will now apply to cases affected by section 21, subsection (2) of the Bill.
With regard to amendment No. 4, this amendment to section 21, subsection (7) is complementary to amendment No. 1 and, again, meets the point made by Deputy Colley in relation to the time limit for the furnishing of information to an inspector. The amendment specifies a time of 21 days, with provision for an extension of that time.
I am glad the Minister has introduced these amendments and taken the points I made on this matter. As far as I can see, the amendments do meet the points I raised. I have no doubt that the legislation which will result from the passage of this Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas will be the better for these amendments. It is true that in relation to the matters involved the Minister did inform us that he and the Revenue Commissioners are not aware of any particular case of the kind sought to be covered. Nevertheless, since there were three or four sections dealing with this matter, obviously there was anticipated a possibility that such a situation could arise. That being so, it seems to me desirable that we should make the legislation as good as possible without weakening the effort being made to close a certain loophole. I think these amendments do that. I am glad the Minister has taken the points I raised and has incorporated them in these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 13, after line 56, to add the following proviso:
"Provided that section 416 (7) of the Income Tax Act, 1967, shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to any such notice as it applies in relation to a notice of appeal under the said section 416."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 14, after line 4, to add the following proviso:
"Provided that this subsection shall not operate to prevent any person to whom notice has not been given under subsection (1) from appealing against any such determination of the inspector which may affect that person's liability to tax."
On Committee Stage Deputy Colley was concerned that some person affected by an inspector's determination under section 21, subsection (1), might not receive notice under that subsection. Consequently, he might be unable to give notice of appeal under section 21, subsection (2). Deputy Colley suggested that the words "the determination shall not be called in question in any proceedings" would preclude an appeal on the part of a person to whom notice had not been given. This possibility is being met by amending subsection (3) to ensure that a person who has not got a notice under subsection (1) will not be denied a right of appeal where his liability to tax is affected. I trust the Deputy will accept that this meets the point.
In this case also I am glad the Minister has met the point I raised by introducing this amendment. I think the point to which he referred is met by this amendment and to that extent again the Bill is being improved. However, I am somewhat disappointed that another point raised in connection with the same wording does not appear to have been covered in this amendment. Let me briefly remind the Minister of it. It had to do with the phrase "the determination shall not be called in question in any proceedings". I raised the point that, even in the case of somebody who has received notice, if that were deemed to be a provision to the effect that a ruling on a point of law by the inspector could not be called in question in any proceedings, this would be, to say the least, unsatisfactory and, indeed, might well be unconstitutional. It does not seem to me that the amendment covers that point. In so far as it goes, certainly I welcome it.
I would urge the Minister, between now and the passage of the Bill in the other House, to look again at that point to see if there is any substance in it and, if there is, to amend the provision by an extension of the amendment now before the House.
I can assure the Deputy that I have looked at this. Indeed, I argued in relation to the other suggestions he made that these powers may be used only for taxation purposes because that is the ambit of the Bill with which we are dealing. It is for taxation purposes only.
But that could be a determinable point of law in relation to a particular taxation case.
In point of fact the relevance is a matter for determination in any particular case. I do not think the amendment suggested by the Deputy is required in protection of any potential taxpayer.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 has been discussed already.
I move Amendment No. 4:
In page 14, line 19, to delete "within the time specified in the notice," and to substitute "within twenty-one days after the date of the notice or within such longer period as the inspector may allow,".
Amendment agreed to.
Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 5.
Is this because of the insertion of a new section?
It is because it involves a charge on Revenue.
Just to be quite clear on this, Sir, we are now going into Committee?
Yes, in Committee. In other words, Deputies may speak more than once.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 5.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 5.
In page 18, between lines 49 and 50, to insert the following section:
"34.—(1) Section 255 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1967, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
`(cc) for the intensive production of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry or eggs in the course of a trade other than the trade of farming within the meaning of section 13 of the Finance Act, 1974, or'.
