Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Jun 1987

Vol. 373 No. 9

Finance Bill, 1987: Committee Stage (Resumed).

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 20, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

"21.—Section 43 of the Finance Act, 1986, shall apply and have effect as if—

‘designated area' were substituted for ‘Custom House Docks Area' in subsection (1).".

The purpose of this is to seek to apply the provisions that relate to the provision of residential accommodation in the Custom House Docks area as defined in the Finance Act, 1986, section 43, to what is elsewhere in that Act defined as designated areas of the inner cities. The five cities to which it applies are Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. In each of these cities an area has been designated for these purposes and the local authorities and others are endeavouring to promote this commercial and residential development in each of the areas. In so far as many of those areas are concerned and particularly in so far as the area in Limerick is concerned, the proposals which were in existence for the provision of private residential accommodation by way of apartments either for sale or for rent have largely been put at nought by virtue of the decision of the Government at the time of the budget in relation to housing grants, and it is understood that none of the proposed 200 plus apartments and inner city houses that were to be provided at no cost to the Exchequer, other than grants, in the designated area in Limerick will now be proceeded with. While I do not know the exact position in relation to the other cities, I would imagine that the same problem arises in respect of them it may well be that either a reduced number of such proposals is going ahead or that none at all are going ahead.

On the other hand, under the section in question, there is considerable encouragement for development of this kind at the Custom House Docks area in Dublin. The purpose of designating the Custom House Docks area was the same basically as that in relation to other designated areas in the inner cities, to try to promote urban renewal, to try to clean up the rather run down aspect of all the inner cities, particularly Dublin and Limerick which, unfortunately, are the worst in this respect, and to try to promote development there that would not otherwise take place and by promoting that development to encourage other development to take place in the vicinity or the locality.

The Custom House Docks area as defined in the 1986 Finance Act as far as I can ascertain extends only to an area of 27 acres and in the context of inner city Dublin or the inner city of any city, that is a very small area indeed. Since most of this Custom House Docks area is intended for commercial development in any event, there cannot be a great deal of space left for residential development. Therefore, it is important that this area be extended to include the whole of what is defined in the 1986 Act as the designated area not alone in relation to Dublin but in relation to the four other cities also. This will have the effect of enabling development to take place in the five inner city areas which would not otherwise take place.

The cost to the State in relation to a matter such as this must be very small indeed because the encouragement is mainly by way of foregoing things that the State would otherwise be entitled to, but the State is entitled to nothing out of these areas for the moment because they are lying derelict and producing no revenue and no commercial or economic activity. Since the cost in net terms would be negligible and since the investment would be by definition by way of private finance, the State is not called on to make any capital allocation.

Such investment would be a valuable way of creating development in these designated inner city areas, particularly as there is now danger, due to the abolition of the grants, that no residential development would take place in any of them.

The one in which, to my knowledge, the greatest degree of such development was proposed, relatively speaking at any rate, was Limerick. It is very disappointing to see that that whole proposal, which up to a few months ago would have amounted to more than 200 dwellings in a relatively small area designated in the inner city of Limerick, is not now going to go ahead. This is a way of overcoming that problem. It applies these rights to the five inner cities, including Dublin and not just to one small designated area within the overall designated area of Dublin. Because of the manner in which it is proposed to be dealt with, I hope that the Minister will find it acceptable and that this proposed new section will be accepted and enacted.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The proposal for the development of inner cities was one of the major proposals for the construction industry which was sponsored by the previous Government. It was not an original idea. Inner city development has taken place now in many cities in the UK, on the Continent and in the US. The arguments are pretty much the same wherever you find a derelict inner city area. We have had a kind of doughnut development in many of our cities where we got an increasingly developing suburban area around the perimeter of the city with a great big hole developing in the middle.

The removal of the home improvement grants, which we opposed, had a devastating effect on the development plans for inner cities because while commercial development will go ahead the total concept of restoring life to inner city areas, bringing back the living city, using existing infrastructure, has been totally obstructed by the abolition of those grants. In particular it has been obstructed by the removal of the £5,000 grant for people who move from local authority houses. Quite frequently in cities such as Limerick people who live in local authority houses on the fringes of the city are people who originated in the city centre and who would be quite prepared to go back if the £5,000 grant were available. It was a great tragedy the grant was removed in respect of designated areas in the inner cities.

Would the Minister consider treating the inner city designated areas in the five cities in the same way as the Gaeltacht areas are being treated, exempt them from the abolition of the home improvement grants. I do not think there would be a great net cost involved. It would lead to greater activity and would restore the living city. There is a precedent by way of order when the Minister for the Environment was able to exempt Gaeltacht areas and I cannot see why inner city areas could not be exempted also. If we had that commitment there would be no need for this amendment but in the absence of that kind of commitment I will be supporting this amendment. It is a tragedy that a scheme that captured people's imaginations, which was well on its way to fulfilment — planning permissions having been granted for several hundred houses, with tenants available to move from local authority houses back into small inner city dwellings — suddenly ceased as a result of the side-effect of the discontinuance of the home improvement grants in the last budget.

Perhaps the Minister would consider that suggestion, ascertaining whether he could exempt these areas just as the Gaeltacht areas have been exempted? Could he ensure that the grants would still apply over the period of development attaching to the designated areas, which is three years? Certainly it would alleviate local authority housing lists. The Minister would be able to recoup the money from his allocations to local authorities in respect of housing. It is a side-effect the Minister did not intend but I can assure him it will have a devastating effect in not fulfilling the intent of the proposal for inner city development. While commercial development will go ahead people will not be in a position to live in the inner cities. To put it bluntly, the people who originated there, who now live in areas such as Moyrosses and Tallaght are the people who are prepared to go back and live in the centre. It should be remembered that the churches, schools, gasmains, water and sewerage, facilities, electricity supply and so on are there, the total physical infrastructure is present. What is needed is the incentive for people to go back and live in the inner city areas. I do not need to remind the House of the beneficial effect of that on such areas. It would bring the inner cities alive again, leading to an immediate reduction in crime. One of the reasons there is such an incidence of crime in inner city areas is that they have become areas that close down after 5.30 in the evening, becoming a concrete playground for the vandals of the city. Restoring an ordered, living community to the centre would eliminate many of the social problems also.

Could the Minister give the House a commitment that he will exempt the inner city designated areas from the abolition of the package of grants which was removed countrywide? The precedent exists already in respect of the Gaeltacht areas. Perhaps the Minister would give us a commitment to examine the matter between now and Report Stage, telling us what he thinks about it. I do not think it will cost anything and would constitute a progressive decision. It would help enormously to fulfil the intent of those of us who framed the package for inner cities. It would help my city of Limerick in particular and also the city of Dublin where the inner area is absolutely devastated. ]If we cannot have that commitment, then I support the intent of Deputy O'Malley's amendment, in that if we cannot achieve our purose one way we will try another.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

The Deputy is talking about the housing grant?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I am talking about the whole package but particularly the housing grant. The one which has the most effect in this regard is the £5,000 grant. If the Minister could allow that to obtain in respect of inner city designated areas, it would have an enormous effect.

Mr. MacSharry

When the designated areas for the scheme were being selected it was decided, as a matter of policy, that special treatment should be given to the Custom House Docks area so as to direct developers' attention to that area as a priority. Accordingly the package of incentives was tailored to achieve that objective by allowing section 23 relief in its original, unrestricted form in respect of the docks area only, giving capital allowances for commercial buildings in designated areas of Dublin, other than the docks area, at one half the rate only allowable in the docks area and in the provincial designated areas. The extension of this form of section 23 relief to all designated areas would negate the desired preferential treatment of the docks area and, by virtue of its widespread availability, would diminish the value of the relief as an incentive to the renewal of the Custom House Docks area as a special case.

The commitment I can give the House is that as we see the progress of development on the docks site area and the part being played by the operation of section 23 relief in that area, the question of extending the relief to other designated areas can then be considered. Even though Deputies Noonan and O'Malley suggest there is no cost involved, I should say there is always a cost involved. There is no such thing as introducing relief of one kind or another, or taxation of any kind without it being a cost on the Exchequer. That is the bottom line.

That brings me to the point raised by Deputy Noonan about the package of grants — the £5,000 grant, the reconstruction grant and so on — which involves resources. Already in the pipeline, as I said when replying to other queries raised in the course of this Committee Stage debate, £100 million is allocated to those grants this year. We know there is another £100 million committed for next year as works reach completion. That may not be the end of the story. It should be remembered that that covers applications up to 27 March last only. Until such time as those things come out of the pipeline and we have an opportunity of reviewing the progress made by way of the operation of section 23 relief on the docks site — the advantages that area will have compared with other designated areas — until such time as all of that can be assessed, then I do not foresee any possibility of accepting what is proposed in the amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I am very disappointed at the Minister's response. I find it very difficult to accept what he has to say. He appears to dismiss this whole matter in a somewhat facile manner. The main argument he advances is that there would be no advantage to the Custom House Docks area if the same provisions applied elsewhere. Theoretically that argument might be true so far as other parts of the inner city of Dublin are concerned but what competition is there between the Custom House Docks area in Dublin, and, say, the inner city of Limerick, Cork, Waterford or Galway? There is none, and the Minister's argument falls down. If the Minister wants to maintain his argument in relation to Dublin, I will amend my amendment to exclude the remainder of Dublin if he wants to ensure that the Custom House Docks area is developed first. But who, contemplating the possibility of building residential accommodation, or living in residential accommodation in the Custom House Docks area of Dublin, would be influenced by the existence of similar accommodation provided under similar terms in inner city Limerick, Cork, Waterford or Galway? The answer to that is that nobody would and there is no competition between those four cities and the Custom House Docks area of Dublin. Therefore, the Minister's argument falls down so far as those four cities are concerned.

He knows as well as I do that the section 23 provisions of the Finance Act 1981 were very successful. They were the cause of a tremendous amount of building in the country that would not otherwise have taken place. They were foolishly, I thought, abolished by the last Government under the type of Department of Finance thinking which is that any tax relief is ipso facto bad and must be discouraged. ]I would have hoped that with the change of Government we might have had a change of vision but obviously that is not so. I could just as easily be listening to Deputy Dukes or Deputy Bruton on these matters, particularly Deputy Dukes who found it very hard to imagine that economic activity was worthwhile and that frequently it could pay for itself both in fiscal terms and in terms of overall economic development. I find this very disappointing. I would have expected more from the present Minister for Finance. ]His main argument is wrong in so far as four of the five cities are concerned.

I can recall many members of the Fianna Fáil Party deploring the ending of the section 23 incentives. They have an opportunity here to restore them, not in relation to the country generally, but only in relation to five run-down inner city areas and God knows they are run-down, especially Dublin and Limerick which are badly in need of this sort of development. The other three cities are not as bad. Every country has recognised that there will not be worthwhile development of derelict inner cities unless the State gives some kind of incentive of the type we are talking about. Everywhere this has happened it was as a result of encouragement having been given by the State and not by giving grants for capital allocations. ]That is not what I am asking for; I am asking for some kind of reasonable incentive of the type that existed previously for one part of inner city Dublin but not for the remainder of it.

