Since there are no amendments on Report——
Supplementary Estimates, 1977. - Finance Bill, 1977: Report and Final Stages.
Indeed there are. There is a clatter of them.
I have not seen them.
We were told that we had until 6.30 to table amendments. We put them in at 6.20. The Bills Office are not able to cope with the many-bladed guillotine. They cannot be blamed for the situation.
I am anxious to facilitate the House.
The Minister is anxious to facilitate the Opposition.
There was no indication of that in recent days.
There are only two hours remaining to us for the Finance Bill. Already we have lost five minutes. I am not blaming the Bills Office for the situation. It has been brought about by the guillotine that has been imposed and which has made it impossible not only for the Bills Office but for the Opposition to deal with the Bill in a rational and normal fashion.
I am awaiting the amendments.
The Bill was amended considerably on Committee Stage. Consequently in order to put down amendments we would need the reprinted Bill because the section numbers will be changed.
Not necessarily.
The position is that we have not the green print of the Bill before us for Report Stage.
I think the amendments have arrived.
That is not my point. We have a Finance Bill that was amended on Committee Stage, but we need the print of the amended Bill for Report Stage. Can the Chair help me in my difficulty?
Perhaps I could help the Deputy in what he considers to be a difficulty but which in fact is not a difficulty. The enumeration of the Bill remains the same. There is no variation in the numbers of the sections and, therefore, the amendments as offered are immediately incorporated into the sections bearing the same numbers.
But the print I have before me is not the print of the Bill as it is now before the House. All sorts of changes were made as a consequence of the guillotine but I cannot discuss the Bill until these changes have been incorporated in it.
I am surprised to hear the Deputy use the French word "guillotine" since he took exception to my quoting French newspapers.
I shall substitute the word "closure". A number of amendments were made to the text as introduced by a foreshortened closure Committee Stage. How can I be expected to discuss this Bill on Report Stage when I have not before me the Bill as amended?
The normal practice is to circulate the Bill as amended in Committee before it is reported back to the House from Committee. The amendments that have been put down in respect of Report Stage refer to the pages and the lines of the Bill as amended in Committee.
And those lines will be changed.
Normally there is no reference in Report amendments to sections, only to pages and lines.
All the sections are set out in the list of amendments that is in the possession of the Deputies. The sections and schedules are stated correctly. They have not been altered.
May I point out to the Chair that for Report Stage I wish to move an amendment to the taxation of farm profis provisions. I must refer to the lines on the particular pages in respect of which I wish the changes to be made. The lines in the document before me are not the right lines because they have been changed. I am in a real quandary, a constitutional fix. I do not know what to do. Perhaps the Chair would help me by adjourning the House for a couple of hours?
We have two amendments that are being considered in order to ascertain whether they are in order.
During the time of the Capital Taxation legislation there was a closure motion, too, but the final Stages of the Bill were ready to be circulated on the night in question. Why is the same procedure not being adopted now?
The Chair has referred to two amendments. I tabled two and I understand that Deputy O'Malley tabled one.
In that case, they are slow in arriving.
I think we should dispense altogether with this Dáil. We are making a farce of parliamentary procedure.
Why not let the Minister go to Dublin Castle and make the law there with five or six others? This is disgraceful when we recall that men fought and died in order to have Dáil Éireann established.
Order.
They would turn in their graves if they saw what it is today, a rubber stamp in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners, and the whole thing shows nothing but contempt for the democratic process.
Order. Three amendments have been submitted for report but do not appear to arise out of Committee proceedings and I must therefore rule that they are out of order.
Have you read them?
It is very difficult to process things at the moment.
Has the Ceann Comhairle read them? He has not even seen them.
It would be very difficult.
On what basis, a Cheann Comhairle?
Fifth Stage.
I have submitted amendments for Report Stage and I want to have these amendments dealt with by the House. I want to warn you, a Cheann Comhairle, that this is a financial measure and will be of very considerable significance and I am quite certain that the procedure that is being followed here will make this Bill unconstitutional. This Bill will not stand up. I will personally ask the President not to sign this Bill if this procedure is going to be followed. I have two legitimate amendments put down for Report Stage and I want them discussed. They are important and significant amendments.
I am advised that the amendments that have been submitted so far do not appear to arise out of Committee proceedings and are ruled out of order.
My amendments refer to sections which were not discussed on Committee Stage because of the procedure adopted. Both of the matters on which I have put down amendments were raised by me on the Second Stage of the Bill.
Only amendments arising out of Committee proceedings can be permitted on Report Stage.
I submit that these amendments do arise out of Committee Stage proceedings. All my comments on the Bill were wrapped up at the closure motion put down by the Minister.
I must disagree with the Deputy. My ruling stands.
I want to ask you, the keeper of order in this House and the protector of the rights of Deputies, whether you are satisfied that the procedure you are following is correct. We have had Committee Stage. The sections to which I am putting down amendments were not discussed on Committee Stage. I did not have any opportunity to discuss these sections or to mention these amendments on Committee Stage because the sections were not dealt with and were not reached. The Bill was entirely disposed of by the closure motion.
I understand the Deputy's difficulty, but the Chair has no option but to conform to the allocation of time motion which the House passed.
The House passed a motion which allowed for the Report Stage. We are now on the Report Stage. I mentioned both these matters on Second Stage. I would have adverted to them on Committee Stage if the sections had been reached. The sections were not reached. I did not have an opportunity to refer to them on Committee Stage. I submit I am entitled to put them to the House on Report Stage.
Anything that was not discussed on Committee Stage must not be discussed on Report. That is the procedure.