(2) In relation to a building or structure which falls to be regarded as an industrial building or structure by virtue of subsection (1), Chapter II of Part XV and Chapter I of Part XVI of the Income Tax Act, 1967, shall have effect as if—
(a) `one-fifth' were substituted for `one tenth' in section 254 (1) of the said Act,
(b) `one tenth' were substitued for `one fiftieth' in sections 264 (1) and 266 (4) of the said Act.
(c) `tenth year' were substituted for `fiftieth year' in section 264 (3) and the proviso to section 265 (1) of the said Act,
(d) paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 266 (4) of the said Act were deleted.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as respects capital expenditure incurred on or after the 6th day of April, 1971, but no allowance shall be made under the said Chapters by virtue of this section—
(a) for any year of assessment prior to the year 1974-75, or
(b) under section 254 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1967, in respect of expenditure incurred before the 6th day of April, 1974.".
This amendment proposes to insert a new section in the Bill which will provide initial and annual allowances in respect of capital expenditure on buildings used for the intensive production of livestock.
The question was raised on Committee Stage of the Bill and the point was made that it was anomalous to give an allowance to farmers in respect of such buildings but to deny an allowance for them when used by a non-farmer. The point was also made that an allowance is granted to market gardeners in respect of buildings used by them for the production of market garden produce. I accepted that there were anomalies and I undertook to examine the situation further. Having examined the position, I have come to the conclusion that the same allowances should be made available for these buildings as are available for farm buildings and market garden buildings.
Therefore, the new section provides that, in respect of expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1974, on buildings used for the intensive production of livestock, poultry and eggs, there will be an initial allowance of 20 per cent and an annual allowance of 10 per cent. The allowances will apply for the year 1974-75 and subsequent years. As in the case of the farm buildings allowance, expenditure incurred on or after the 6th April, 1971, and before the 6th April, 1974, will come within the scope of the allowance subject to a notional write-off for the years prior to 1974-75.
Subsection (1) describes the class of building which will qualify for the allowance. The allowance is not intended to extend to ordinary buildings which might simply be used for housing animals or feeding them in the normal way. Since the person claiming the allowance will be a non-farmer— because farmers using such buildings are entitled to a farm building allowance in any event in respect of them—it is difficult to imagine that such a person would be housing or feeding animals other than in an intensive way. Consequently, the section speaks of buildings used for the intensive production of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry or eggs. The subsection inserts a reference to these buildings in the definition of "industrial building or structure" contained in section 255 (1) of the 1967 Act. This brings the buildings within the provisions of Chapter II of Part XV of the 1967 Act— initial allowances—and Chapter I of Part XVI—annual allowances.
Subsection (2) adapts the sections specified therein so as to ensure (a) that the initial allowance to be granted under section 254 (1) will be 20 per cent, that is one-fifth instead of one-tenth, which is the basic fraction in the section.
Paragraph (b) ensures that the annual allowance to be granted under section 264 (1) will be at the rate of 10 per cent instead of 2 per cent which was the basic fraction for annual allowances for industrial buildings. Under the deeming provisions of section 266 (4), notional allowances will be written off for years prior to 1974-75 in respect of expenditure between 6th April, 1971, and 5th April, 1974.
Paragraph (c) ensures that where the building is sold, the residue of expenditure to be allowed to the purchaser will be divided by the number of years still to run between the date of sale and the tenth year of the life of the building, instead of the fiftieth year. In other words, if the residue of unallowed expenditure is £5,000, the purchaser will get an annual allowance of £500 and not £100. A consequential amendment is also made in the proviso to section 265 (1) which ensures that no balancing allowance or balancing charge is to be made on the sale of the building after the tenth year at which time the cost of the building will have been written off.
The non-application of paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 266 (4) deals with the notional write-off of annual allowances and is being adapted so as to provide for a notional write-off for years prior to 1974-75 in the case of expenditure incurred between 6th April, 1971, and 5th April, 1974. Paragraph (a) of the proviso deals with the exceptional case of a lessor of a building entering into occupation himself for trading purposes, thus involving a change of basis of assessment. Because of the technical structure of the relief, the notional write-off would apply for one year so that a year's allowance would be lost although the building continued to be used as such for all years. To protect the situation, paragraph (a) of the proviso said the write-off provision was not to apply in the case of a year of assessment from 1960-61 onwards if the building was an industrial building on the day preceding the beginning of the year of assessment. The existence of this paragraph would now prevent a write-off for years prior to 1974-75 in relation to expenditure on intensive production buildings incurred between 6th April, 1971, and 5th April, 1974. Accordingly, the paragraph is being rendered ineffective in the present case.