If this is invalid why does it relate to the Custom House Docks area? There is a lot more to inner city Dublin that is derelict than the Custom House Docks. As I well know, a lot of inner city Limerick is derelict because of its age. It seems to me that when the Exchequer is not called on to pay out anything, whatever notional cost there may be, is more than offset by the economic activity that is generated. It is very disappointing that the Minister will not accede to this in particular when its success has been proven in the past and when his main arguments about other areas being in competition do not apply in so far as four of the five cities are concerned.

I wonder whether amendment 49 in the Minister's name covers this point to some extent. It certainly deals with some cognate or analogous matters by extending the definition of designated areas for urban renewal relief. We know, the older type of urban renewal relief has now been rendered useless, by the abolition of the grants in so far as residential development is concerned. All buildings in Limerick have stopped. There were to be over 200 dwellings built in that city but none of them is going ahead as a result of that decision. That is a pity because development will not now take place. I do not think the other cities were at such an advanced stage as Limerick in this respect but they could be and they could have taken an example from Limerick. Now none of those areas will be developed other than presumably some commercial development.

That is unhealthy. Those five inner cities should only have commercial development. There is nobody living in them because it is prohibitively expensive to do so and there is no form of support or incentives to live in them. All the premises will be locked up at 6 o'clock every evening and they will be subject to gangs of youths, often with criminal intent, roaming around them. Iron bars and grills have to be put on the premises to protect them. We can get rid of that atmosphere in our inner cities by encouraging people to live there. For centuries people lived in the inner part of all our cities but that is no longer the case. If the Minister refuses to accept this amendment, the Minister is taking the view that people can stay out of the inner cities and that is a pity. That is what they have decided to do and post 31 March all residential development has stopped. The only way it will resume again is if this is extended beyond the Custom House Docks area of 27 acres to inner cities generally.

Mr. MacSharry

I could repeat all I have said already but the Deputy still would not be satisfied. We would all love to agree with everything he has said and to be able to implement all the incentives that would be required to do exactly as he has said, whether in Limerick, Sligo or anywhere else, but that is not possible. We do not have the resources to do so or to forego such an amount of money in taxes of one kind or another. The incentives are there. I agree they are greater for the Custom House Docks area than they are for the designated areas or for the rest of Dublin but there are many towns and cities that do not have the incentives that are available in the five areas the Deputy talks about. They want those incentives and if they had them, work would go ahead. In some places work would probably go ahead with or without the incentives.

In section 26, amendment 49 in my own name I am seeking the support of the House to have those designated areas extended because of the interest that is shown in many other towns that are not included in the five borough areas. I cannot understand how the Deputy can throw such cold water on what are important incentives for the development of these designated areas, whether it be in Dublin, Limerick, Waterford or wherever. ]One can always say that this should be expanded but, as I have said already, there are a number of areas that do not even have the kind of incentives that are being criticised by Deputy O'Malley. It is unfortunate that there are not people with the foresight to take advantage of these incentives because there will be people living in centre cities. We have seen the enormous developments of residential property in Dublin that have taken place and that continue to take place. I know of several examples in other towns. I will not be parochial in talking about any town but if the incentives that are available for the five designated areas were available in those towns much work would be created.

I am disappointed with the attitude adopted by Deputy O'Malley in this regard. As I said when suggesting to him that I could not accept this amendment, when I see the progress that is made particularly in the Custom House Docks area, with the advantage of the section 23 incentives and the part it has played, maybe there will be an opportunity of extending it further.

Mr. D. O'Malley

That might hold water if we did not know what the advantages, the benefits or the likely effect of section 23 would be. Section 23 was in operation for a number of years before it was done away with by the last Government. ]We know exactly the tremendous benefits that accrued as a result of it. It kept thousands of people in employment in the building industry who would otherwise have lost their employment and who have lost it since section 23 came to an end. The Minister's argument does not hold water. He said we have to wait and see whether this section 23 incentive for the Customs House Docks area will work. We know it will work.

Mr. MacSharry

When it does we will talk about extending it.

Mr. D. O'Malley

We know it will work and why not extend it now? Presumably there will not be another Finance Bill until this time 12 months and that means that as far as the inner city areas in the five cities mentioned are concerned we are saying we can forget about them now for the next 12 months and that nothing will happen. The Minister has said it is now necessary under amendment No. 49 to extend the existing inner city reliefs or incentives to other places. That is grand but he misses the point which is that the places it is being extended to are not in cities. Those places do not have the terrible problems the inner parts of cities have, particularly those that are 800 or 900 years old and have large populations. By virtue of their size they do not have the terrible social problems or the appalling pressures that exist in the inner parts of those cities. The scale of the dereliction is only a tiny fraction of what it is in the larger cities.

I welcome section 49 for what it is worth but even if the Minister extends it to every town on the basis of the experience we have over the past three or four months in the existing designated areas of the five cities there will not be any dwellings built because the buildings proposed have now come to a stop. It is a tragedy as far as Limerick and Dublin are concerned — they are the ones with the worst problems — that this has come to an end. If I was proposing something we had never heard of there might be some validity in the Minister's argument that we will have to wait and see but this is not new. What I am suggesting has been well tried and proved successful. Section 23 worked here for a number of years. It kept thousands of people in employment but they lost their jobs when it came to an end. We can put those thousands back into employment if we accept the amendment. ]It is a matter for the Dáil to decide and to help the Dáil decide that in a positive way I ask the Minister to bear in mind the historical facts I have outlined. He should agree to accept our amendment now so that we can get between 3,000 and 4,000 people back to work in the building industry within the next 12 months. We can do that by accepting the amendment which consists of two or three lines. What is proposed will not cost the Exchequer any capital and there will probably be a net gain to the Exchequer. Therefore, the arguments that are usually made about reliefs or incentives of this type do not apply.

Mr. G. Brady

I see this as a commencement of the work in the inner city. No Member has taken a closer view of what has happened to the inner city of Dublin than I in recent years. It could be stated that what is proposed is ten years too late but, however, it is a beginning and we should support it to the fullest extent. I wonder about the advantages of section 23. The building industry can be perceived to be an industry that can be turned on and off by the injection of moneys and incentives but one of the great problems in the capital city is that while section 23 encouraged builders to supply a stock of apartments in outlying areas, unfortunately it created a glut of apartments some of which are substandard. ]Some of those apartments do not comply with the rigorous planning conditions. There was a rush to get as many apartments as possible built. If there is to be any extension of section 23 it should be to refurbish the existing stock in the inner city. We should give incentives to people to improve their property in the inner city. Many fine properties in that area could be improved by an extension of this grant. However, money is not available today for that type of development and that is regrettable.

The Custom House Docks site is unique and I would like to see it perceived as a model for other developers. I am disappointed we could not see a blueprint for an extension of the inner city on the north and south sides bordered by the canals and with less emphasis on a particular section of the city. I accept that would be very difficult given the conflicting planning between our local authorities in urban areas and the new powers that will be given by the Minister to such areas. There is no doubt there would be a conflict and a slowing down of the rate of development.

I argued vigorously for the Bill dealing with urban areas when it was moved in the House five years ago because I felt it was a means of designating areas in need of renewal such as areas in the capital city, in Limerick, Cork and other cities. I am familiar with the region in Limerick referred to by Deputy O'Malley and I agree it is in need of renewal. There are other areas in Cork and Galway in need of renewal. What is proposed has been welcomed by the business community as a good approach to inner city renewal. We should not do anything that will inhibit the success of this project.

Members representing inner city areas will accept there are attendant problems such as the lock-up concept at night and difficulties caused by vandalism. It is important that the areas surrounding the Custom House Docks site protect themselves by proper policing. The former Minister for Justice who introduced the highly successful community watch scheme is present and I cannot help complimenting him on his work in that regard.

Mr. MacSharry

Deputy O'Malley made a lot of play about the advantages of the incentives and said they were nil when compared to the Custom House Docks scheme. However, I should like to point out to the Deputy that other designated areas get a 50 per cent write-off over the years for owner-occupied dwellings and that does not apply in the case of the Customs House Docks scheme. That concession is contained in section 44 (2) of the 1986 Act.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I accept that, but the Minister does not seem to appreciate the devastation caused by his decision to abolish the housing grants, in particular the £5,000 grant.

Mr. MacSharry

Half of the country have applied for those grants and will be paid.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Generations of people have looked at places like Limerick inner city and found the position deplorable. They were waiting for the day when something could be done. In the last three generations nothing was done, but the previous Government gave an opportunity to develop these areas commercially and incentives were provided to encourage people again to go to live in the inner cities. The Minister has now dashed the hopes of people who thought their inner cities would be developed. The commercial development will go ahead but the development of residential property has been stopped stone dead by the Minister's decision.

Even if Deputy O'Malley's amendment were accepted it would apply to section 23 accommodation only, which historically is at the upper end of the market. It would apply to young single people who frequently are transient. There is income tax relief of £500 but in places like Limerick inner city we do not have any incentive to take people out of corporation houses and put them back where their fathers and mothers came from because the £5,000 grant is gone. Would the Minister please look at that because he is stopping one of the most creative ideas to come from an Irish Government in this generation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 4.40 p.m. I am required in accordance with a resolution of the House of 16 June to put the following question: "That sections 21 to 25, inclusive, are hereby agreed."

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to consider sections 26 to 31, inclusive. ]Amendment No. 49 is in the name of the Minister. There is one hour and a half for these discussions.

Mr. MacSharry

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 24, before section 26, but in Chapter IV, to insert the following new section:

26.—(1) For the purposes of Chapter V of Part I of the Finance Act, 1986, the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, may, by order, direct that—

(a) (i) the definition of `designated area' contained in section 41 of that Act shall include such area or areas described in the order which, but for the order, would not be included in that definition,

(ii) as respects any such area so described in the order, the definition of `qualifying period' in section 42, 44 or 45 of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to such period as shall be specified in the order in relation to that area: provided that no such period specified in the order shall commence prior to the date of the passing of this Act, or end after the 31st day of May, 1991,

and

(b) the definition of `the Custom House Docks Area' contained in the said section 41 shall, with effect from the date of such order, include such area or areas described in the order which, but for the order, would not be included in that definition,

and where the Minister for Finance so orders, the said definition of `designated area' or `the Custom House Docks Area', as the case may be, shall be deemed to include the said area or areas and the said definition of `qualifying period' shall be construed as a reference to the said period specified in the order.

(2) The Minister for Finance may make orders for the purpose of this section and any order made under this section shall be laid before Dáil Éireann as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by Dáil Éireann within the next twenty-one days on which Dáil Éireann has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The purpose of this new section is to enable the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, to designate by order certain areas in addition to those provided for in Chapter IV, Part 1, of the Finance Act, 1986.

Mr. D. O'Malley

On a point of order, it seems to me that under this order of the House, which I think is ridiculous, Chapter IV has now been passed. The amendment you are asking the Minister to move is to Chapter IV. The amendment says before section 26, but in Chapter IV——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We did not deal with chapters in the order.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Section 26 relates to corporation tax and the amendment now being moved relates to income tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This allows the Deputy to discuss designated areas, if he wishes to.