In order for any Member of this House to put in an amendment in proper form on Report Stage of this or any other Bill it is necessary for him where the Bill has been amended in Committee—and this Bill has been heavily amended in Committee—to have before him the Report Stage amendments and a copy of the Bill printed as amended in Committee. We have not got that. It is always the practice of this House to provide it. It is the duty of the staff of the House to provide it. I can understand their difficulty in this instance, but I understand that in similar instances previously a Bill as amended in Committee was produced at two- or three-minutes' notice by having it printed the night before containing the official amendments. This was not done. It is not possible for us to draft amendments that would be in order, and to allocate allegedly two hours to the Report Stage of this Bill is nothing but a farce, and patently so. We are expected to sit here and acquiesce in this kind of nonsense. It would be a farce if it were on stage, a Cheann Comhairle, but this is not a stage. This is the Parliament of the Irish people elected by the Irish people and fought for over centuries by generations of Irish people. Is this what it is coming to?
We shall have to get on to the Fifth Stage.
Is Franco dead when this thing goes on? Is this the spillover of last Sunday in the Mansion House? This is that spill-over in practical terms. Would the Chair answer me now? How are we expected to draft valid amendments for the Report Stage of this Bill if we have not got a copy of the Bill as amended in Committee? If the Chair cannot tell me how we can do that then we should put an end to this farce without anything further and this House should now adjourn.
The Chair is obliged to adhere to the allocation of time order made by the House and will now proceed to the Fifth Stage of this Bill.
On a point of order, you have ruled my amendments out of order because they have not arisen out of proceedings in Committee. Is that your ruling?
Yes.
I suggest that my amendment in regard to the valuation of stocks does arise out of proceedings in Committee because Part V of the First Schedule of the Bill was amended on Committee Stage. I have now put down on Report Stage this amendment which deals with Part V of the First Schedule.
Is that amendment No.3?
Yes, Sir.
My advice is that it is not in order.
A Cheann Comhairle, you have purported to rule my amendments out of order on the basis that they do not arise out of proceedings on Committee Stage. My amendment specifically arises out of proceedings on Committee Stage in regard to the amendment made on Committee Stage to Part V of the First Schedule. That is a fact, that is unchallengeable, and I ask you to let me now proceed with my amendment No. 3. I have no wish to be difficult about this.
I am in a difficulty as the Deputy will appreciate. I have only his amendment before me. I do not have all the details. I will permit the Deputy to proceed to make a case and judge the merits of it.
Thank you very much.
It is not your fault you are in the position you are in, a Cheann Comhairle.
A Cheann Comhairle, at the closing stages of this Dáil I find you in this matter as courteous as you have always been right through the proceedings. I fully understand the difficulty in which the Minister has placed you, and I do not in any way attribute any blame to you for what is happening here. I have two legitimate, straightforward and clearcut amendments down to the Bill for the Report Stage. One of the amendments, amendment No. 2, is of considerable importance and significance. It is something which has been sought by farming organisations and persons interested in the development of our agriculture. The purpose of my amendment No. 2 would be to ensure that all wages paid by the family, including family wages, are admitted as a deduction for income tax purposes.
I understand Deputy Haughey to be raising amendment No. 3.
I am coming to No. 3 now. You said you were in a very great difficulty; you only had the writing in front of you and you did not know what the amendments referred to. I am trying to be helpful and to explain to you what amendment No. 2 is. Amendment No. 2, as I say, is designed to ensure that in the new regime which will apply to the taxation of farmers all wages and emoluments paid by a farmer will be admitted as a deduction against the income tax payable. As the Bill stands at present, wages paid to members of the farmer's family will not be admitted. People who know the agricultural scene and who know Irish farming have been made very anxious by this provision by the Minister. They see it as having very serious repercussions on family farming. The overwhelming majority of our farms are family farms, and it is a vital principle that the wages paid to the members of a farmer's family should be admitted as a deduction. I do not think it is necessary for me to go to any lengths to outline the repercussions that will follow if the Minister's provisions are accepted without amendment. The whole impetus which exists at the moment, all the persuasive factors that are there for a farmer to employ his own sons and daughters on his farm, which is what we want him to do, will disappear if the Minister's provisions are accepted. I want to put that right, and my amendment No. 2 is dedicated to that purpose.
You have given me latitude in this regard, a Cheann Comhairle, which is much appreciated, and I shall leave amendment No. 2 for the moment. Perhaps while I go on to discuss No. 3 you could be considering whether, in the light of what I have said about amendment No. 2, it can legitimately be regarded as arising out of the Committee Stage proceedings.
My amendment No. 3 is equally straightforward. In this amendment I propose "In page 40, to delete paragraph (II) of Part V of the First Schedule". By the way, the whole of this First Schedule deals with the question of how increases or decreases in the value of stocks in a business are to be treated for income tax purposes. This is something which has become very important and very prominent recently. The onslaught of inflation which we have been experiencing over the last two or three years, 18 per cent last year, has caused enormous problems for business in general, but in particular it has caused problems for businesses trying to arrive at what their profits are in any year. Of course, in trying to determine actual profits the valuation put on stock is of critical importance. Because of inflation we were getting distorted figures for profit in businesses and for tax being levied on those firms on the basis of those distorted profit figures. The Minister, in an endeavour to meet the situation, brought in this provision for special treatment of the tax arising out of profits made from changes in stock values.
May I interrupt the Deputy? I have been considering what he has said, and I am now giving him the benefit of the doubt and allowing amendment No. 3. The others are out of order. Deputy O'Malley's amendment, which has come in a short while ago, is out of order because we have passed that point in the Bill. We are now on the First Schedule and this amendment cannot be dealt with now. Deputy Haughey now to move amendment No. 3.
(Dublin Central): Would Deputy O'Malley have moved his amendment if you had not given him that information at the start of the proceeding?
It cannot be moved now.
(Dublin Central): Is it in order?
It is not in order.
Might I ask if Deputy Haughey's amendment has been moved yet?
I am asking him to move it now.