Subsection (3) brings in expenditure incurred on or after 6th April, 1971, as in the case of the farm buildings allowance, but no actual allowance is being given for any income tax year prior to 1974-75, or for corporation profits tax purposes for any part of an accounting period prior to 6th April, 1974. This follows from the automatic application of subsection (5) (b) (ii) of section 69 of the Finance Act, 1959 which deals with the position for corporation profits tax purposes.
Paragraph (6) ensures that no initial allowance will be given in respect of expenditure before 6th April, 1974. This applies in the case of the 20 per cent initial allowance for farm buildings and market garden buildings.
I am glad the Minister has introduced this amendment. We raised this point because there seemed to be an anomaly in that the capital allowance was being granted for farm buildings back in 1971 and was already in existence in respect of industrial buildings. The buildings involved in this amendment seemed to be suspended like Mohammed's coffin between the two. Substantially, the effect of the amendment is what we sought, namely, that buildings of this kind used for intensive production—particularly of livestock, but it goes further than that—will get the same kind of treatment as farm buildings although they are being treated as industrial buildings. The amendment meets the point we were putting forward. It cures the anomaly and I am happy the Minister put forward the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 25, to delete lines 41 to 55, and in page 26, to delete lines 1 to 27, and substitute the following:
"46.—Every enactment levying or charging Estate Duty, Succession Duty, Legacy Duty or the duties referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1894, is hereby repealed in respect of any property passing on a death which occurs on or after the 1st day of April, 1975."
This amendment is designed to enable the Minister to make an honest man of himself and his colleagues in the Government or, alternatively, to call his bluff. It is a very simple amendment because what it provides is that all death duty legislation would be repealed in so far as it affects property passing on a death occuring on or after 1st April, 1975.
It will be recalled that in relation to this matter on Committee Stage we drew attention to the fact that this Bill does not abolish death duties despite the fact that the marginal note opposite section 46 reads: "Abolition of death duties." I do not ever recall seeing a marginal note in a Bill which, on its face, is inaccurate and untrue if one reads the section. In this section— which I am seeking in this amendment to delete—we find a marginal note which reads: "Abolition of death duties" and a section which details the various death duties and which says they will no longer be chargeable on or after 1st April, 1975. Of course, they do not repeal or abolish death duties.
In the course of discussion of this matter, the Minister did not advance any argument to justify his claim that he was abolishing death duties except one. The other arguments he advanced were, when analysed, to the effect that he was adjusting the death duty limits. He is changing the name to inheritance tax. Effectively, what he is doing is adjusting the death duty limits—and this is something with which we would not disagree—but he is not abolishing death duties, although a marginal note was inserted to give the impression he was doing so.
When it was pointed out to the Minister that the death duty legislation was not being repealed, the only real argument was in a sentence reported at column 775 and 776 of the Official Report dated 30th April. Interspersed with a certain amount of abuse by the Minister, he said:
The Deputy knows well that deaths which arose before 1st April, 1975, give rise to a liability and until such time as these matters are discharged the legislation has to remain there so as to be applicable to those unfortunate events.
I replied:
That is about .01 per cent of death duties which the Minister can easily deal with.
Of course, the amendment here would easily deal with that because it does not purport to repeal the legislation in respect of any death occuring prior to the 1st April, 1975 so that the case made by the Minister is, of course, met by this amendment. This, in one way, may be viewed as a fairly sterile argument and in one sense I view it that way. On the other hand, I doubt if it is a totally accurate description of the matter when what we are trying to do here is to get the Minister to deal plainly and honestly with the people and not to pretend that he is abolishing death duties when he is not. It seems to me that if the Minister really means to abolish death duties then he should have no difficulty in accepting this amendment which repeals death duty legislation in respect of deaths occurring on or after 1st April, 1975. If he really is abolishing death duties and if the marginal note really means anything the section in the Bill which we propose to delete should be taken out and the amendment we propose, the new section 46, should be put in because that is precisely what the proposed new section does. It repeals death duty legislation in respect of all deaths occuring on or after 1st April, 1975. The Minister, therefore, should not have any great difficulty in accepting the amendment.