Mr. D. O'Malley

That may well be but I wish to point out simply that the amendment relates to Chapter IV.

Mr. MacSharry

Deputy O'Malley has been here a long time. He has been disrupting us for the past two days. We are trying to get some discussion on sections of the Bill and despite his nonsensical talk the Deputy knows as well as anybody else what the Order means. We have finished up to section 25. We are now on to section 26 but before it there is an amendment to insert a new section. It has nothing to do with chapters. If the Deputy had been here for the discussion during the day he would know that this is the third time we are providing for the same thing. He just runs in and out as he pleases.

Mr. D. O'Malley

The Minister is making a egregious fool of himself.

Mr. MacSharry

The purpose of the new section——

Mr. D. O'Malley

This puts the Government party and certain other parties in a particular light——

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy is disruptive. ]He told us he did not get the Order of Business until after lunch but there is a signed document showing that his Whip's office got it at 12.05 p.m. The Deputy disrupted the House for two hours yesterday and one hour today. I want to be helpful.

Mr. D. O'Malley

We have the months of July and August in which to discuss these matters but the Minister wants 16 weeks of holidays.

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy has been the most disruptive man in relation to the Finance Bill this year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair treats every Member equally and the Chair will not take this persistent interruption from the Deputy. He is no different from anybody else. The Deputy is often the architect of whatever comes his way.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I have been the subject of a barrage of insults.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy desist please?

Mr. MacSharry

The purpose of the section is to enable the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, to designate by order certain areas in addition to those provided for in Chapter IV, Part I of the Finance Act, 1986, to be designated areas for the purpose of incentive relief for urban renewal provided for in the 1986 Act and to extend by order the boundaries of the Custom House Docks areas defined in that chapter. In general, designated areas are areas in which there is a special need to promote urban renewal and development.

Mr. Lawlor

I will draw the Minister's attention to the genuine concern for our inner cities. I represent two satellite towns. I do not represent Tallaght which is probably one of the most pressing cases but which has been left without any incentive package. I have listened to some other Deputies pointing out the benefits of the development incentive scheme for inner city but the new satellite towns should not be neglected. There are only 75 per cent completed. I ask the Minister to recognise that there is probably £100 million of immediate construction work to commence in Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown town centres with private sector funding. Hundreds of millions of pounds from the public sector have been invested in these new satellite towns.

There is a high risk element involved especially in the Tallaght area — where more than 70,000 people are living and do not have a town centre. At least the people living in the inner city have a city centre but in west Tallaght, Blanchardstown or some of those outlying areas they have a very inadequate transport service to the city. When these people bought houses or were moved to these outlying areas they were promised all the necessary services, but they have been denied a town centre which should be the first element to be provided in any new town. Some of these satellite towns have a higher population than Portlaoise, Limerick and other areas.

I appeal to the Minister to broaden this section and amend it to take in areas other than the inner city. A very positive contribution can be made to job creation and the construction industry if we complete what was started in the late sixties in those satellite towns. It is often forgotten that a great deal has been achieved in the inner cities. Many new houses have been built in the Dublin inner city. Deputy Noonan might feel that his £5,000 grant scheme was very imaginative, but it had the effect of clearing many community leaders from the large corporation housing schemes and the scheme had a detrimental effect on all those living in these areas. Deputy Mac Giolla and I have correspondence from community leaders who saw the economic folly of that scheme — saving the national purse £20,000 by giving a £5,000 cheque to local authority dwellers if they moved into the private sector. The scheme had economic merit but its social merits were suspect.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Did the Deputy check the County Dublin housing list recently?

Mr. Lawlor

It was a blunt instrument. It had economic merit but it was having a very detrimental social effect on large suburban areas. I ask the Minister to recognise that these satellite towns need the necessary incentives to complete what was started many years ago. Our target date for completion is 1991 but unless we get incentives we are unlikely to see these very badly needed facilities provided in the satellite towns of County Dublin.

Mr. D. O'Malley

It is not easy to ascertain on reading it a few times the precise effects of this amendment. The Minister had very little to say, he read a few lines which were given to him, and that was it. Is it a fact that under subsection (1) the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, may redefine these areas? Does this not have much the same effect as my earlier amendment, which he would not accept, because this allows him to redefine designated areas? He explained earlier what he had in mind in regard to that, to include other towns and possibly larger areas of the existing five designated inner cities, but it also allows him to redefine what is called in section 41 the Custom House Docks area. There is no limitation on the areas he can define. It does not seem to have to be simply an extension of what is set out in Part II of the Fourth Schedule of the 1986 Act. It could be anything. He could define a part of Limerick for the purposes of this section as part of the Custom House Docks area. Is it not the case that in effect paragraph (1) (b) of this amendment does what I suggested, except that it leaves it to the discretion of the Minister to define or extend it rather than make it obligatory, as my amendment would, in extending it to the designated areas as they are at present defined.

I have no objection to this amendment because it cannot but be useful. In spite of the vituperation visited on me in connection with it from the other side of the House today when I tried to be helpful, similar to the bitterness content of what was visited on me from this side of the House yesterday because unfortunately, this party is making an impact out of all proportion to its numbers and that probably causes these constant daily outbursts in our direction and in order that I might be even more enthusiastic——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that his contribution does not refer directly to the amendment before us. I ask him to confine his comments to the amendment before us.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Will the Minister tell us if the effect of paragraph (1) (b) is that it allows a wider definition because there does not seem to be anything which prescribes that it should be Dublin only, or an area bounding the existing Custom House Docks area as defined. Could it not be anywhere in Dublin or anywhere else in the State? If so, this goes a long way towards meeting the requirements in my previous amendment and for that matter, it would meet the point Deputy Lawlor makes. For the purposes of this section, we could have the Custom House Docks area defined to include parts of Tallaght, Blanchardstown or whichever outer towns he is interested in.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It is very difficult to have a proper debate when the Leader of the Progressive Democrats insists on coat-trailing every time he enters the House. We have a time motion which is enabling us to deal with sections of this Bill. I remember Finance Bills which had more than 120 sections but we did not get beyond the first ten sections because, in the tradition of the House, people frontloaded motions and Finance Bills were nodded through with the first ten sections adequately debated and nothing else mentioned.

Tomás Mac Giolla

That point has already been made on numerous occasions.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): At least today we have a framework, although we do not have enough time within that framework, to do our work. I have serious reservations about this amendment. ]It is the classic “me too” syndrome which we have in Ireland. If we have a scheme operating everybody says “me too” and wants it to apply everywhere. I think it was very rational that we should have particular measures which would apply to the inner city areas of five specific cities — Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. There is a particular package for commercial development, a particular package for social development and getting people to live in what I call the heart of the doughnut, a large hole where three or more generations have lived.

Now the Minister comes into the House and seeks to get permission by order to extend designated areas to towns in the country. We all know what will happen. The Minister's colleagues, all the Deputies on the other side of the House and most of the Deputies on this side will ask the Minister to apply by order the designation of their own county towns and when they have the interests of their constituents in the county town satisfied they will proceed to every town and village in the country. We have already heard Deputy Lawlor looking after his constituents, and no blame to him. He wants the centre of Tallaght designated as a decayed urban area and it has been in existence for only 20 years.

There are limited resources in any country and only a proportion of limited investment resources are available for the building industry, commercial or housing. ]If we disperse the benefit of this scheme by ministerial order to every county it will have no effect. The only way this will work is by concentrating it. I also object to it being done by ministerial order. If we want to extend the designated areas to other towns the Minister for the Environment should amend the appropriate section of the Bill which designated the areas in the five cities in the first instance. This sort of thing should not be done by order and we should not give carte blanche to the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment, to proceed in this way. I have serious objections to that kind of carry on.

In so far as it also applies to extensions of the Custom House Docks area, I am fascinated by the concept that Deputy Desmond O'Malley introduced, that one could amend this so that the provisions in relation to the Custom House Docks could apply to a part of Limerick and that, as a consequence, his amendment would be redundant because section 23 would apply to the inner city in Limerick. That kind of debate is technically and theoretically correct but is a kind of nonsense which brings this House into disrepute. ]The Minister for Finance, being a sensible man, will not extend the definition of the Custom House Docks site to the inner city in Limerick and he would be an ass if he did. I do not think that the leader of the Progressive Democrats intends to make an ass out of the Minister for Finance or out of this House but that would be the effect of the codology in which he has been indulging.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Would the Deputy show me where in the amendment the Minister is precluded from defining some part of Limerick, Sligo or any village in the country as a Custom House Docks area?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): There is no problem in that regard. You can define a cat as a dog or an ass as a cow if you like. You can say that the Phoenix Park is a People's Park, Limerick. It is nonsense even though it is technically correct. The idea that Deputy O'Malley's amendment is redundant and that we can all relax and feel that the Minister in his wisdom will extend the definition of the Custom House Docks so that section 23 will apply to the inner city in Limerick is tautology. Deputy O'Malley should table his amendment again on Report Stage where we can debate it, line by line, and vote on it.

I oppose this because it is wrong in principle and will diminish the impact which the package will have in the designated areas that already exist. As I said, I also object to the fact that it is being done by order. This is primary legislation and that is the way to proceed. In so far as it refers to the Custom House Docks, does this allow the Minister, by extending the definition of that site, to extend the range of the financial service industry in Dublin? There is no reason to extend the definition of the Custom House Docks site outside its immediate area, certainly not outside Dublin city. To give credit to Deputy O'Malley, I can see a Minister defining the Custom House Docks site as going down the two sides of the Quays as far as Heuston Station if appropriate finance houses are to benefit from the 10 per cent tax regime which is attached to the Custom House Docks site. Again, that is a matter for primary legislation or for a Finance Bill. We know that the intent in the financial service industry in the Custom House Docks site is not to allow it to drift into the city. However, if a Minister for Finance can, by order, extend the definition of the Custom House Docks site and the package which applies to the financial service industry, we can have them in Dame Street, along the Quays or Ballsbridge. It depends on whether the Minister for Finance wants to extend it. That is not the way to legislate in serious matters; this is a very bad amendment to which I am opposed.

Mr. G. Brady

I strongly support this amendment for a variety of reasons. There is a race against time in the question of developing our decaying city. We do not have time on our side. This amendment and its spirit gives effect to speeding up the ensnarled bureaucratic process in which local authorities are caught up in designating areas directly through the Department of the Environment and the Office of the Minister for Finance.

It is very welcome because, for far too long, the Department of the Environment have been somewhat aloof from the development of the inner city. There is a plethora of legislation either in direct development or in other legislation concerning the environment, including Acts dealing with litter, air pollution and so on. This amendment will give effective powers directly, in consultation with the two Departments involved, to get on with the job. It is an effective and imaginative amendment and the House should take cognisance of it because for the past five to eight years we have been almost in conflict with urban authorities, particularly — I do not mean to be parochial — in regard to Dublin Corporation. The problem is that the local authorities involved, for one reason or another, did not have the muscle or the will to get on with developing the decaying city with the result that we got a system of hotch potch development throughout Dublin. There was no effective progress in regard to protection. If financiers were prepared to inject money into the city or tried to develop an area, it could not be designated quickly enough but this amendment gives effect to such a measure.