He was given permission to talk in anticipation, and that is a courtesy which is appreciated. He has not moved his amendment on the Schedule yet and therefore the whole Bill is still open and Deputy O'Malley's amendment should be in order. We appreciate the Chair's attitude here. I do not want to be difficult, but the point I am making is that while the matter was in suspension you very courteously allowed Deputy Haughey to discuss three different amendments more or less as they were. In the meantime, Deputy O'Malley submitted an amendment. The House was not notified by you until a few minutes ago what was allowed and what was not allowed. Of course your ruling is accepted, but Deputy Haughey had not moved amendment No. 3 at that time. In fact, nothing has been moved on the Bill yet, and I submit that Deputy O'Malley's amendment, if it is in order, otherwise, is not out of order. I hope I make it reasonably courteous, in full appreciation of the Chair's helpful attitude here this evening.
We have come down the Bill to the point of Deputy Haughey's amendment No. 3. I do not propose to go back and I have asked Deputy Haughey to please move that amendment. Amendment No. 3, Deputy Haughey.
That means it is in order?
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies allow Deputy Haughey to proceed with his amendment.
(Dublin Central): Was Deputy O'Malley's amendment in order?
Why was it not in order?
I have already ruled on this matter. We have passed the point when the amendment could be considered. Deputy Haughey, please.
Just for my own information, does the Chair mean we have passed the point on Committee Stage?
Report Stage. I have ruled two amendments out of order. I have come down to Deputy Haughey's amendment No. 3 and I want now to proceed with that amendment.
And the Chair is now changing his ruling. The Chair has already ruled that Deputy Haughey's amendment No. 3 was out of order and he is now ruling that it is in order.
That is not so. I have given the Deputy the benefit of elaborating on his point and then ruled. Deputy Haughey.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 40, to delete paragraph 11 of Part V of the First Schedule.
I hope it is still page 40; it is page 40 anyway of the Bill as initiated; probably a different page now but there you are, that is the way this Minister does his business. It is no wonder the economy is in the state it is when we have a Minister who cannot put before us a proper printed version of a Finance Bill for consideration.
We are dealing with vast sums of money here, matters of crucial importance to taxpayers and we do not even know what lines of the Bill we are talking about. However in the face of these overwhelming difficulties, I shall struggle on.
In page 40 of the Bill, as initiated, there is a paragraph (11) which I shall read to the House because the purpose of my amendment is to delete this paragraph:
(11) Where in any accounting period which ends on or after the 6th day of April, 1975, a company carries on a trade which consists partly of trading operations of any of the classes mentioned in the definition of `trade' in subsection (1) (hereinafter referred to as `qualifying trading operations') and partly of other trading operations the company shall be regarded as carrying on a trade which consists wholly or mainly of qualifying trading operations if, but only if, the total amount receivable by the company from the sales made in the course of the qualifying trading operations in the accounting period is not less than 75 per cent. of the total amount receivable by the company from all sales made in the course of its trade in the accounting period.",
In order to understand what I am at here it is necessary for us to go back and take a look at the history of these provisions in regard to stocks. As I was explaining earlier, in making my submission to the Chair, the inflation we have experienced here during the last few years has played havoc with the normal rules and principles of accountancy. Because of the rate of inflation we have experienced the profits which normal accountancy principles would show as having been made by certain businesses were grossly inflated and, in many cases, arose entirely out of the inflated valuations of stocks. Therefore a situation obtained in which companies and businesses were being forced to pay tax on an entirely false basis; they were paying tax on profits which were not real profits at all and which would not be regarded as such in normal times. But, because of the effects of inflation, these businesses were showing profits and unjustly paying tax on them. The Minister, under considerable pressure, I understand, from business interests sought to do something about that situation and introduced a series of provisions all of which, in short, were designed to remedy that situation and bring about one in which inflationary increases in the value of stocks would be discounted for profit purposes, which would be the basis of tax assessments.
These provisions were first introduced by the Minister in the Finance Act, 1976. They provided for withdrawal of the additional relief granted by that Act. Now the Minister in the Finance Bill, 1977, before us is substituting a new series of provisions. Being the sort of Minister he is and having the type of approach he has to things, he could not resist the temptation, when bringing these new provisions before us, to introduce a niggardly qualification.
The issue with which I am dealing is the situation of trading companies which carry on a mixed business. The original provisions talked about trading operations of a company carrying on a trade. A difficulty arose in the case of a business which carried on two different types of trade and which had, therefore, two different types of stocks. Up to now the situation was that, in so far as one of those companies was concerned, if they had a mixed trade the provision was generally taken to be split 50/50 between the two different types of operations. At this stage the Minister wants to introduce a provision restricting that to 75 per cent.
In other words, the new provision will mean that the company will qualify for this relief if, but only if, the total amount receivable by the company from sales made in the course of the qualifying trading operations in the accounting period is not less than 75 per cent of the total amount receivable by the company from all sales made in the course of its trading in the accounting period. Up to now, a 50/50 split as between the two types of trade was regarded by most people as allowing the company to qualify, and there is an objection to this increase to 75 per cent. It is not understood why this should be introduced at this stage, but more important, as I understand the provisions now before us, it will be retrospective to the commencement of the relief.
That is most undesirable. It is important in so far as these provisions are concerned that business people should be able to bank on reliefs and concessions being available. They had proceeded on the basis that up to now 50/50 was regarded as being acceptable. The change is being made retrospectively and that is the greater part of my objection—the Minister proposes to go back and take relief from some companies. Retrospective legislation is always unacceptable, particularly in the case of income tax. My amendment is designed to ensure that this qualification will not be implemented and that the situation up to now will prevail.
Another aspect of these provisions relates to stocks. The new provision introduces a clawback. Certain reliefs were provided on the basis that stocks were inflated because of inflationary pressures, but as I interpret these provisions in the short time at my disposal, the effect will be that as stocks decrease the Minister will attempt to claw back portion of the relief from companies which would be granted it. That is an undesirable situation. For a start, it brings a certain amount of instability and insecurity because trading organisations should be able to know where they stand.