It is of some importance to look at what is behind all this. Why did we get a marginal note which on its face is untrue and why do we have to introduce an amendment providing for the repeal of death duty legislation? The reason, of course, is that the Minister and his colleagues, prior to the last general election, promised and undertook to abolish death duties. We, on our part, in the Fianna Fáil Party, promised to have a fundamental review of the whole death duty legislation and the position arising therefrom. It was reasonable to expect, on foot of what was promised by my party, that there would be a substantial raising of the exemption limits under the death duty code but it was reasonable to assume, from the promise made by the Minister and his colleagues, that death duty legislation was to be repealed because death duties were, according to him, going to be abolished. In fact, for various reasons, which the Minister may or may not choose to elaborate on, he does not propose to abolish death duties and he does not propose to repeal death duty legislation.
If the Minister came into the House with a section on the lines of section 46, without the misleading marginal note, and said: "All right, we promised to abolish death duties but I find for reasons a, b, c, d and e that I cannot do that but I do propose to have very substantial improvements in the exemption limits" that would be an understandable situation. That is not what the Minister did. He came in with substantial increases in the exemption limits but, at the same time, he pretended that he was abolishing death duties. He felt apparently obliged politically to continue the pretence that he was abolishing death duties.
This amendment is designed to enable the Minister and his colleagues to make honest men of themselves or alternatively to call their bluff because if they are abolishing death duties the Minister can have no objection to the repeal of death duty legislation in respect of death duties occurring on or after 1st April, 1975. If he has no objection to that repeal we will have struck a blow for honesty in public life. If, however, he finds himself unable to accept it then we will have established clearly, beyond any shadow of doubt, that all claims by the Minister and his colleagues to the effect that they are abolishing or have abolished death duties are fraudulent and without foundation. I look forward with interest to the Minister's approach to this amendment.
For a number of very cogent reasons this amendment is unacceptable. The purpose of the amendment is to delete section 46 of the Bill and to substitute a new section in its place and it is apparently based on an objection to a marginal note which speaks of the abolition of death duties. The only criticism that can be applied to the marginal note, which has not statutory effect, is that it did not add:
Abolition of death duties affecting deaths occuring on or after the 1st April, 1975.
The section itself makes it clear that it is to be operative with effect from 1st April, 1975. We have had a great song and dance about the marginal note as though it was the law. The objective could be achieved in a number of ways, for instance either by repealing a very long list of existing enactments—it would be a list much longer than that offered by the Deputy—or by providing, as section 46 does, that the existing duties should cease to be levied in connection with deaths or events occuring after the 1st April, 1975. If the first alternative were to be taken the Schedule would run into, at a conservative calculation, about ten pages of print at least and we have already had objections about the length of a comparatively short Finance Bill. Obviously where law in relation to death duties is spread over three-quarters of a century there would be quite a number of enactments to be specified in any repealing section. The section itself would necessarily have to provide that the repeal would have effect only in relation to deaths occurring on or after 1st April, 1975. It would thus leave all the existing enactments fully in force in relation to deaths occuring before that date.
Quite clearly there would, therefore, be no distinction in principle between either of the two methods. The second alternative was chosen as offering the simpler and more straightforward solution to a difficult problem. Apart from the old, obsolescent duties referred to in subsection (2) of section 46 the duties being abolished are estate duty, legacy duty and succession duty. Estate duty is a mutation or transfer duty chargeable on all property passing at a death. It is charged on the whole estate, on the corpus of an estate as defined in the various enactments relating to estate duty. Legacy and succession duties are acquisition or inheritance type taxes payable by beneficiaries on property acquired by them, in possession, on death or on the happening of certain events, some of which are not necessarily connected with a death. Because of the different natures of these three taxes and the difference in the incidence of the taxes, including the type of payment, it is not possible to take the three of them together as has been done in the amendment. The expression "property passing on a death" is meaningful only in the context of estate duty. Clearly, it has no relevance in a technical sense either to legacies or succession duties. The section proposed in the amendment would have the effect of leaving in force charges for legacy or succession duty in numerous cases, whereas, section 46 would remove them. For these reasons I am unable to accept the amendment.