It would be misinterpreting the amendment to link it with the Custom House Docks site. It will give effect to developing other areas. I suggest to the Minister that he should ensure in any negotiations with the Department of the Environment and in the context of the Custom House Docks site, that the entire area is screened archaeologically before development takes place. That is not an expensive exercise as many archaeologists are readily available to undertake the task. As the Minister is aware, his Department are directly responsible for this. There is a wealth of archaeological treasure in the city which could also be in the docks site. The Minister would show good faith, particularly as next year is the millennium in Dublin, by appointing a city archaeologist to do that work. I strongly support the amendment which will give effect to freeing the bureaucratic tangle.

If the amendment is considered in the spirit of its intention by the Opposition looking upon it as a means of catapulting forward urgently needed development in the city, it would be a step forward. I do not regard it as dangerous legislation and there are far too many agencies acting as watchdogs and too many people concerned about our capital and other cities to allow the wrong type of development to take place, particularly after the debacle of Wood Quay.

Mr. Desmond

I also have some of the misgivings that have been expressed in relation not just to the concept but more particularly the capacity in our country to apply the concept. Let me give a classic example of receiving a direction from the Minister for Finance to sell Jervis Street Hospital. The capital moneys would accrue to the Exchequer and inevitably would be built into the allocation of the Department of Health. The old line in terms of the designated area did not go near that hospital; it kept about 300 or 400 yards down towards the quay. I told Government if we designated that area on a special basis that we would get a better price for selling the hospital, that the State presumably would get the money from the trustees and the State would have an enhanced price so that it would be easier to sell.

Then at least two or three others of my colleagues came up with equally legitimate reasons as to why particular areas should be rapidly included in the designated area. This brings me to the conclusion that in this dear country of ours no sooner does the concept of a designated, tax break area come into operation than the capacity to adapt an international concept and apply it in a city area could result in having the inner city of perhaps Edenderry designated as a special area. We may even in Deputy Lawlor's area find the inner city of Rathcoole suddenly assuming a monumental attractiveness.

No sooner did Fianna Fáil come into office when dear old Sheriff Street was included, the Custom House suddenly expanded in all its glory to include the railway station, the back of the railway station and before it knew where it was it had the old post office building in it. Now we have a massive designated area. This capacity of Irish politicians did not originate in the Department of Finance; it started in Environment. How could we flog those awful sites and get somebody to do something with them? So we gave a tax concession and made it 10 per cent. With regard to the Fianna Fáil approach, bringing in the gloss of international financial services on top of a designated area made it look even more attractive. It is also a mirage. In fairness, while we have inner city problems in Dublin and Limerick and I am sure Sligo——

Mrs. Doyle

In Wexford.

Mr. Desmond

Wexford is riddled with inner city problems——

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I hope Deputy Desmond is not referring to Deputy Doyle.

Mr. Desmond

——not least the falling down boutiques in the main street. We have a serious problem in that the endemic temptation to expand the concept could result in the whole country becoming one designated area with one huge tax exemption. It shows that in the country it is unwise to start out on that road. I remember the reservations of successive Ministers for Finance on this but the multi-coloured maps and multi-coloured brochures looked wonderful in terms of activity and in bringing in prospective developers.

There are inner city problems in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and to a lesser extent, in Waterford. Many of these problems, in fact, have been solved and for the most part in the remaining segments, whether you go down Sean MacDermott Street, Fenian Street, into the East Wall, around the Custom House, or down to the inner city of Cork where there is major development, designation is not necessary at all except for some prospective developers who have the thumb on prospective politicians and Ministers and see themselves with a little bit of prosperity prospecting in terms of property development to gain from that.

The net benefit to the Exchequer and the country is, indeed, quite marginal. The massive requirements of legislation, and above all else the problem of confining designation to within some degree of rationality, are beyond us. It is beyond the capacity of most Ministers of the Environment and most Ministers for Finance to tell developers to hump off, to tell them if they go 200 yards down the road that they will not be given a designation. Instead the designated area is extended and a soft option is taken.

Unfortunately, I was out trying to sell hamburgers to get a few shillings for Temple Street Hospital today and was late back to the House but when I heard on the monitor that designation throughout the country is now going to become a universal application by virtue of a ministerial order, I thought we will have to call a halt. There is no better man than the Minister for Finance to call a halt to this caper. Presumably he will elaborate on it and his elaboration, presumably having been teased out here by Deputy O'Malley, will result in this amendment being treated with very considerable reserve by the House.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I am very interested in this amendment because it concerns my Department. I have responsibility for urban renewal and I am very much concerned. We cannot have it both ways. We want the incentive, we want employment, we want development but we want to put up all kinds of snags. Before the last election many were preaching that our tax régime for development was not attractive. There were none better to preach it than the Progressive Democrats and more luck to them. Now they are getting it.

Miss Harney

We are not getting it; that is the problem.

Mr. Connolly

They cannot have it every way.

Miss Harney

We are not getting it; that is why we are complaining.

Mr. Connolly

That party are getting a certain amount, but they are still not happy.

Mr. Desmond

The inner city of Tullamore.

Mr. Connolly

I am not talking about anywhere. I was never parochial. I leave that to the Opposition. They would know more about that. I am very much involved here and with regard to any extension of a designated area the Minister for the Environmen, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, must make an order which must be laid before the House. It is a matter for the House to decide then.

Miss Harney

Late tonight.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Read it, Minister.

Mrs. Doyle

Accept the confirmation order and we shall go down the road with the Government.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Minister will designate the road.

Mr. Connolly

I welcome this section with regard to urban renewal and I am delighted the Minister has agreed to my request on it.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I sought to draw the attention of the House earlier to the fact that it seemed that under this amendment any part of the country could be defined as a designated area, although designated areas at the moment are small areas of the inner parts of the five cities and that any part of the country could be defined as is the Custom House Docks area. Before the last four or five people spoke I asked the Minister to confirm if my interpretation was correct but he has not ventured any opinion. He has not said anything in relation to the matter. I can only assume from his silence that that is so. While another Deputy was speaking I rechecked my reading of this and to my amazement what I had read earlier in the amendment did not seem to be in it when I read it again. Then I looked around me and I have here two of these green books of amendments. One of them is in respect of amendments that were circulated towards the end of last week, and printed in a green book which was circulated to Deputies yesterday morning. It is dated 16 June 1987 — Bloomsday, 83rd Renewal thereof. I discovered that I had been looking at a new green book which came out this morning and which is headed

This list contains all the amendments which had not been disposed of at the conclusion of Committee proceedings on 16th June, 1987, and all amendments circulated subsequently.

This book is dated 17 June 1987. Amendment No. 49 in that book is different from amendment No. 49 as circulated. In other words, it was changed last night. I express some disturbance at the fact that the House's attention was not called to this. I should not express surprise, because I am not surprised. I use the word "disturbance".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy looks at the centre of page 11 in the latter day green book, he will see in brackets the words "This amendment is in substitution for Amendment No. 49——"

Mr. D. O'Malley

I am sure you will appreciate that many Deputies are not aware that this was given out some time today. The only way they had of getting it was to collect it from the general office. I was passing the office and just happened to see it. Many Deputies who are taking part in this debate are not, surprisingly, operating from the list of amendments that was given yesterday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand it was decided that the quickest and best way for the new list to get to Deputies was to leave it in their pigeon holes on the presumption that every Deputy would check there rather than have it sent to somebody on behalf of the Deputy who would not indicate to him that it had arrived.

Mr. D. O'Malley

In any event, a large number of Deputies in the House would not have received it. It is immaterial whether it is their fault or anybody else's fault. There is a major difference between the two amendments. In the amendment which was circulated by the Minister last week and reprinted in yesterday's green book, there is nothing about the Custom House Docks area but there is in the paper that was introduced last night in substitution. On rereading both of the green papers and, in particular the new one of 17 June, it seems to be perfectly obvious that what I thought was the position earlier, and which the Minister has not denied, is the position and that is open to the Minister for Finance to designate, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment — which may not of course be an insuperable problem in the context — to direct that anywhere in the country is a designated area; in other words, any part of the country no matter how rural, remote, or under-populated is to be taken as the same as the centre of Limerick, Dublin, Cork or Waterford. That is a slightly startling thing to discover.

It is infinitely more startling to find that any part of this country, no matter how far it is from a docks, even if it is on the top of a mountain, can be designated the "Custom House Docks area" with all that goes with that. It is not a question, as Deputy Connolly tried to suggest, that the Minister makes an order and the House has to approve of it. It does not. The Minister may make an order and it immediately becomes law when he makes it. It is disallowed or becomes ineffective only if Dáil Éireann, within 21 sitting days, disallows it without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously thereunder. As we all know one cannot get a motion to disallow debated in the House. It is years since any such motion was debated or voted on. In practice, once the Minister for Finance makes an order it is law and virtually remains law for all time. That is very unsatisfactory.

We are entitled to some more of an explanation in relation to this new section which was put in overnight. Many Members of the House are not aware of it because they could not be aware of it. We are entitled to more of an explanation for it than we got from the Minister. The Minister's opening remarks were mainly directed at me. When he got over that, he did give us a few lines of the amendment. They were not particularly informative and did not go into all these matters. They did not draw the House's attention to the fact that the amendment was very materially changed overnight and that even the remotest part of the country can now be defined as being in the Custom House Docks area and there is nothing we can do about it. The power lies entirely within the hands of the Minister for Finance. He can designate a village in County Sligo, County Leitrim or County Limerick and it becomes the Custom House Docks area for a whole load of financial purposes. That is very unsatisfactory.

The matter would have been properly dealt with by the acceptance of my earlier amendment which would substitute the words "Custom House Docks" for the words "designated area" and where the Custom House Docks provisions would apply to the small bits of the inner city of each of the five cities and not to anything else. It is ridiculous to allow this to apply to villages and townlands. Does the Minister not think that it is unwise for him to put himself in a position that property developers could come along and say: "You have total unfettered power under section 26 of the Finance Act, 1987, to designate my field as the Custom House Docks area and I require you to do it because there are certain reasons you should." I would not like to be Minister for Finance in that situation. I would not like to have this total power because no matter what way I exercised it. I would be open to suggestions that I was doing it improperly, for some improper motive or under some improper pressure which should not have been applied. This is very unsatisfactory.

Arguments have gone on for many years about various designated areas. The old designated areas used to be ones that were designated for industrial development for the purposes of higher grants. I can remember when I was Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy — and before it also — taking part here in impassioned debates about extending the designated areas. This is the way of solving it. There need never be a debate again on this because not alone can anywhere in the country be a designated area for inner city purposes, even a tiny village of 100 people, but anywhere in the country can be the Custom House Docks area. This was introduced only last night and it was put in in substitution for an earlier amendment. I find it curious and there is an onus on the Minister to explain.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): As I pointed out to the House already, I have been working from the original amendment circulated and from the white version circulated last night and there is a difference between them. The Custom House Docks appears in one, and not in the other.