If the Minister announces here with a great flourish that he will give certain reliefs, these reliefs should be available to trading companies until such time as the reliefs are terminated, but the Minister should not in any circumstances come along and with subsequent provisions cancel out or take away the reliefs he had purported to give. Unfortunately, because of the time at my disposal I have been able to frame an amendment to deal only with one aspect, and that is the change in the percentage of trade for qualifying purposes. I object strongly to the Minister's general approach to the situation where stocks subsequently decrease and to his attempt now to nullify the benefits which he came into the House and purported to give in respect of these matters a considerable time ago.
The Deputy has presented his arguments on this amendment in a reasonable way and it is my intention to respond in that way. With the limited time for the debate one must try to comment reasonably so that the time will be used to the best advantage. Deputy Haughey will not object if I preface my remarks with a brief comment on what he said in regard to his second amendment which, he said, sought to give allowances in respect of members of families employed by farmers.
I accept that would be the objective of the amendment, but under the tax code it will be open to any farmer who has members of his or her own family employed to get full allowance under the ordinary system of taxation in respect of such labour. Where such labour involves the making of social welfare contributions and PAYE, they will be——
(Dublin Central): Is the Minister saying that the son must pay social welfare?
Under the notional system.
The Minister should direct my amendment to the notional system.
Some people here advanced the same argument and were surprised at what had happened in the past. Responsible members of farming organisations expressed the view that the highest percentage of farms on which family members would assist would be 30. What has happened is that under the notional system 80 per cent had been making claims in respect of family members alleged to have been employed by them. It seems that there is something here to be looked at very carefully. I am sure that any person concerned with the proper administration of the tax laws would consider it wrong that we would accept a situation where claims could be made which could not be substantiated, but when claims are made which can be substantiated it is easy to examine them to see that they are properly established. Nothing is being done in this Bill which would in any way stop anybody who has a family from getting tax allowances.
As to this particular amendment, deductions in respect of stock relief for accounting periods which end on or before 5th April, 1975, afford an outright remission of tax without any question of the withdrawal of the relief. The Finance Act, 1976, provided for the extension of stock relief to accounting periods ending on a date in the year to the 5th April, 1976. The Act also provided for the withdrawal of any deduction made as a result of that extension. This withdrawal was to be achieved by reducing the value of the opening stock for the next accounting period by the amount of the deduction made. The withdrawal provisions contained in the 1976 Act are now being replaced by provisions which secure that the deduction which was to be withdrawn will be withdrawn only under certain limited conditions. They are (1) when stock values actually decrease or (2) when the trader ceases to carry on the trade or to be resident in the State or ceases to be within charge of Irish tax or (3) the deduction was made in respect of an increase in stock value which has been preceded by a decrease in stock value.
Now, as to accounting periods which end in the year to the 5th April, 1977, stock relief is now being extended to accounting periods which end on a date in the year to the 5th April, 1977. For corporation tax purposes, the computation of the maximum amount to be deducted in respect of an increase in stock value is being altered. For accounting periods which ended prior to the 6th April, 1976, the deduction was not to exceed the amount of a company's trading income before account was taken of losses and capital allowances. Where the subsequent deduction of capital allowances created a loss, that loss was at least partly attributable to the deduction in respect of the increase in stock values. Such losses were available for set off against other profits, or could be utilised to claim repayment of tax which had been deducted from dividends or annual payment, or alternatively, the losses, together with previous losses which had not been relieved because of allowances on stock relief, could be carried forward and be deducted from future trading profits.
Quite clearly, this use of stock relief cannot be justified. It is an artificial arrangement indulged in for a purpose far removed from the legitimate purpose the Oireachtas recognised in the original introduction of stock relief and, therefore, for accounting periods which end in the year to the 5th April, 1977, provision is made to secure that the deduction in respect of stock increase is not to exceed the amount of a company's trading income after account is taken of losses and capital allowances.
The income tax position regarding losses and capital allowances is slightly different from the corporation tax position. For income tax purposes, losses and capital allowances are not deducted in computing the amount of trading profits assessable but are set against the amount of the assessment. Where the assessment is itself a reduced amount on account of stock relief, the subsequent setting off of capital allowances could create a loss in respect of which repayment of tax could be claimed. Again, this use of stock relief is clearly not justified and was never intended by the Oireachtas. Provision is, therefore, made to secure that, when a deduction in respect of stock relief has effect in the year 1977-1978, capital allowances and previous losses may not be carried forward to the year 1978-1979 or any other later year.
The new provisions relating to the withdrawal of deductions made in computing trading income for accounting periods which end on 5th April, 1976, will apply also to the deductions which are made in computing trading income up to an accounting period which ends in the year to the 5th April, 1977. The relief has, since its inception, been granted where certain trading operations constituted not less than 75 per cent of all trading operations of a trade. That is what has happened. That is the way in which the law has operated.
Give us an example. I understand it applies to companies which have sales operations.
Yes. That is the kind of case we have in mind. Where 75 per cent of the activity is in manufacturing, then the relief operates, but if only 51 per cent is engaged in manufacturing and 49 per cent in buying in and reselling, then the relief does not operate. As I understand it, the effect of the Deputy's amendment would be to give the relief to cases where 51 per cent was engaged in manufacturing and 49 per cent in buying in and reselling.
You go back to wholly or mainly.
What is to be the test? The test that has applied since the commencement of stock relief has been 75 per cent. Deputy Haughey and others are well aware that it is the practice as soon as practicable to give legislative confirmation to practices where the Oireachtas consider these practices to be legitimate and in accordance with what is reasonable and the wishes of Parliament. That is why I am seeking here to get the approval of the Oireachtas to what I consider to be reasonable. I will explain why I think it is not only reasonable but also necessary if we are to put manufacturers and traders on an equal footing. The reason for fixing a test as high as 75 per cent is to avoid conferring an unfair competitive advantage on a company whose sales of goods manufactured by it were merely 51 per cent of its total sales as compared with another company engaged solely in selling the same type of goods which it had bought in.