The bluff has been called. I have heard weak efforts in this House, particularly from the Minister for Finance, but what we have heard now is the most classical calling of a bluff that I have ever heard.
If I were Minister for Finance, I would not dare to stand up and say what has been said by the Minister. No one with even the faintest modicum of respect for himself, for his promises or for those of his party, could do so. The tragedy is that this will be painted as being technical legal jargon between solicitors but that is not so. What we have heard is the kernel of the matter and that kernel is the votes which were bought under false pretences on February, 28th, 1973. It has taken two years, two months and seven days to call the bluff.
Let it be understood clearly that the National Coalition have refused to repeal death duties. The law relating to death duties, as a result of this refusal, remains in force but will not be levied in respect of deaths occurring on or after April, 1st, 1975. The law relating to death duties—the charging and incidence of them—can be re-enacted in this House in five minutes by a one section Bill repealing section 46 of the Finance Act, 1975. Deputy Colley proposed an amendment to this Bill which would have the effect of repealing death duties. Section 46 of the Bill as proposed does not repeal them. The Deputy invited the Minister to accept an amendment which would do what the Government are not doing but the Minister has declined to accept the amendment. He began his remarks—I had expected him to continue for 20 minutes or so—by saying that for a number of cogent reasons he did not propose to accept the amendment. I sat back as I thought we would hear some reasons cogent or otherwise but we heard none. Instead, we got an ultra-technical exposition of the phrase used in the amendment, "property passing on a death". We were told that property passes on a death only in relation to estate duties but not in relation to succession and legacy duties and that for that reason and because it would leave legacy and succession duty in force, the amendment could not be accepted.
In the first place I dispute that argument seriously. I cannot see how a succession can arise so far as succession duty is concerned other than on a death. It might arise in circumstances where something was given to someone for 20 years with the remainder to be given on the expiration of the 20 years but one rarely, if ever, sees a provision of that kind. While I dispute the reasoning put forward by the Minister, I will take it on myself, for the purpose of this argument, to say that even if he were right, we would amend the amendment to meet his point. I am sure Deputy Colley will not object to my making that point. Legacy duty can arise only on a death, on property passing on a death. Surely the whole point of legacy duty concerns a legacy left by someone who has died. I know that in some elaborate settlements, a settlement is, for some reason, made in a very obtuse way where there may be a technical passing of benefit that is not on a death. If that is so, there may well be a smaller number of such cases but we would be prepared to add another subsection to make clear that such duties are repealed too.
Having told us that he would be putting forward several cogent reasons for not accepting the amendment, the Minister went on to refer to our objection to the marginal note. I shall have something to say about that in a few minutes but in the meantime suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with the amendment. As we pointed out on the last day, the marginal note is a misstatement of the effect of section 46 of the Bill. Regardless of what might be the marginal note or of what it might be called, we are concerned that it is being accepted now, that it is not questioned by anyone, that the effect of section 46 as drafted does not abolish death duties. Deputy Colley has put it to the Minister that he should abolish death duties and has put down an amendment to that effect but the Minister refuses to accept it for no other reason than something very technical regarding succession duty not being payable on property passing on a death. It is payable on a succession arising. In 99 cases out of 100 a succession arises as a result of a life tenant or some such person dying.
There may be some circumstance in which a succession arises other than on a death. If there is, we will cover it. There may be one case in 1,000 in which the succession would not arise on a death. If there is, we will get somebody to draft an amendment which will cover that point. The Minister can do it if he is sincere and if he wants to abolish death duties. Deputy Colley put it to him that if he did not accept this amendment his bluff was called. He did not accept it and he did not give any reason other than a technical lawyer's reason about this phrase "property passing on death" which is quite irrelevant. I believe there is no substance in it but he thinks there is. If there is, let us amend the amendment if it is now the wish of both sides of this House to repeal death duties legislation. I do not believe that an amendment to the amendment is necessary but, if the Minister insists it is, let him consult his advisers and we will get some new terminology, some new words used in addition to "property passing on death". We can add in "any succession arising" or some phrase of that nature.