To get back to my original point, we already have the "me too" syndrome. Any town, village or city can now be a designated area and the whole tax package can apply. The consequences are easy to see. During the next election campaign I predict that the Minister for Finance will announce towns all over the country, in every constituency and especially in every marginal constituency, as new areas for tax packages. The Minister will be under colossal pressure from his own Deputies and he will be under greater pressure when he goes to a town and tries to draw a line down a street so that the property on one side will be subject to enormous tax breaks and the property on the other side will not.

The sort of accusations that will be made as a result of a Ministerial order making fish of one and flesh of the other will not be pleasant to behold. It was difficult enough to define the areas in the five cities but that was debated in the House and it was a matter of primary legislation. On the basis that a line had to drawn somewhere, the House was guided by the Minister of the day as to where the line should be drawn and there was an input from all Deputies. Now, the powers being taken by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance are out of all proportion to the intent of the statutory order system as we know it.

A designated area is defined as including such area or areas described in the order, which, but for the order, would not be included in the definition. One makes an order which defines what is in the order. The order will say what is being designated, and then it shall be specified in the order, in relation to that area. We have had no opportunity to debate it in this House. If it is laid before the House, that is done for 21 days. We cannot activate the motion. One can see what will happen when anything that happens in the intervening period is allowed go ahead.

We already have situations where people claim compensation when planning permission is refused. Can one imagine the situation if there was a designated area with colossal tax breaks and development was commenced and the House subsequently annulled the order? Can Deputies imagine the claim that would then accrue on the State when we have enormous claims already arising from the granting of planning permission in this city.

I do not see the situation with the Custom House Docks being as farfetched as Deputy O'Malley suggests. It is going beyond the bounds of reasonable debate to conceive that the Minister could define the Custom House Docks area as extending to any place in the country, but it is conceivable that he can by stages add to the Custom House Docks site and he can certainly run it from the Custom House Docks site in any direction. If the Minister wants to bring in Dame Street, all he has to do is to have an intervening corridor like the Danzig corridor. The effect of that is that the 10 per cent tax régime which was always a matter of primary legislation and section 23 which we have already talked about, can now be implemented by ministerial order in areas of Dublin city. Applying the 10 per cent tax régime for development purposes to new areas is a serious step indeed. Three sections of this Bill deal with trading houses, the Custom House Docks site and with shipping, with the Minister coming before the House to extend the 10 per cent tax régime. We have not time to debate it, but at least it is up-front and it is primary legislation. Now, if the Minister wants to make a geographical extension of the 10 per cent tax régime for financial services, all he has to do is provide himself with a corridor and he can pick any place in the city.

Until the banks and the finance houses are built on the Custom House Docks site, the Minister is getting power under this measure to designate, for 10 per cent purposes, financial services activity carried out anywhere in the city. If an American bank comes in on Friday after the passage of this Bill they can set up shop in Ballsbridge and provided they intend to move to the Custom House Docks site they will benefit from the 10 per cent tax régime. That is in the Bill. Now, they will not have to move at all if they are well established in Ballsbridge. All that will happen is that the Minister can designate the shortest route to Ballsbridge as the Custom House Docks site, and they can stay there and benefit from the 10 per cent régime.

I am not casting aspersions on the Minister's integrity. We are talking about the Minister and his successors and we do not know who the successors will be. We have an obligation to nail things down in primary legislation if there is a possibility of abuse and this section could be subject to colossal abuse. I am not casting aspersions on the Minister who has been honourable in all his dealings with me but colossal pressure could be exerted to designate any place in the country for tax purposes. Also, by an extension of the Custom House Docks site, there is the power for the Minister by order to organise tax régimes anywhere throughout the city. We cannot accept that. If the Minister were to make a commitment on Committee Stage that he would make the change he has already decided to make in the witholding tax and that he would proceed by affirmative order rather than laying an order before the House for 21 days, I would not be opposed to this section. I can see some merit in not having the five Stages of a Bill if the Minister wants to designate an area, but the order which designates some new area or which extends a tax régime to some new area in the city should be brought before the House and it should be possible for Members to debate it. We are opposing this section as it stands, and we will have a vote on it but if the Minister can make us an offer which makes it more democratically acceptable we will consider it.

Mrs. Doyle

I strongly support Deputy Noonan's call for, at the very least, an affirmative order under this section. I would prefer primary legislation when it comes to the extension of the tax base both for designated areas and the Custom House Docks area. The wider one spreads any incentive for designated areas the more their effectiveness is diluted. There are many precedents for this and I could nearly be accused of speaking against my own, because on two previous occasions when the original inner city areas were being designated I made a case to my Government for Wexford to be included, as I am sure did many another Deputy for his own area.

Mr. Connolly

You are looking for it again.

Mrs. Doyle

Please allow me to finish. When the issue of free ports and free zones was being debated and Cork and no other areas seemed to grab the attention, again I made the case that Rosslare Harbour in County Wexford should be considered. On both occasions, I was told, with a degree of firmness and I presume of sense and rationality, that the more you spread the base for these tax free incentives the less attractive you make them and the more you dilute the effectiveness of them. At the risk of speaking against what I would love to see in my county, as other Deputies would in theirs, I see the common sense and rationality of restricting what we are talking about to ensure that it is effective and it can be effective only if you limit it to the areas most in need, the wider you spread the umbrella or the blanket the less effective it can become.

Under no circumstances could we accept that just by laying a simple order before the House could any area be so included. No Minister should require that. Any Minister for Finance or any Minister for the Environment, to the extent that they are involved in this legislation, should be protected from unnecessary pressure from outside in relation to giving them this power. In section 24 we had what some might suspect to be sweetheart legislation. This could be open to the same interpretation. What is there to protect the Minister from complying if this passes, if pressure is put on him by the powerful and mighty organisations or financial institutions outside? How will the Minister be able to say "no"? This Minister may be and I respect that, but as Deputy Noonan pointed out, this legislation will be on the books for years to come and it is the principle rather than the particular that we are talking about here. The very least we can accept is an affirmative order, though I would prefer primary legislation in relation to this if only to protect the very issue that is before us here under this section. The more you spread the base the more you dilute the attractiveness of what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. McDowell

I am worried about the definition of the Custom House Docks site and the circumstances in which his amendment to the Bill came itself to be amended at such a late hour. This evening this House is supposed to be considering an Urban Renewal (Amendnent) Bill which has itself a new power given to the Minister for the Environment this time with the consent of the Minister for Finance — as opposed to the other way around; I do not know if there is any difference in those two procedures — to extend the definition of the Custom House Docks site for the purpose of that code of legislation. It is legislation being brought before this House this evening but it differs dramatically as to the wording of the amendment now being proposed by the Minister and the wording of the Finance Bill. In the Urban Renewal (Amendmend) Bill we are told that the area of extension can take place only in certain prescribed areas. Section 2 of the Bill proposed to be discussed tonight provides that the Minister for the Environment may by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance, extend the Custom House Docks area to include land described in the order as contiguous to the boundaries of the area and lying between the southern boundary of the area and the centre of the River Liffey. What land lies in the centre of the River Liffey? I do not know, but since we are with Alice in Wonderland today we might as well start designating the Liffey as land. Secondly, this provision applies east of the area between the centre line of Sheriff Street Upper and Sheriff Street Lower and the centre of the River Liffey — more sea being described as land — and where an order under the section is in force every reference in the principal Act or in the Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill "is to be construed as a reference to the area in the Schedule to the Principal Act as extended by the order."

Therefore, we have the curiosity that in one piece of legislation the Custom House Docks area can be extended only in a manner which is a real extension, that is involving land which is contiguous to the existing area, but under legislation carefully drafted, presumably by the Minister, and brought before this House today, any area in the country can be designated as part of the Custom House Docks area. Why is there this difference? Is this just a mishap in drafting? I do not believe that. I believe there is a deliberate intent which seems to follow because certain areas, certain buildings and certain places are going to be designated for the purpose of the Finance Bill in any event, irrespective of whether they lie near or contiguous to the original Custom House Docks area, as Custom House Docks area for the purpose of attracting certain financial service industries to them. That is serious enough and it should be acknowledged explicitly if that is what is happening.

Why have we two separate codes? The Minister for Finance with the consent of the Minister for the Environment can declare Knock Airport to be part of the Custom House Docks area but the poor old Minister for the Environment with the consent of the Minister for Finance is restricted to declaring parts of the River Liffey as land. Ever since King Canute started to put back the sea by directive, never has part of the River Liffey been declared to be land. Now two different Ministers, each relying on the consent of the other, can describe an area of land using the same term but one of them cannot describe some land as the Custom House Docks area for some purposes whereas the other can do so for financial purposes. What is it that requires the powers of the Minister for Finance in this matter to be greater than those of the Minister for the Environment? What is the distinction between them? Why does the Minister for Finance want to be allowed to designate places such as the Custom House Docks area which the Minister for the Environment for the purpose of the urban renewal code cannot do? We are entitled to an explanation as to why there is a difference between these two powers.

This differentiation in the extent of the powers is not accidental. It is an implicit acknowledgment that the Custom House Docks scheme is not going to let off the ground unless certain buildings in this capital city and perhaps outside it and certain areas can be in the interim designated as Custom House Docks area. The Minister is asking for too wide a power here. If he wants only to designate areas which the Minister for the Environment under the urban renewal code could do, such as extending the Custom House Docks area, why does he not accept the formulation set out in the Bill before us this evening in that respect? If he wants to resist the kind of pressure of which Deputy Doyle and Deputy Noonan spoke, which will be put to him, to confer on individual buildings, concerns and projects wherever they may be situate the status of Custom House Docks areas, the most obvious way in which he could achieve that would be to accept for the purpose of this amendment the same constrictions and constraints on his powers as the Minister for the Environment will have under the legislation proposed to be introduced this evening. For the life of me I cannot see why there should be a difference. I ask the Minister to explain why there should be differences in the powers of one Minister with the consent of the other to declare a certain portion of land for the purposes of one Act rather than another to be portion of the Custom House Docks' area.

Mr. Carey

I suppose I am being local in the contribution I am making, but my concern is about the provision of financial services and the related tax reliefs which the Custom House Docks is about to enjoy. Can I take it from the debate that the Minister is taking to himself power in a designated area for the country, and will he nominate Shannon as a designated area for the purpose of urban renewal——

Mr. MacSharry

Now we are coming to it.

Mr. Carey

——and give us the financial services we require? Rumours are circulating already that major companies who have established themselves in Shannon Airport will take advantage of the new regime that is to be established as a result of the Finance Bill and the Urban Renewal Bill and remove themselves from Shannon to Dublin.

Mr. MacSharry

To Tallaght.

Mr. Carey

I would be very relieved if the Fianna Fáil party decided to rescue Shannon by including it as a designated area because I am really concerned for the financial services and other companies established there already.