If the Revenue Commissioners had not operated the provision as they have which, I may say, was very fairly, or were we now to refuse to endorse this operation, we would be conferring a very considerable advantage, indeed, upon a firm engaged almost as to half its activities in merely buying and reselling and we would be giving that firm an advantage over its competitors. I do not think that is Deputy Haughey's intention. I trust he will accept there is no element of withdrawing something which was previously there. There is not. As operated in the way I have described, it is the desire now to copperfasten that with Oireachtas approval and, on reflection, the Deputy may possibly see not merely the desirability of what we are proposing but, indeed, the necessity.
I should like the Minister to explain clearly why there would be an advantage to a firm doing merely 51 per cent trading. The problem which has led to the situation the Minister has described is the problem of inflation, the artificial driving up of the value of stock, leaving firms in the position where they were showing profits in money terms which were really illusory, because while they might show substantial profit the stock they would require to enable the firm to continue in business could cost anything from 20 per cent to 50 per cent more in price than the same quantity of stock had cost in the previous year. Perhaps one of the ways out of that difficulty for the Minister would have been not to charge tax on profits that were ploughed back into the business.
This rather confusing paragraph 11 is quite difficult to follow. Ordinarily, if a firm or business is buying and selling, as the Minister describes it, as against manufacturing it is in a very different situation. It does not necessarily have to carry the same quantity of stock and if its turnover facilities are good it is not likely to arrive at the liquidation stage in the way manufacturing industries can and have in some cases, because of the additional cost of stock required to maintain such a business. If what the Minister was saying here is that money was made in the past two years and allowance was made because of the inflationary effect and now the firm is about to cash in on the profit made and liquidate its stock and therefore the Revenue Commissioners want that firm to pay the tax on it—if that is the position, I would not quarrel with the Minister. I suspect that may be part of it.
I think the provisions introduced in the 1956 Act were very useful and necessary and to some extent may have helped to keep firms in business. The nature of the illustration given by the Minister is to some extent theoretical. Being a businessman, I like to know where the Revenue will gain or is likely to lose in terms of money in any transaction rather than a theoretical one that says that because a firm is not doing 75 per cent of its business in a certain way it will be able to benefit, as the Minister described it, in competition with another business. I should like to hear some practical figures from the Minister if he can give an illustration of what the commissioners have in mind in regard to this paragraph. I am not satisfied at the moment that the Minister is doing the right thing, but he could convince me.
(Dublin Central): Both of Deputy Haughey's amendments are quite significant as regards this Bill, I should like the Minister to clarify something—is it a fact that you would have to be contributing to social welfare stamps within the notional figure? Would the family then be allowed to deduct that?
The Deputy will appreciate that there are two systems.
(Dublin Central): I am speaking of the notional system.
On the notional system, that is a necessary qualification, that a person must be in permanent, insurable employment. On the accounts basis, any form of employment——
(Dublin Central): I understand the accounts basis perfectly. The Minister must see the whole background to farming in Ireland and how it developed. We are all trying if possible to keep a son or daughter living on the farm. It happens on numerous occasions that the son working on the farm gets the same wages as any farm worker for whom he is substituting. If a farmer were to employ a neighbour he would be allowed to deduct that expense provided he is stamping a social welfare card. I believe this is victimisation where the family is concerned.
The family can get the full allowance. The Deputy must not overlook that.
(Dublin Central): A particular person cannot get the full allowance unless he stamps a social welfare card under the notional system.
On an accounts basis, on establishing——
(Dublin Central): I am not talking about an accounts basis but about the notional figure.
The Deputy wants to have his bread and eat it.
(Dublin Central): No, but I see no reason why a father who is paying a son married off the farm should not be allowed to deduct that wage.
But he can, on proving it.
(Dublin Central): It is not normal practice to insure your son or daughter on your own land and if the farmer does not do that he will not qualify within the notional figure for that deduction.
He can go on accounts. What are we to do when farmers say that only 30 per cent have family help and we know on the basis of records that 80 per cent have been claiming it?
(Dublin Central): Carry out the same investigation you have to carry out in the social welfare field. That is what the income tax code is about.
The notional system does not cater for these investigations.
(Dublin Central): Indeed it does. I think it is unfair that the deduction is not allowed under the notional system.
It is allowed on the accounts basis.
(Dublin Central): I am talking about the notional system. The Minister should not try to confuse me.
I am not trying to confuse you but I do not want you to overlook what is important.
(Dublin Central): As regards Deputy Haughey's other amendment, this stock relief provision was first brought in because we could not control inflation—inflation created to no small extent by legislation introduced by the Minister for Finance, excessive taxation and the other capital taxation introduced. A situation was brought about in which much of a company's profit was fictitious. We know how stocks were valued due to the inflationary trend. I welcomed the provision then and thought it wise. Companies accepted it in good faith then, but in effect what the Minister has here now is a type of clawback if the stock is reduced. It is unfair to this section of the community who have gone through a very difficult time in the past three or four years. If it had not been for that relief provision many of them would be in far more serious difficulties than they are in today. I concede that, but the introduction of this type of clawback where you have reduction of stock is to some extent a deception in the case of these companies, many of whom are far from being out of the wood despite the glowing picture the Minister gave us this evening regarding the upswing in the economy. The majority of these companies have serious problems in trying to extend their production if possible and this tax provision coming at this stage will not be an incentive to them. It was short-sighted of the Minister to use the section to try to extract some of the profits which he thinks they have made.
We must be practical about the legislation we introduce. We must ensure that it does not inhibit companies from expanding and taking on more employees. That is the purpose of our exercise today and it will be the purpose of our fiscal legislation one month from now. We will ensure that proper incentives are given so that companies will expand and provide more employment.