It is now proposed on one side of the House only that we should repeal death duties legislation. That proposal is now coming from the Fianna Fáil Party and it is now being opposed by the Fine Gael Minister for Finance. Let that be clearly understood in particular by those who believed the promises made to them in February, 1973. Let them see the full circle which the wheel has now turned. Let them see the man who is supposed to fulfil those promises, grovelling here in legal jargon and technicalities and trying to justify his refusal of this amendment. I wish they could be here today to see this because, unfortunately, this is not the type of thing which carries through into the newspapers. I wish they could be here to see the grovelling, grasping attempt made by the Minister to justify this because of some doubtful few words in the amendment. Does he or does he not accept the principle involved? That is all that matters. He does not accept that principle. He has said so. His bluff is called.
I want to refer to an amendment I put down to this section and which I was told was out of order and would not be printed. I understood that even if an amendment was out of order it would be printed. It must be a new ruling of the House that amendments which are out of order are not printed. I understand that the next amendment will be ruled out of order by the Chair but, nevertheless, it appears on the amendment sheet. The effect of my amendment was of little substance really so far as the Bill is concerned. It related to the marginal note to which the Minister referred. I wanted the marginal note to be in accordance with the facts. As the Minister knows and everybody else knows, it is not in accordance with facts. I wanted to change the wording of the marginal note from "abolition of death duties" which is not what is affected by the section to "non-levying of death duties". For some reason which has not been explained to me——
I understand that the Deputy was informed.
I was informed that it was out of order and would not be printed. I cannot understand why other amendments which are put down from time to time and eventually ruled out of order by the Chair should appear on the list of amendments.
Amendments to sections but not to side notes.
Naturally, I accept the Chair's ruling on this matter but it seems that the question of marginal notes is a totally arbitrary matter and whoever happens to be printing the Bill can more or less put in whatever side note he wants to and that it does not matter whether or not it bears any relation to the section. I regard that as very unsatisfactory. I will suggest to you, Sir, that you might refer this practice to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to be looked into. If it does not matter twopence what the side note is, anybody can put it in and he can put in anything he wants to. This House which is supposed to be creating legislation has no control over it and apparently the printer in Cahills can put whatever he wants to if he feels like it. I regard this as totally unsatisfactory. It is not often that one comes across a situation in which the marginal note——
The Deputy will appreciate that it has always been considered that the marginal note is not part of the section.
With respect, surely it has a good deal to do with it. If you look at the Bill you will find that the first four pages consist of an index— this would be the same in any Bill— and the index shows each section in turn with certain wording after the number of the section. In each case that wording is exactly the same as the marginal note.
The Deputy has been informed why it was ruled out of order. I am sure he does not want to raise something which has already been ruled out of order by the Chair.
Naturally, I have to accept the Chair's ruling. I am sure the Chair will agree with me that it is an unsatisfactory situation. Rarely is this procedure of the title of a section and marginal note abused, but it is abused in this case. It is regrettable that the House should have no control over the marginal notes. Apparently the printer can arbitrarily put in anything he likes and there is nothing the House can do about it.
The Deputy suggested that it might be raised elsewhere. Perhaps the Deputy would do that.
If the Chair would put it on the agenda for a meeting, I am sure that would be much more effective than my raising it. I will raise it if the Chair does not. I should like to feel I had the support of the Chair in doing so in view of the fact that the Chair must be conscious of the rights of all Deputies in relation to legislation. I am sure the Chair is conscious of the fact that legislation should not mislead the public as this marginal note does.