Mr. MacSharry

Before I reply, let me say that the overall question is being put at 6 p.m. up to section 33. I have circulated a correction of a typographical error in amendment No. 60b, the new section 32, for the information of the House.

Mrs. Doyle

Have we copies of that?

Mr. MacSharry

The new section 32 will be the relief for investment in films. I can read the corrections — perhaps some Members do not have the corrected sheet as yet. In page 15 in the definition of "allowable investor company", second line, ", a company" should appear before "which is not connected".

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Is the Minister dealing with the major amendment to extend certain benefits to the film industry?

Mr. MacSharry

Yes, the overall provision. The second error appears in page 15, in the definition of "relevant investment", fourth line, where "be" should read ", by". They are typographical errors that need to be corrected in amendment 60b, the new section 32, covering relief for investment in films.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): On a point of order, I received this new amendment sheet this morning when I came in. There are seven pages extending certain reliefs to the film industry. I have no objection to it but I have not examined it very carefully because I have been in the House all day. If the Minister would leave it until Report Stage I would be much happier. It is unfair to us to deal with it now. It is not what we would normally conceive as an amendment. It is a whole new major section with implications for the Film Board I should like to raise. It seems that while what is here is welcome there are things we would like to say about it.

Mr. MacSharry

I sympathise with what the Deputy has said but it was circulated this morning with many other amendments. The Deputy will appreciate what it has been like for all of us in the past few days. We have been receiving amendments by the hour since Friday last.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): If the Minister would leave it until tomorrow it would not present him with any difficulty and would give us tonight to have a look at it.

Mr. MacSharry

It would be as well to let it go ahead today because it is an important scheme being introduced and, as the Deputy said, he would welcome it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): If it goes ahead today it will have to be dealt with tomorrow as well on Report Stage. The Minister is not going to get it tonight anyway.

Mr. MacSharry

Not necessarily. It is a question of its being discussed again tomorrow on Report Stage——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister out.

Mr. MacSharry

——or any amendments which have not been put down as yet can be dealt with on Report Stage.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It is a massive section. On the face of it, it appears all right, or something I would welcome. I would ask the Minister to allow us to examine it in detail overnight and talk about it tomorrow. I will not be obstructive. That would be reasonable. It is unreasonable to come in with a seven-page amendment. It is not an amendment to any section of the Bill. It involves a totally new section extending a benefit to a totally new area.

Mr. MacSharry

I can bring it in on Report Stage tomorrow. Dealing with the points raised about designated areas and my amendment, apparently we have now made a mountain out of a very small molehill. There are accusations emanating from certain spokespersons about certain builders exerting pressure to have certain areas designated. That is utter rubbish and nonsense and I am surprised to hear such intelligent Members make such ridiculous contributions. The matter has been blown out of all proportion by Deputy O'Malley not listening fully or not having proper documentation before him in this debate. I said quite clearly at the beginning of this debate — because of the time constraints and the interruptions there have been over the past couple of days — my interventions would be very limited and to the point in explaining anything that needed explanation. That is why I explained quite specifically that what is being done here is that the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, may designate further areas like the five existing borough areas. I even discussed that in relation to Deputy O'Malley's previous amendment when he wanted the reliefs available in these areas in the Custom House Docks area extended to the designated areas.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): But they have to be urban areas, one cannot designate a field——

Mr. MacSharry

I do not think we have become that ridiculous. I think the Deputy said himself that anybody who made such a suggestion would be an ass. The Deputy is not an ass and I am not an ass.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): No, but it seems to me that if a particular proposition for a clean 20-acre site on the edge of a city which was a green field development was about to take off provided the tax régime was right, there is nothing to prevent the Minister designating that.

Mr. MacSharry

We are talking about urban renewal. It says to designate by order certain areas in addition to those provided for in Chapter IV, Part I of the Finance Act, 1986, to be designated for the purpose of the incentive reliefs for urban renewal provided for in the 1986 Act.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): But that could mean that a rural area could be designated.

Mr. MacSharry

It cannot mean anything other than that it is urban renewal.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): No, it is not.

Mr. MacSharry

The second point is to extend by order a very small section to square off the Custom House Docks area, no more and no less than that. The arguments we heard about extending the Custom House Docks area to the top of any mountain, down to Limerick or wherever are utter nonsense. It is obvious that Deputies wanted to waste quite some time discussing what is a very simple approach by me on behalf of the Minister for the Environment. No matter what the pressures from any source to extend any of these areas we will not do so unless there is very good reason. As I said in relation to our other discussions on reliefs in these areas in reply to Deputy O'Malley. I know of towns and cities — I think Wexford is described as a city——

Mrs. Doyle

Town. We are not sufficiently big yet to be a city.

Mr. MacSharry

Kilkenny is a city but it is not included, or Wexford, Sligo, Tralee or such places. We all know it is inner city development where urban renewal is required in certain areas. How many will be considered by the Department of the Environment to be a matter of environment, subsequently referred to the Department of Finance and approved by Government before any such order would be made? All of that process has to be gone through. No Member of this House need have any fears about anybody putting pressure on any Minister regarding extensions of these areas.

Mrs. Doyle

Even if there was an extra seat involved, as there would be in Wexford?

Mr. MacSharry

It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of seats——

Mrs. Doyle

It is a question of pressure generally.

Mr. MacSharry

——or politics. It has to do with incentives for urban renewal already existing in certain areas, that there may be extensions to those areas——

Mrs. Doyle

Contiguous extensions.

Mr. MacSharry

That may be but, if so required, it can be annulled by this House. I see people shaking their heads denying that possibility. It exists and can be done. I see no reason Members should have any fears or why the House should not accept this amendment.

Mr. D. O'Malley

In regard to the amendment I moved already, which the Minister turned down on the grounds that it extended these reliefs or incentives that relate to the Custom House Docks area too widely by extending it to certain designated parts of the inner city areas of the five cities, it really amazes me he had the gall to do that. He comes along now with this recently amended amendment of his — amended overnight — and potentially extends the definition of the Custom House Docks area, not to the small areas in the cities I had suggested earlier and which he refused, but potentially to the entire country.

Mr. MacSharry

That is nonsense and the Deputy knows it is nonsense.

Mr. D. O'Malley

It most certainly is not.

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy is getting sillier every time he gets up.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I invited the Minister three-quarters of an hour ago to point out to me what there is in this amendment which would prevent the definition or the designation of anywhere in this country as being of part of the Custom House Docks area. The Minister has not done so. I heard Deputy Doyle say when the Minister was speaking that it must be a contiguous area.

Mrs. Doyle

I was asking was it contiguous.

Mr. D. O'Malley

She assumed it must be contiguous.

Mrs. Doyle

From the Minister's assurances it sounded as though it would be contiguous.

Mr. D. O'Malley

If Deputy Doyle reads the Minister's amendment again she will see that it does not have to be contiguous, because a little bit of some remote townland can be picked out. It may be that the background to all this is that the Government have run into difficulty trying to sell the idea of what was supposed to happen in terms of financial services in the Custom House Docks area and that they feel it may be necessary in the interim, or perhaps for all time, to designate other places where these international services might be carried on. Those places could quite easily include existing office blocks elsewhere in Dublin. There is nothing in this new section——

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is in the Bill already, on a temporary basis.

Mr. D. O'Malley

It could not be done on a permanent basis.

Mr. Desmond

What about Irish Life who are just across the river and who have nothing at hand?

Mr. D. O'Malley

That is a possibility. Irish Life are literally yards away from this site as it has been defined up to now. How will they develop the site they have which is directly opposite the Custom House area on the south of the River Liffey if, literally yards away from them and contiguous to them, there is another site which has infinitely more attractive provisions and incentives relating to it. I do not think they can do it. It may be that Irish Life have brought much pressure on the Department and on the Minister, although I would have thought the level of communication might not be too good after the changes in directors or the circumstances in which they were changed recently by the Minister or perhaps by the Taoiseach after the Minister had originally reappointed two people.

Notwithstanding this personal contretemps that may have arisen, I am sure in their official capacity Irish Life must have conveyed their disquiet to the Department of Finance in their official capacity and said it was essential that the Minister would have power to designate other areas, not necessarily contiguous, as Custom House Docks areas. That is possibly the reason this has happened. We have not been told very much in spite of considerable efforts to get information. When I put forward this proposal which is uncontradicted the Minister's attitude is that Deputy O'Malley is stupid. Unfortunately for the Minister, Deputy O'Malley has put his finger on this matter and——

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy is a very wise man. He blew the whole thing up out of proportion.

Mr. D. O'Malley

——this may revolve for quite some time to come. The Minister would have loved if this had slipped through without being noticed.

Mr. MacSharry

There is no question of trying to slip anything through.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Part of the intention was that with this whole guillotine affair that has been going on it would slip through. We have not had any proper explanation. It seems to be extraordinary that a Minister who earlier this afternoon turned down my amendment to extend the Custom House Docks provisions or incentives to five relatively small designated areas in inner cities should now be seeking to take power to apply them to the entirety of the country.

Mr. MacSharry

That is nonsense and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Will the Minister show me in his amendment any provision that stops him applying it to any part of the country?

Mrs. Doyle

Why can we not have an affirmative order to reassure us?

Mr. D. O'Malley

The whole matter seems very ominous and has a slightly sinister ring about it. This amendment has what I would call a political look about it. I will absolve my old friends in the Department of Finance from this because I do not think they would have dreamt it up. It is not their style——

Mr. Taylor

What about the Deputy's old friends in the Fianna Fáil Party?

Mr. D. O'Malley

——to produce such extraordinary widespread exemptions from the normal laws and taxes. This would not be a Department of Finance brainchild. It has a different ring about it. It is done for a purpose which this House has not been told about yet.

Mrs. Doyle

Sweetheart legislation again.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I wonder will the House be told about it or perhaps the Minister takes the view that 6 o'clock is nigh and the whole matter may well slide through.

Mr. MacSharry

I told the Deputy a minute ago what it is about but he was not listening.

Mr. Connolly

He does not want to listen.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House appreciates that I must put the question at 6 o'clock.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I have no particular expertise in this area but I would rather have the Minister for Finance continue than the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, who is just going to filibuster until 6 o'clock.

Mr. Connolly

I am not going to filibuster.

Mr. D. O'Malley

He has been told by the Minister to talk it out.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Noonan is anxious to get in.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that we designate certain towns in our constituencies.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have order. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment has offered and he is now in order.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): On a point of order, we got an explanation from the Minister for Finance which is not correct. I ask the Minister to correct the record.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Noonan, we are now time wasting.

Mr. Connolly

In order to make things easy I will allow Deputy Noonan to speak.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Thank you. The Minister of State said that a designated area under this order would have to be confined to an urban area. There is nothing in the section which confines it to urban areas. All that is required is that the Minister should include such area or areas described in the order which, but for the order, would not be included in that definition. It can be any place in the country. The Minister's explanation was that the original package of tax incentives was for urban areas and that that package of incentives could then be applied to anywhere that is specified in the order but they do not have to be urban areas. That is far too wide a definition.