We have no intention of taking the negative approach adopted by the Minister. We have seen the consequences of the Minister's legislation in the past four years. Progress has been halted and considerable damage has been done to our economy. The amendment is desirable and it should be accepted. The cost to the Exchequer will be infinitesimal but the encouragement it will give to industrialists will be enormous. For that reason perhaps the Minister would seriously consider the amendment.
The Minister will appreciate that we are at a serious disadvantage in that we did not reach the Schedule on Committee Stage and a thorough understanding of paragraph 11 is difficult to obtain because of the situation we are in. Everybody will have sympathy with the Minister and his advisers in the problem of inflation accounting. The relief that was brought in some years ago was timely and necessary and the Minister deserves credit for what was done then.
To purchase and maintain stocks in the face of inflation was causing a major problem to industry and it threatened the liquidity of many firms. The Minister met that by bringing in stock relief. I hope the Minister will accept that as a fair summary. It was a timely and necessary relief because otherwise the inability to finance the purchase of stocks would have resulted in such liquidity problems that there would probably have been bankruptcies. The Minister obviated this by adopting the action I have set out.
In a measure of this nature the Minister's intention was right and proper and his action was timely and necessary, but arising out of the executive decision by the Government a major problem was thrown at the Minister's advisers from the point of view of implementation. Long ago it was regarded as good manners to talk about the way armies operated but I am afraid it is no longer polite to do so. The analogy I would make is that the general makes broad decisions which must be implemented but inevitably certain members of the staff have headaches and serious problems in implementing them. I have been one of the critics of the complications of financial legislation. It is only fair to say that one would expect that amendments would have to be made from year to year and to that extent I hope we can be understanding. Nevertheless it puts us in the awkward situation that on Report Stage we are discussing the impact of one paragraph where the whole matter has been amended. Part V starts on page 36 of the Finance Bill, 1977. It refers to the amendment of provisions relating to relief in respect of increase in stock values and it extends through pages 37, 38, 39 and 40 with regard to the accounting period.
One has to go to the root cause to understand why a limit of 75 per cent has to be imposed. Basically the trouble has arisen from the mixing up of stock values with profits. We are up against what accountants are debating, namely, the problem of inflation accounting, historical cost accounting and so on and it is inevitable in such a situation that the Minister will run into a problem. What is involved is a substitution of 75 per cent for the words "wholly or mainly" although I must confess I find it difficult to understand this. Although the Minister gave a long list of dates it was difficult to follow without having the broader background of the Schedule before us. I am not faulting the Minister for that but he will appreciate that it is a little difficult to follow. I take it that I am near to the core of the matter when I say that as far as this is concerned. it is a question of substituting 75 per cent for "wholly or mainly".
It is defining "wholly or mainly". It is leaving it beyond dispute, but it concerns what has been the practice. The practice has been to interpret "wholly or mainly" as 75 per cent.
This is one of the traps in this type of legislation. The existing phrase "wholly or mainly" leaves discretion to the Revenue Commissioners or in particular to the inspector who is dealing with the matter. I am not questioning the practice of the words being a general guide to 75 per cent: I am questioning if it is wise statutorily to define that limit. I have argued ad nauseum in the House for freedom of discretion to the people making the decisions on assessment. I want to put myself in the position, theoretically, of an inspector or anybody who has to make a number of judgments in succession. Those people find it a great relief to have a rigid rule to say yes or no. They do not have to think about the matter. That is a human temptation.
When I refer to the Revenue Commissioners I am not speaking about the commissioners but about the whole organisation and in particular their officers who have to implement their policies, who have to make the assessment, and the other branch who have to make the collection. When I talk about recent times I do not mean that to be taken in any way derogatory because complications have arisen, due to overloading and difficulty in getting the right staff, staff being pinched and all the rest of it. These are very complicating factors which have made their task very difficult. It was a characteristic of the Revenue Commissioners until recent times that on individual assessments there were very clear guiding rules and uniform practices testified to by years of successful administration and the body of decisions, many of which were made in camera in the courts. There were guiding rules right through all of this, but in the individual cases the inspector had the discretion to go a little one way or to adjust. Those inspectors made the reputation of the Revenue Commissioners and gained the confidence of the public.
I hope the Minister will allow me to say this objectively even though we are in the last spasms of the 20th Dáil. I am not implying any undertones of electioneering when I say that one of the difficulties about the Minister's legislation was making things specific. Every time I spoke on the Minister's legislation I emphasised the need for discretion for the Revenue Commissioners. I know they did not want all the discretion I wanted to give them, because the job is much easier if there are rigid rules. If I am to be put in that extreme position and they are put in the other, the balance has to be struck. There may be a lot of merit in all the Minister's proposals but there is one basic criticism of it. The only bit of Committee work we did today could have touched on the same thing.
Let us take this specific limit about the measurement of the assessment in regard to benefits in kind, in regard to the cars we were talking about this morning. That is the same type of thing. We would not have had the difficulty, the debate we had or the reputation of the Revenue machine would not have suffered if these rigid limits were not there. Deputies should be very much on their guard about this. May I say, with the greatest respect, to the public service that, although it may be more convenient to have black and white rules and apply them, humanity is not devised of a set of black and white rules of yes and no. We are not just computers that are resolved by an electric switch which goes on or off. As the Minister probably knows, a computer works on a scale of two simply because an electric current is on or off. We do not, as human beings, work that way. A human problem arises in every one of those cases. That is why the last thing I can urge on the Minister is that "wholly or mainly", supported by a practice that the Revenue Commissioners have found to be applicable, is preferable to putting that down in black and white and making it an invariable rule which is what is involved here.
On page 7 of the explanatory memorandum it is stated:
Provision is also made to ensure that the relief allowed under the Finance Act, 1976, and that now being provided, will be calculated by reference to increases in stock values over the previous highest stock value attained since the relief for increases in stock values came into effect. The relief has since its inception been granted where certain trading operations constituted not less than 75 per cent of all trading operations of a trade and specific provision is made to give statutory basis to this interpretation of the words "wholly or mainly" in the existing legislation.