As Deputy Colley put it with regard to his amendment, the Minister has had his bluff called. He has now refused to repeal death duties legislation which is in existence. This matter should be drawn to the attention of everybody who listened to the many wonderful promises made to the public in February, 1973. The Minister gave one other reason which was that if we were to set out every Act relating to death duties that list would be several pages long. He seemed to find this unsatisfactory. I do not find it unsatisfactory. This list would be in some Schedule at the end of the Bill. We would not go through each one individually and ask the Minister about the Legacy Duty Act of 1793, or whatever the first one is. We would take the lot together. It is not necessary to set them all out. What Deputy Colley has proposed here covers them all. It is totally comprehensive. He covers estate duty, succession duty, legacy duty and the four duties referred to in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 1894. They are four archaic duties which do not arise now but which are technically still part of our law. I do not remember the names of them but they have something to do with customs duty. They are strange ones which operated in the 18th and 19th centuries but do not operate now.
I do not accept that it is necessary to set out every one of those Acts one after the other but even if it is it can be done in two or three pages. I looked at the list in the volume which the Revenue Commissioners produce for the Statutes relating to death duties and it runs to a little more than four pages. There is a full list of all Acts and sections at the start and it runs to more than four pages because each individual section in the 1984 Act is set out separately. If it was to be confined simply to the titles of the Bills, it would be less than that. I do not believe that is necessary but if it is we should have four pages of a Schedule.
The Schedules in this Bill run from page 30 to page 40, inclusive, and I have heard no complaint about their length. Another four pages or less would not have made much difference if the Minister wanted each one set out separately. What Deputy Colley has suggested is adequate. One reason the Minister gave was that each Act would have to be set out separately and, consequently, it would be too long. His second reason was a silly one, the sentence, that any property passing on a death does not cover succession duty and legacy duty. We dispute that it does not cover them but if there are some instances where successions arise or legacies become payable other than on a death we have no objection to words such as, "or a succession which arises" being added there.
The Minister has seen fit to refuse a Fianna Fáil amendment on what he and his colleagues partially succeeded in getting themselves elected in February, 1973. Glossing over it by saying that three or four pages of a Schedule is too long or that some technical words were left out of this amendment, does not get away from the nub of this point, that this Government in this matter as in so many other matters not the least of them being prices, unemployment and redundancies, have once again reneged on their promises to the Irish people.
(Dublin Central): I am not a professional man but a lot more Deputies should have been here to listen to the contributions of Deputies Colley and O'Malley regarding death duties. A number of Members, having read section 46 of the Bill, were under the impression that death duties would be abolished.
They would be right.
(Dublin Central): That is where they, and the people, have been misled.
Why not accept my amendment?
Because the amendment does not abolish them. The amendment would be involving people in legacy and succession duty——
And it would cure that if there was any substance in the Minister's statement and he knows that. There is a reason why the Minister is keeping it on.
(Dublin Central): Two years ago the average person, having read the 14-point plan, understood that death duties would be abolished but having listened to Deputies Colley and O'Malley it is obvious that the Minister is not abolishing them. If he was sincere about abolishing death duties, he would accept Deputy Colley's amendment. Farmers and businessmen are under the impression that death duties have been abolished but by virtue of the fact that the Minister is adamant in refusing Deputy Colley's amendment I am convinced now that death duties are not abolished to the average person.
From the outset we knew that death duties would be replaced by capital acquisitions tax and the other taxation proposals. The taxation package being put through this House by the Government is far more penal than death duties. Many people are waking up to this fact now. Death duties are being called a different name under the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill. It is easy to call them a different name and collect the same amount in taxes.
I agree that certain sections in the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill are acceptable but very few would accept the entire taxation package to replace death duties. Section 45 is misleading to the average person. The Minister misled the people in his election promises of two years ago.
Like Deputy O'Malley, I regret that the people who heard the Minister and his colleagues promise sincerely to abolish death duties cannot be here to hear the same Minister refuse to accept an amendment which would repeal death duty legislation and at the same time refuse or omit to bring in his own amendment having the effect of repealing death duty legislation. It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt, and the Minister has admitted it, that death duty legislation remains. In case anybody might have thought it was an oversight on the Minister's part this amendment gave him the opportunity, if he wanted to accept it, to repeal all death duty legislation applying to deaths occurring on or after 1st April of this year which he said he was doing. The Minister refused to accept that.