What concerns me about the Custom House Docks is there is provision in the Bill before us for the Minister to temporarily designate buildings anywhere in the city as locations to which the 10 per cent tax regime applies for financial services on the understanding that people in those buildings will subsequently move to the Custom House Docks site when the infrastructure there is built. Once this Bill is passed an office block in Dame Street, Ballsbridge, Tallaght or anywhere else could be designated for the 10 per cent regime. I am concerned that when people establish themselves along the quays or in Dame Street where there are many banks already, rather than suffer the discomfort of moving they will ask the Minister to extend his definition of the Custom House Docks, reminding him that they will have been enjoying the 10 per cent regime for five years. All the Minister would have to do is to put the ring fence around them. If he does that the Custom House Docks Project will not succeed.

The Minister is putting himself under the most colossal pressure. He knows politics as well as anyone. His Deputies, his constituents, every lobby in the country led by the building industry and every developer will beat a path to his door to ask him to designate X, Y and Z for the package of incentives and to extend the Custom House Docks regime right along the quays and around the inner city area. Will the Minister accept an affirmative order at the very least?

Mr. Connolly

No.

Mrs. Doyle

It is open to misinterpretation otherwise.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Minister is taking too much power into his hands. I do not want to vote against sections 26 to 33 but because the Minister's amendment is contained in those sections we are left with no choice but to vote against them. The Minister is going beyond what a Minister for Finance should require in terms of power.

Mr. MacSharry

In the first part of this evening's discussion Deputy O'Malley, to some extent supported by other spokesmen, maybe Deputy Noonan, sought the extension of the incentives for the Custom House Docks area, but mainly to Limerick. It was a parochial type debate and was made mainly because of pressures from concerned builders in that city. Now the opposite argument is being made in relation to this amendment, that the Minister will not be able to withstand the pressures. This has been blown out of all proportion because obviously some Members are trying to keep from discussing some proposals. The Progressive Democrats may be having second thoughts about the next amendment they have tabled, which is on the abolition of the advance corporation tax. That was the next amendment for discussion but in the past hour we have spent a lot of time blowing the importance of this amendment out of all proportion. All we are seeking is the authority to square off in a marginal way the Custom House Docks area.

Mrs. Doyle

Why is the Minister afraid of an affirmative order?

Mr. MacSharry

We are not seeking any more or any less. Secondly, we are leaving the option open for the possible designation of certain other towns outside the five borough areas.

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister should make an affirmative order and let the House discuss it.

Mr. MacSharry

The Government are interested in promoting development as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Doyle

Regardless?

Mr. MacSharry

No. The whole business can be annulled within 21 days by a resolution of the House. It is nonsense for Members to go on about not having the opportunity to bring such a resolution before the House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McDowell

Six weeks does not fit into 21 days.

Mr. MacSharry

The Progressive Democrats are not the only Members of the House. They think they are but there are other parties and other Deputies who have a right to have a say and can table resolutions. With a little discussion and co-operation they might get a lot more than they are getting. It is because of the dog-in-the-manger attitude they are adopting that they are where they are.

Mrs. Doyle

An affirmative order would resolve the issue and protect the Minister's successors and himself.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 6 o'clock I am required to put the following question in accordance with the resolution of the House of 16 June: "That amendments Nos. 49, 52, 54, 55 and 60a in the name of the Minister for Finance are hereby made to the Bill and in respect of sections 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 70.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney Mary,
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Birmingham, George.
• Boland, John.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Colley, Anne.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harney, Mary.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kelly, John.
• Kennedy, Geraldine.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCoy, John S.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Malley, Pat.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Wyse, Pearse.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan.

Question declared carried.

Section 34 agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I welcome this section because it is giving effect to an announcement made by Deputy Bruton when he was Minister for Finance. I presume the intention here is that deer farming would benefit from V A T rebates and that deer are being included in the definition of farm livestock. I would like the Minister to confirm that. If that is the intent, we obviously welcome it since it was Deputy Bruton's idea.

Mr. MacSharry

This section makes two changes in section 1 of the VAT Act. First, it inserts deer and goats into the definition of livestock in order to confirm the application to them of the 1.7 per cent rate. Secondly, this section also amends, with effect from 6 June 1987, the definition of moneys received consequent on the introduction of Part I, Chapter 3, of a tax deduction scheme in relation to certain professional fees. This is to make sure that the amount of tax which is withheld is covered for VAT.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It is very difficult to hear what the Minister said.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession has said he cannot hear the Minister because of the noise from the Lobby.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I did not hear the Minister's explanation. I understand extending the benefits to deer farming and goat farming, there is a section connected with withholding tax and the exclusion of VAT from withholding tax. I could not quite follow that, and I would like the Minister to explain it.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is still noise coming from the Lobby. It is an interruption of the business of this House and it must cease. Will Deputies who do not wish to participate in the business please leave?

Mr. MacSharry

A professional person charges a particular State body for services, say, £1,000 plus £250 VAT. On deduction of withholding tax at 35 per cent he receives £650 plus £250 VAT, which makes £900. Were it not for this amendment, his VAT liability would be £900 at 20 per cent, tax inclusive, that is £180, leaving an Exchequer loss of £70 — £250 less £180. This is to ensure that VAT on all payments will be returned.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 36.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 63 is in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla, Deputy De Rossa, Deputy Sherlock and Deputy McCartan, and amendment No. 64 in the name of Deputy Desmond is an alternative. I suggest that we debate amendments Nos. 63 and 64 together if that is satisfactory?

Amendment No. 63 not moved.

Mr. Desmond

I move amendment No. 64.

In page 33, line 28, to delete "1.7 per cent." and substitute "1.2 per cent.".

The House will recall that when the Minister indicated he proposed to reduce the rate from 2.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent the Labour Party indicated there were such difficulties facing the Government in raising revenue we thought the £9 million accruing to the Exchequer was inadequate. This also arose from the Government decision relating to the farm tax. The Government decided that the net cost of the abolition of the farm tax would be £9 million in 1987. They then decided that the amount would be recouped by the equivalent reduction in the flat VAT rate addition to farm prices. We feel the rate of recoupment should be reduced to 1.2 per cent and this would give an extra £6 million to the Exchequer by way of a further clawback.

As we know, the Government have imposed very harsh expenditure cuts on the social services and £6 million would be gold dust in terms of maintaining those services. Equally, there have been very substantial net additional transfers to the farming community from Exchequer resources in recent years. We are totally opposed to the abolition of the farm tax. We regard the reduction in the flat VAT rate addition to farm prices as being meritorious in terms of eliminating those payments as such and while, I am tempted to suggest there should be a zero rate, I wish to reduce it from 2.4 per cent to 1.2 per cent in 1987 and the Exchequer would benefit accordingly.

Because of time constraints I do not propose to speak at length on this amendment except to reiterate the amazement and disgust felt by the Labour Party and by many Members of this House at the Government decision to abandon the farm tax from 1987 onwards. The alternative recoupment of the loss by way of VAT change should not have happened. The tax should have been maintained, an extra £9 million would have accrued to the Exchequer and that would have been all to the good.

I repeat that uniquely in Ireland at least £580 million of Exchequer resources are transferred each year directly to about 120,000 families. I would stand over £400 million of that amount, but the rest is a transfer which is not matched by a contribution either in taxation or social insurance contributions which would merit a transfer payment of that nature. When I see £25 million or £28 million child benefit being paid out and £150 million being spent in non-contributory pensions and not one shilling coming back by way of taxation or social insurance contributions, the appropriateness of adopting this policy change becomes apparent.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am totally opposed to the amendment and the section. Speaking on this issue, I feel like Custer, making a last stand on the land tax.

The proposal to reduce the flat rate refund to farmers is intrinsically wrong and is of course directly linked to the Fianna Fáil decision to abolish farm tax and to replace it with a full accounts system for all farmers. The sum of £9 million to be clawed back from farmers is to reimburse the Exchequer for a similar shortfall resulting from the decision to abolish the farm tax.

Tomás Mac Giolla

On a point of order, the Deputy is now speaking on section 38 but we are still dealing with section 36.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are still on section 36.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his explanation of section 36.

Mr. MacSharry

I did not want to intervene but the section we are dealing with gives relief to farmers for livestock sales. Section 38 imposes the charge on the farmers and the reduction from 2.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent. It would be of benefit, if there is agreement, to discuss sections 36 and 38 together because it is putting the cart before the horse at present.

An Ceann Comhairle

To overcome this problem, the suggestion is that sections 36 and 38 should be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I mentioned that the connection between the decision to reduce the flat rate credit from 2.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent is directly related to the decision to abolish the land tax. The sum of £9 million accruing from this measure is to make up the shortfall which the Exchequer estimates will result from the decision to abolish the land tax in the current year. The net result of this manoeuvre is unjust and inequitable because the smallest farmer will now be asked to compensate the Exchequer for the reluctance of the bigger farmers to pay land tax. We are talking about a VAT refund which is legitimately payable to those who are not registered for VAT, to reimburse them for the VAT paid by them on production imputs.

Quite clearly, we are not talking about any special concessions, it is a payment carefully calculated to provide reimbursement for payments made in respect of which the farmer would be entitled to a refund if he was registered. A small number are registered but they have large holdings or intensive operations. Accordingly, as a result of this manoeuvre, the medium and small farmers will be mulcted by the Government because of their blind insistence on bending to the will of a small section of the farming community, i.e. those with large land holdings.

This tactic constitutes the reverse of all reasonable, social thinking. The Government have now put themselves in the unique position of expecting the smaller and weaker farmers to pay for deals made with the large and stronger farmers. The obvious correct course for the Government is to reverse engines at this stage, to pay the farmers the VAT refunds to which they are entitled and to restore the land tax. The effect on the Exchequer would be the same, the £9 million lost as a result of paying the proper entitlement to VAT refund will be reimbursed by the £9 million which will come in from the re-establishment of the land tax. There is a coincidence here between the interests of the Exchequer and those of the farmer because the farmers will not be paying anything net in addition as they now pay that kind of money to accountants. Figures were quoted in the Farming Independent this week in relation to bills presented by accountants and taxation experts ranging from £470 to £1,260 which gives an idea of the size of the problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt Deputy O'Keeffe but he will appreciate that another question must be put at 7 o'clock in respect of sections 34 to 50, inclusive, and in respect of the Title. It is desirable that as many Members as possible and the Minister should speak in the intervening period which is less than half an hour.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I only need about two minutes. A further benefit which would accrue if the course of action I am suggesting is followed — apart from the fact that such a system is far more acceptable to the farmers — is that it would allow the farm classification office to complete their work. We all know that the Griffith Valuation is totally out of date as it is 150 years old. We need a new, detailed valuation of land holdings and that would have been a major benefit of the work involved in establishing a land tax.

A tax which acts as an incentive to production has obvious merit. We intended this year to introduce interim valuation procedures which would have ended all accountancy bills for those up to 80 adjusted acres. Instead there is a proposal which will involve all farmers, down to the smallest acreage, paying for accountancy services. Do not tell me that will not arise because already they are coming into my clinics with the updated farm profile forms for which accountancy expertise is necessary. Having abolished the land tax and involved the smallest farmer in paying for accountancy service, to add insult to injury the small and medium farmer will lose a substantial proportion of their VAT refund entitlement to make up for the loss of the land tax which was largely collected from the bigger farmers.

