Before we adjourned the debate I was dealing with pollution and the professionals, not necessarily in the same vein. I was referring to the diagnosis of mental infirmity that would attach to any lay person who dared to have the naivete to suggest to the professionals Deputy Noonan spoke about that they should pay their fair share of tax. I should like to repeat the point that people like doctors, barristers, solicitors, accountants and dentists do not pay their fair share of tax. One could say, as a minimum, that they avail of every legal method of tax avoidance to minimise their tax liability.
I find it difficult, against the background of the debate we have had about the necessity to introduce greater tax equity, to go along with the amendment that seeks to have applied to those professionals exemption from the restrictions that the Minister is introducing in respect of accelerated capital allowances. What is being sought is that these people should continue to have in their capacity as company directors, or whatever, the benefit of capital allowances. The only restriction being suggested is that they should not have the benefit of the earlier write-off that was allowed under the accelerated capital allowances system.
I suggest that those who in their corporate capacity are benefiting from the accelerated capital allowances system should not benefit in their Schedule D capacity from the elimination of this provision. It is contrary to any principle of equity that they should benefit in that way. To suggest, for example, that lawyers ought to benefit because they decide to install a particular labour-saving device to more accurately compute their legal fees seems to me extraordinary. Is it suggested that the PAYE worker who may consider that a personal computer would greatly assist him or her in the conduct of his or her business should get accelerated capital allowances? A PAYE worker who invests in a personal computer does not receive a capital allowance. If one invests in a video to keep one up to date with what is happening in the world is it suggested that that purchase should be eligible for accelerated capital allowances? I cannot take this argument seriously. I have every confidence in the creative accounting ability of the people to whom I refer to ensure that they will not be over-burdened by taxation. Therefore, I do not think the amendment is necessary.
Amendment No. 93 deals with pollution. Anything that assists in the elimination of the scandal we witnessed last summer when our rivers and lakes were polluted ought to be encouraged. However, if I understand this correctly, the plant that must be invested in by farmers to deal with pollution qualifies for capital allowances in the ordinary way. If there is one thing that is permanent here, and that is here for the long haul, it is the farmers. They can wait for the five or seven years to benefit fully from the allowances that exist rather than getting the write-off in the first or second year. If one looks at the other side of the balance sheet one will see that substantial grants are available from the Department of Agriculture and Food to assist in the installation of pollution control methods. The taxpayer is making a fair contribution towards assisting the farming community and encouraging their sense of social responsibility to the rest of us. Deputy Connaughton admitted that the grants package was a generous one and he welcomed it. If it meets the rigid criteria that Deputy Connaughton would apply others should accept it as adequate. Amendment No. 93 should not be encouraged.