That is a fair and honest description of what is here. In all fairness to the Minister and his advisers, one would have to go back not only to last year's Act but that of the year before to find out exactly what this section is driving at.
I have read the explanatory memorandum but let us turn now to paragraph 11 of Part V which reads:
Where in any accounting period which ends on or after the 6th day of April, 1975, a company carries on a trade which consists partly of trading operations of any of the classes mentioned in the definition of "trade" in subsection (1) (hereinafter referred to as "qualifying trading operations") and partly of other trading operations the company shall be regarded as carrying on a trade which consists wholly or mainly of qualifying trading operations....
I am puzzled here. Is the reference to subsection (1) of section 31 which is of the Finance Act, 1975, amended in section 1 here? The Minister need not worry because I am not going to delve into that. In fairness to the Minister he has shown us what exactly he is dealing with here but I mention the paragraph as an example of the point I am making. When one looks at the whole schedule dealing with stock relief and then considers this paragraph one finds it very difficult to get the content of it because all of it is amendment of legislation by reference. The paragraph continues:
if, but only if, the total amount receivable by the company from sales made in the course of the qualifying trading operations in the accounting period is not less than 75 per cent of the total amount receivable by the company from all sales made in the course of its trade in the accounting period.
Without the explanatory memorandum and in the absence of continued debate in the House it would be very difficult to get the full perspective. What I am about to say now is being said with some diffidence in that I am not sufficiently informed nor have I heard what I would normally expect to hear in the course of the Finance Bill—explanations for the sections being elucidated and untangled in the course of Committee Stage. As this has not been the case, it is possible that I am totally mistaken in what I am about to say. I consider the background and the reason for the provision to be as follows: the Minister brought in this stock relief and for that I give him full credit; it was implemented in difficult circumstances by the Department concerned but it turned out to be the worst provision in the 1975 Act. Before 1975, as the Minister will recall, there was a big question mark as to whether the clawback was to be a permanent relief. In turn this went back to the impact of inflation. I wonder whether the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners, when dealing with this type of thing would take the bold step in an effort to ascertain whether it would be possible to make it permanent. This could be done only by State direction. At the moment the accountants are trying to do this but they could be in conflict with the provisions of a schedule in the Companies Acts. After all, the directors of a company, not the accountants, are responsible for the accounts. The accountants do the auditing. The accounting profession are trying to evolve a rational scheme that would give a real picture of a company's accounts. A basic problem in this is the bringing in of stock values to the profit and loss account. The situation is complicated further in that the Revenue Commissioners, and quite rightly, refused in the past to take what might be called the ordinary commercial measures of valuation and profit. As everybody knows, any company producing accounts show depreciation and all the other provisions and allowances involved before arriving at a profit before taxation. Taxation is then deducted. The Revenue Commissioners would never fall for that. They add back various items in accordance with their code. They give relief on the profit arrived at but leave out what they will not allow to be added back.
First, therefore, there is the complication of stock. Then, there are the duties imposed by the Companies Acts and there are the real duties imposed by the necessity of keeping liquid solvent. One can see readily the difficulties involved in accounting in individual cases. I sympathise with the Chair. I am sure he is beginning to wonder what all this has to do with the subsection. I assure the House that it has everything to do with the section because in every company with the sort of background I am talking of there are problems of discretion. There is this new fashion of trying to define specifically in general terms and reduce us all corporately, incorporately and individually to a computer and to the needs of a computer. A computer operates with a switch that goes on and off and the rule is either obeyed or is not obeyed. This simply cannot be the best thing for business, nor can it be the best thing socially. Therefore, there is something in Deputy Haughey's amendment that goes very much further than the mere technicality. It raises the whole question of when discretion should be exercised. I have strayed from what I wanted to say, which is that this came about as follows. The Revenue Commissioners had their first experience of this. The Minister brought in his Bill. The clawback was tentative and that caused the problems of last year. They were straightened out. It is understood why the Minister provided the clawback. Gradually the Revenue Commissioners found that in practice about 75 per cent is the thing to strike at. I took the case of a 51 per cent manufacturing company which is also dealing in what I might call——
Bought in goods.
Yes, I am trying to get the name for it. It is not retailing; it is not manufacturing; we will say "other than manufacturing". Here, again, we are going to get into desperate difficulty in following the Minister at "bought in" and trade out. At what stage are you a manufacturer? At what stage are you not? If I buy the Minister's Bill from the Stationery Office and the law permits me to put my name and a commentary on it and I pass it on again, the only thing I have done with it is run it through a machine and put a little over-print on it. Is that article wholly manufactured or is it manufactured at all?
This would be in the area of taxation on which the Deputy wants to be clear with the Revenue Commissioners.
Is the Minister not giving me that whole point? Here in the area of discretion——
The facts of each case have to be judged on their own merits.
Then why put 75 per cent in? The logic of that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the Minister, is that if we pass this we must give discretion to the Revenue Commissioners to break the law.
No. no.
Yes.
It establishes that a taxpayer may appeal.
Perhaps I have rather telescoped what I wanted to say. The Minister will appreciate that discretion is necessary. I want to show where discretion is necessary here. Assuming that it can be measured— and that is a big assumption when coming down to practice—there will still be an element of discretion. Assuming you have 75 per cent there, then the inspector has to say "75 per cent is there. It is hard luck. If I was able I would fix it and I would give you the benefit. You are the hard case but I have no discretion. I am sorry". He may see another case on the 75 per cent and he scratches his head and says "the so-and-sos have it and they should be strung up for what they are getting away with". This is what these rigid things mean. I am putting it in rather crude terms but it is only by putting it in those terms that one can appreciate what is involved. It wholly or mainly gives the discretion to the Revenue Commissioners to practise what I have talked about and which has now been obviously established.