I emphasise that I consider the present proposals to be utterly unfair and unjust and are totally opposed by the Fine Gael Party. In County Galway, there are about 22,000 farmers and, of those, it is estimated that 11,000 are totally exempt from land tax. That is because they are so small nobody in the House suggests that they should pay tax. Even those 11,000 farmers will be paying tax because of the loss of their VAT refund. The same will apply all over the western seaboard which is the result of the Robin Hood approach and one of the reasons for our total opposition to this measure.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I agree with a number of points Deputy O'Keeffe made but I totally disagree with him on the question of VAT refunds to farmers. I had an amendment done to section 36 which I thought dealt with that but then I discovered that it dealt with the reverse. That amendment was allowed but amendment No. 66 was ruled out of order. It sought to reduce to zero the VAT refund for farmers. Why should farmers not be registered for VAT? The small shopkeeper around the corner is registered; why should the farmers not register, keep records and show their entitlements? What is their entitlement? Nobody has any idea. I do not have the figures with me now but the amount has escalated over the past five years from something like £15 million or £20 million to £79 million last year in VAT refunds. Where were the farmers suddenly buying all these commodities? What made it increase at such an enormous rate? I believe that this is not based on any figure for VAT refunds. It is simply used as a system of grants to farmers. Where other systems would be ruled out by the EC, here was a very convenient system of giving handouts under the guise of VAT refunds. There is no VAT on fertilisers, or on many other inputs to farmers. On farm buildings where a grant is received VAT is refunded in any case. The whole method used here is wrong. Farmers should be required to register for VAT just as every shopkeeper must; then one would know their entitlements. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe entirely. We are told in the explanatory memorandum that the reason for the reduction — I commend the Minister for reducing the amount — from 2.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent is to compensate the Exchequer for the yield foregone on the abolition of land tax. In other words, the Minister is doing this to make up an amount for the Exchequer which is lost on the land tax.

If the VAT refunds were justified funds based on some records or some entitlement, as Deputy O'Keeffe has said, then the Minister could not take this percentage off them. However, it is not based on any entitlement, it is simply a hand-out from the Exchequer. The Minister is saying that they have already been given a handout by the abolition of the land tax and that he will reduce the amount by the equivalent and the total they will receive will be the same as last year, £79 million, but it will be in a different form, some will be from the abolition of land tax and the balance reduced VAT refunds. I have been saying for many years that this whole system of VAT refunds to farmers should be reviewed, that they should be asked to register, show their VAT payments where the refunds are due, as every little shopkeeper in the country has to do.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): We are taking sections 36 and 38 together. We are opposed to the abolition of the land tax, but find it very difficult to express that by means of vote because we understand that the Minister is abolishing the land tax by order. He is certainly not abolishing it on the face of the Finance Bill. We are using the procedure he has here for rebates of VAT to collect extra revenue from farmers and want to vote on that to indicate our opposition to the abolition of the land tax. We do not particularly like the content of section 38 either, but our main purpose in opposing it is so that the House has an opportunity to show its displeasure at the abolition of the land tax. That is why we are looking for a vote on section 38. I do not want to delay the House any further. I have no difficulty in conceding sections 36 and 37 if that is with the approval of other Deputies and we could proceed to vote on section 38.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment 4 is in the name of Deputy Desmond.

Mr. MacSharry

I do not disagree with what Deputy Noonan is requesting but it is a matter for the House. In reply to a few points made, let us get things in proper prospective. On the land tax supposedly there would be £6 million for the Exchequer last year but the actual figure was £700,000 while we were at the same time spending £6 million on the farm classification office. It just did not make sense. Since then there has been quite a substantial amount of additional tax paid. I am still as concerned as any Deputy about non-payment of arrears, whether it be in the land tax, health contributions, youth levies or income tax generally in relation to farmers or the self-employed, as I said earlier today in reply to a question.

I would be very much disposed to amendment No. 4 of Deputy Desmond on the question of coming back to lower than 1.7 per cent. However, in fairness we have given the opportunity to the farming organisations to make whatever case they can, and their members should pay their due taxes just the same as everybody else, in the PAYE sector particularly. If that does not come about in the course of this year then this is a mechanism whereby we will not have to be waiting for anybody to pay; we will just stop the amount. That was the reason for the reduction of the 2.4 rate down to 1.7. That will bring in £9 million this year plus the additional amount through the extension of the farm profile scheme. Nobody need be in any doubt. The Government and I have come in for much criticism that we abolished the land tax and let the farmers off £6 million. That is half true but the more important half is that we took £9 million off them in the change of the VAT refund.

Mr. O'Keeffe

From the small farmers who would not be paying land tax at all.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Government took from the small farmers to pay the big ones.

Mr. MacSharry

That is not the case at all. The Deputy is the very person who is making the case for the bigger man by keeping the land tax. He is prepared to allow him to make any amount of money but going to get tax from him on the basis of an adjusted acreage.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): He would be liable to income tax as well.

Mr. MacSharry

He could make millions of pounds if he wished.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It was over 80 adjusted acres.

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy then is against the principle of a person paying according to his income, is he not? The PAYE sector would like to know if he is.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Minister does not know what he is talking about. It is over 80 adjusted acres.

Mr. MacSharry

That is what the Deputy is suggesting. Let us be realistic about this.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Minister does not understand.

Mr. MacSharry

Let us have some equity in the discussion, as well as in the taxation scheme. There is no doubt about it that land tax in relation to its operation would have benefited the larger farmers.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

How?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Is that why the Government's hand is against it?

Mr. MacSharry

The larger farmers could produce more without paying any additional tax on the income they would earn.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is ridiculous. That is a mis-statement.

Mr. MacSharry

That is a fact. The Deputy may describe it as a mis-statement, but I am sorry to be correcting him. That is the position.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Government have agreed with the IFA and the big farmers.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The big farmers would still have to pay full income tax.

Mr. MacSharry

I would suggest to the Deputies that the amendments in relation to section 36 not be put. The section is opposed by Deputy Noonan. I propose to the House that we leave that reduction of 2.4 to 1.7 per cent and that this matter be looked at very seriously in the context of the next budget, bearing in mind the payment of arrears due under the health contributions, youth levies and tax generally.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Did the Minister make a deal with them? Is that not quite clear?

Mr. MacSharry

No, I have not. I am making it quite clear in this House to all who are in arrears that that is what is facing them if they maintain the attitude that they have adopted up to now.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I want a reply to one question. Was there a deal made by the Minister——

Mr. MacSharry

None.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

——that this would apply for one year only? Could the Minister give me an answer, yes or no?

Mr. MacSharry

No. What I said prior to your asking that question confirmed that and I am prepared to go further unless arrears are paid, and very quickly.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

There are people saying otherwise. I wanted to get the facts.

Mr. Yates

May I ask the Minister two straight questions?

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy is always asking straight questions.

Mr. Yates

Will he agree that payment, or non-payment in this case, of the £9 million will affect small loss-making farmers as much as large farmers? Would he further agree that the whole system of the VAT refund was increased and built up over the years on the basis of an increase in the rate of VAT on costs to farmers such as hired work, contractors and so on? That is why it reached the level of 2.4 per cent. That is an arbitrary and unfair way of dealing with what was a technical device for dealing with the cost of goods to farmers. In this way the Minister has ensured that small farmers will suffer. It is unlike any previous system, for example, tax on account, the land tax or any other system.

Mr. MacSharry

Those were two straight questions Deputy. The answer to both questions is yes and the reason is that it was necessary.

Mr. Yates

That is a straight answer.

Mr. McDowell

I understand Deputy Noonan is anxious to have a division on this matter before 7 o'clock and I am anxious to facilitate him — though why I do not know.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

You are getting tired, Michael.

Mr. McDowell

A division will effectively wipe out the rest of this debate.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

On what amendment does the Deputy intend to speak?

Mr. McDowell

I want to ask one question in relation to amendment No. 69 in the Minister's name. It is a short question and requires a short answer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 69 is on section 40. We cannot have that hit-and-miss type of procedure. There are certain procedures to be followed. We deal with amendments that come correctly before us. We cannot have selectivity about them. The Chair is obliged to proceed with business. I had intended to inquire from Deputy Desmond, in whose name amendment No. 64 appears, what is his position regarding that amendment.

Mr. McDowell

The point has been made very volubly in this House that the House is the master of its own procedure. If the Minister is willing to answer me in the space of two minutes it will enable Deputy Noonan to move his amendment and have the division.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That agreement between two Deputies would not hold. The House generally would have to agree. Deputy Mac Giolla would have to agree and the Labour Party would have to agree.

Mr. McDowell

I presume they know that if Deputy Noonan moves his amendment now and if they want to speak on that amendment they will have to muster——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will discover that presumptions are not always the best basis for advancement.

Mr. MacSharry

I can give the information to the Deputy personally. Does the Deputy want to know what it is about?

Mr. McDowell

I want to know what the fourth subsection is about.

Mr. Desmond

I am intrigued by the Minister's assurance that he is prepared to look at the 1.2 per cent in the context of next year's budget and the arrears. Is there any indication on the part of the Minister that he has had second thoughts about the land tax? It is a very fundamental issue.

Mr. MacSharry

On the reversal of the decision?

Mr. Desmond

Yes.

Mr. MacSharry

I made it quite clear in reply to questions that our intention is to ensure that all sectors in the economy would pay tax according to their income. That is what we intend to do in relation to farmers with the extension of the profile scheme. Pending the introduction of that we have taken this measure which gives us a greater yield than would be obtained from the land tax. That is the reality. There is also a saving as a result of the abolition of the land classification office.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 36 agreed to.

SECTION 37.

Mr. MacSharry

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 34, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(iv) if so provided by regulations and subject to and in accordance with any such regulations, the amount of tax, as defined, included in the consideration payable for specified second-hand goods or categories of second-hand goods acquired, in circumstances other than those described in the proviso to section 10 (2), for resale from a taxable person where the goods were used by the said taxable person for the purposes of a business carried on by him, but in relation to the acquisition or application of which he had borne tax and the goods were of such a kind or were used in such circumstances that no part of the said tax was deductible under this section,".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): On the instructions of the Ceann Comhairle we discussed sections 36 and 38 together. I would now like a division on section 38.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We are making it clear that our opposition to section 38 is based on our opposition to the abolition of the land tax.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 48.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney Mary,
• Morley, P. J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Birmingham, George.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Deasy, Austin.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P. J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Flanagan.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am required now to put the following question in accordance with the Resolution of the House of yesterday, 16 June.

Question put: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and in respect of sections 39 to 50, inclusive, that the sections or, as appropriate, the sections as amended, are hereby agreed to, the Title is hereby agreed to and the Bill is reported to the House."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney Mary,
• Morley, P. J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Birmingham, George.
• Boland, John.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bruton, John.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Flanagan.

Question declared carried.