I have done it.
No amount of marginal notes or assertions that the Minister abolished death duties can alter the fact that all death duty legislation is remaining on the Statute Books. Not an iota of it is being repealed and the Minister has refused to repeal it. We are entitled to ask why the Minister is refusing to repeal death duty legislation if, as he says, he has abolished death duties. There is only one logical explanation for the Minister's refusal to repeal death duty legislation and that is that he has not abolished death duties.
The fact is that it is amended and has increased, in most cases, the exemption limits under death duty legislation and has changed the name to "inheritance tax". It is carrying on precisely the same system we have always had. The Minister is changing the limits but he had to pretend he was abolishing death duties because that is what he and his colleagues promised to do. Since he was not abolishing death duties, but simply changing the limits, he had to go through the elaborate artifice of pretending he was abolishing death duties so he introduced a Bill with all sorts of elaborate provisions in relation to something he calls "inheritance tax".
Anybody who has to pay this tax will find it impossible to distinguish between death duties and inheritance tax. In addition, the Minister had to go to the extent, unprecedented as far as I know, and I think Deputy O'Malley has raised here a most important point that should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges since we cannot control marginal notes on Bills or the index in front of a Bill of including a marginal note that was clearly false and clearly did not do what it purported to do, namely, describe the section to which it was attached. It is most unusual to have such a situation but again the Minister found himself forced to do this because he had to go through this elaborate hoax of pretending he was abolishing death duties. If the Minister were abolishing death duties it would be a simple matter for him to accept our amendment or, if he felt our amendment did not effectively repeal death duty legislation, he could bring in his own amendment. Either course was open to him. He has chosen to adopt neither. It is important that those who voted in the last election should know clearly that the Minister had a choice of repealing death duty legislation and refused to make that choice. They can draw their own conclusions from his refusal. They can see clearly that he is refusing to repeal death duty legislation and, more clearly still, that he is maintaining death duties under another name.
We had two pathetically poor reasons, and only two, put forward by the Minister for refusing to accept our amendment. The Minister started off by saying, as Deputy O'Malley pointed out, that there was a number of cogent reasons, but he gave only two. One was that it would require a long schedule to list all the legislation. Is the Minister seriously suggesting this is a good reason for refusing to repeal death duty legislation? If he is, nobody will take him seriously. One would have thought in the light of the announcement from the Government Information Services: "Halleluia, death duties have disappeared", and in the light of what was said by the Minister and some of the Deputies behind him about an historic occasion in relation to the removal of death duties, that the necessity for introducing a long schedule to list all death duties legislation for the purpose of repealing it would not have been too much trouble. Nobody could take seriously —I doubt if the Minister himself intends to be taken seriously—that the reason for refusing to repeal death duty legislation is because the schedule listing the legislation would be too long. The other reason given was that the phrase "property passing on death" was not relevant to legacy or succession duty. That statement is not correct and the Minister should know it is not correct.
There is no need for us to get involved in technical arguments on this. Deputy O'Malley rightly pointed out that, if the Minister believed that was so and if he believed this amendment did not effectively repeal death duty legislation, it was open to him to bring in his own amendment or suggest an appropriate amendment of our amendment in order to achieve the repeal of death duty legislation. The Minister stolidly refuses to repeal one single provision of death duty legislation. That is an inescapable conclusion. Can anybody advance one single cogent reason why the Minister should refuse to repeal this legislation? I can think of none and the Minister did not give us any reason.
There is one possible conclusion— we put it forward before and it is now confirmed without any shadow of doubt by the Minister himself—and that is that he is not abolishing death duties. He is using the same instrument and the same paraphernalia to collect death duties under the name of inheritance tax. That is what his refusal to accept this amendment or introduce his own amendment for the repeal of death duty legislation means. That is what it establishes. All I am anxious to ensure is that those who voted for the Minister and his colleagues in the last general election on foot of a solemn promise to abolish death duties will now learn of the Minister's refusal to repeal death duty legislation and the Minister's refusal to accept this amendment makes that crystal clear.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.