The Minister has come back here today all the time emphasising that he is only giving statutory authority to those established practices. He is not. He is closing and freezing what is an established practice into something that it is not. The established practice that the Revenue Commissioners have at the moment is a good guiding rule with the necessary flexibility to meet the individual case, but as soon as this is enacted with the 75 per cent you are to operate either on one side of the line or on the line and on the line is equally provided for. I am not accusing the Minister of doing this with any degree of tongue in cheek or not realising the implications or anything like that but when you analyse the situation this is not giving statutory effect to an established practice. If that point alone will not carry, I cannot push it further.
We are at a sorry stage when we have to leave things in this unsatisfactory situation. I would be very out of order if I were to say what I know and what I have said on other occasions about the financial business as we do it in this House. A year ago, on the 21st May, I here made the point that a lot of our financial procedure was a charade and a farce. I am afraid that is so today and this business proves it but you are not wholly or mainly giving a statutory authority, you are changing the law.
Deputy Haughey is to conclude.
Before the Deputy concludes I want to answer two questions that were put by Deputy de Valera. It will not take me a minute. The section is 31 (a) of the Finance Act, 1975. On the other point I will communicate with the Deputy.
I am very grateful to Deputy de Valera for that very clear exposition which he has given to the case in favour of my amendment. I do not think I could have put it better myself. I am sure you will also forgive me if I say I would have very greatly desired that the last few words which I will say to the 20th Dáil would have been about something more rewarding than company taxation. Company taxation is undoubtedly a very important matter but it is not one that is entirely appropriate for the closing minutes of the 20th Dáil.
There are many other matters we would prefer to have been talking about at this stage: for instance, the sort of community that is emerging in Ireland today; the fundamental problems that present themselves in that community; the quality of life for ordinary men and women in that community; the protection of our natural environment; some policy for youth in sport; some programme to provide employment for young people; perhaps, dare one hope, some carefully thought-out, wise political initiative designed to bring peace with justice to the North of Ireland. These are the sort of things that would have been more appropriate for this final evening. But the Government have ordained otherwise. For their own short-term political, electoral ends they have decided to push this Finance Bill through in a completely undemocratic, unparliamentary manner.
Are we on the Fifth Stage or on the amendment?
On the amendment. The Government, as I say, have decided that the closing stages of the 20th Dáil should be devoted to the mundane, dull and unexciting matter of stock relief for trading companies. So be it. I do not think this will redound to their political or electoral advantage. In fact, as this major taxation measure of the year is going through the Dáil and bringing important changes in the taxation legislation without being debated or discussed, without even being explained to the House or to the people, I believe the Government have done a serious disservice to this House and to our parliamentary democracy by the tactics they have adopted. I will say no more about it than that.
I want to suggest to the Minister that, in the final stages of his career here as the Minister for Finance, he should be gracious enough to accept this amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. It is, as Deputy de Valera pointed out so cogently, designed to retain some flexibility in this stock relief provision. The Minister knows as well as I do that once a fixed percentage is written into legislation there are always difficulties. There will be marginal cases, and I do not think the Minister can say that any great difficulties have arisen in the administration of this provision up to now because of the absence of a specific percentage provision. Therefore I would appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment and leave the situation as it is, that, in so far as these trading corporations are concerned and their qualification for stock relief, the matter would still be left to the discretion of the Revenue authorities by the use of the words "wholly or mainly" instead of the fixed 75 per cent which is proposed in the legislation.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keaveney, Paddy.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I am now putting the question——
I want to submit that under an Order of the House yesterday it is not possible for you to put any further question to the House. I refer you to paragraph (iii) (c) of the motion yesterday:
the Fourth Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the proceedings on the Supplementary Estimate for Labour referred to in paragraph (vi) and the proceedings on the Fourth and Fifth Stages, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. tomorrow by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion: and the Question to be put from the Chair (as the case may require) shall be `That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Finance, including any requiring Recommittal, and not disposed of, are hereby made to the Bill and Recommittal and Fourth Stages are hereby completed and) the Bill is hereby passed';
I submit that under the terms of that paragraph it was necessary for you to put the question at 8.30 p.m., or before it, but certainly not later than 8.30 p.m. and it is, therefore, not in order for you to do so now.
The allocation of time order will, as it says, operate notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders and the Chair will, therefore, put the question notwithstanding the Standing Order referred to by the Deputy or the points made by the Deputy.
I am not referring to a point of order. I am referring to the Order of the House which supersedes Standing Orders.
I am fortified in my decision by many precedents.
Deputies
Oh, no.
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
May I put a point of order? I do not trouble you often but you claim you are fortified by a number of precedents. I think you owe the House some indication at least of your fortification and of the precedents.
Loss of memory again.
If the Government benches start the election campaign in that vein they will get plenty of it.
I am prepared to campaign in any vein.
I am quoting from the rulings of the Chair: "Where Order provides that on expiry of time the questions necessary to bring proceedings on that stage to a conclusion should be put forthwith and successively such questions may be put after the time fixed for interruption of business". I am putting the question, That the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.
(Interruptions.)
This is a disgraceful performance by the Chair.
You have not indicated yet whether we said "Níl" and if you will just bear with me for a while.
I am sorry There can be no further comment. I am putting the question.
These steamrolling tactics of this Government, supported by the Chair, will not redound to their credit with the electorate come the 16th of June.
The electorate have already decided to put Fianna Fáil out in every by-election.
Na Teachtaí atá ar taobh na tairiscinte abraidís "Tá".
Deputies
Tá.
Na Teachtaí eile abraidís "Níl".
Deputies
Níl.
I think the motion is passed.
It is not passed. Vótáil. And the voting on this motion is as much a vote against your decision as it is against the substance of the motion.
Take your beating now.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan, O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keavency, Paddy.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.