I move amendment No. 134:
In page 82, line 25, after "is hereby amended" to insert "as respects instruments executed on or after the 1st day of November, 1991,".
Finance Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 88.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 88, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
(Limerick East): There are a couple of points that I want to establish. I need to take the Minister over some of the same ground again. Am I right that there is no retrospective element in any of the sections and that the new arrangement for stamp duty will only be effective from 1 November 1991?
That is correct.
(Limerick East): The financial services industry is being accommodated under the provisions being taken by the Minister on the new section 88 to which there is an amendment, No. 133, and that would involve the Minister from time to time, as circumstances change and as information comes to hand, in deciding not on how the financial services industry will pay stamp duty but on how they would be exempt from paying stamp duty.
That is the intention.
(Limerick East): They will not have to pay stamp duty and the Minister will bring in regulations to ensure that.
This refers to new areas. They will pay in the existing areas like cheques and things like that.
(Limerick East): Would it be fair to put it like this, that there will be no erosion of their international competitive position by further impositions of stamp duty?
That is precisely right.
(Limerick East): The Minister will do that by a procedure which will involve him making regulations which will be put before the House in the normal way.
That is right.
(Limerick East): There will not be a debate on them and they will not require an affirmative motion but in the subsequent Finance Bill they will be re-entered for debating purposes.
That is correct.
(Limerick East): On section 88 itself then, the accountable persons or the persons responsible for the payment of stamp duty are also responsible for the penalties that apply in the chapter. Could the Minister give us a resumé of who the accountable persons are or the different types of documents which would be caught within the scope of the Bill?
It is set out in the table to the section.
(Limerick East): I see. I have one last question. Who is it envisaged will be the accountable person in the financial services sector when the Minister brings in his regulations, or will the regulations cover that also?
The question is covered by the table, and financial services will come under the headings laid out in it.
I want the Minister to clarify a point about the new power he is taking to make an order regarding rates of duty. I take the point that the amendment incorporates a section to say that no order shall be made for the purpose of increasing any of the rates of duty. However, it would be open to the Minister to retain the rates of duty but to vary the bands. In other words, if a certain rate applied in a sale of up to, say, £30,000, could the Minister reduce that and provide that the rate would only apply up to £20,000?
He could.
That is the point. I wonder if that is really intended. If it is I would have serious reservations about it because that, in effect, is the imposition of a tax. It preserves the rate but it would increase the stamp duty payable in a particular case if the Minister, by order, brought back the band that was chargeable in that case. That is the imposition of revenue and that has traditionally been the preserve of Dáil Éireann on a Finance Bill. It is a very serious and a major step that is being introduced here to enable the Minister for Finance alone, by order, to increase the duty that would be payable in a particular case other than has already been determined previously by Dáil Éireann.
I think we are slightly at odds here. The Minister can raise the threshold but he cannot reduce it. He cannot raise additional revenue by order.
Where does it actually say that? It may be there but I just do not see that.
No order shall be made under this section for the purpose of increasing any of the rates of duty.
That is precisely the point. The Minister cannot increase the rate from 5 per cent to 6 per cent.
That is correct.
What the Minister could do is say that the rate of 5 per cent applies from £50,000 to £70,000 but he can alter that band and it would follow that the person would lose the benefit of that band and would have to pay more stamp duty even though the rate had not been interfered with.
That would be raising the effective rate, which the Minister cannot do.
It would come within the ambit of the section. The section does not say that the Minister may not raise more duty. If it said that, I would be happy about it. Maybe that is what is intended. I think, with respect, that that is what is intended. It was not intended to introduce a provision there that would enable the Minister, by order, to increase actual revenue, but the real effect of it is that that could be. Would the Minister agree?
It could be interpreted in that way. It is not the intention and I want to assure the House that that is not what would happen. There is no question of raising the effective rate.
I accept the Minister's indication that it is not the intention but would it not be better to have a look at that before Report Stage and perhaps tighten it up so that what the Minister has indicated is his intention is properly and accurately reflected in the section?
It only affects some of the very specialised areas of stamp duty. The Deputy can take it that that is the effective rate. If it needs clarification we will see what can be done. The rates do not apply until 1 November. The assurance will carry people through for a month and we will correct it.
If the Minister will indicate he will look at it I will be happy.
I will.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 89.
I move amendment No. 135:
In page 83, line 2, after "is hereby amended" to insert "as respects instruments executed on or after the 1st day of November, 1991,".
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 136 in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendments Nos. 137 to 140, inclusive, are related. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 136 to 140, inclusive, together by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 136.
In page 84, lines 12 and 13, to delete ", or any statement to which subsection (2) relates,".
The purpose of these amendments is to focus the provisions relating to negligence and fraud more closely on those actually likely to be responsible. Section 89 effectively imposes a duty upon parties to a deed and upon the person who prepares the deed. They are obliged to act in a bona fide manner and with reasonable care in ensuring that all relevant facts are given to the Revenue Commissioners. Failure to do so could result in prosecution for fraud or negligence.
The person who prepares a deed is almost invariably a solicitor. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 89 deem or presume certain conduct to be negligent. Discussions on the provisions of the Bill have taken place between officials of my Department and of the Revenue Commissioners and representatives of the Incorporated Law Society. Following on these discussions I am satisfied that deeming or presuming certain conduct to be negligent in the case of solicitors could expose conscientious practitioners to unnecessary expense. A strict interpretation of the original proposal could oblige them to independently double-check information, such as property valuations, given to them by clients. It could also lead to unacceptable delays and expense in concluding agreements. Accordingly, these amendments operate to remove solicitors from the provisions of subsections (4) and (5). Solicitors and anyone else who prepares a deed, however, will continue to be liable to prosecution for fraud or negligence under the more general provisions of subsection (3). Such people have a duty to ensure that instruments, upon which duty is chargeable are fully and truthfully drawn up. Subsections (4) and (5) as amended would then apply only to parties to agreements who are clearly in the best position to know all relevant facts.
It would of course never be the intention to prosecute any person under the provisions as drafted where that person acted in good faith and with due care. No court would uphold such a prosecution. However, technically such a prosecution might have been brought given the provisions in the Bill as drafted. Consequently, I propose to add a further subsection, subsection (6), which provides a mechanism where people who are unsure as to certain relevant facts can express to the Revenue Commissioners their uncertainty and thus avoid negligence or fraud prosecutions. This provision parallels a similar provision relating to income tax in section 14 (4) of the Finance Act, 1988.
My attention has been drawn to two subsections of the section but I do not think they are affected greatly by the Minister's amendment. I draw the Minister's attention to subsection (3) (b) which refers to any person who "being employed or concerned in or about the preparation of any instrument, fraudulently or negligently prepares any such instrument," and to subsection (4) which concludes as follows: "...as having been negligently done by him."
Concern was expressed not by representatives of the legal profession who were included in the process of consultation, but by the Chartered Institute of Surveyors who would be involved in the preparation of valuation documents, valuations for property and the question of negligence. The Minister will readily understand it is extremely difficult to get an accurate assessment of value in certain circumstances where there is not a clear market for a particular property. I am familiar with this from the architectural point of view. Claims for negligence and fraudulently carrying out instructions on behalf of a client and so on impact upon the cost of professional indemnity insurance and so forth. Has the Minister's attention been brought to that? Were representations made to the Department directly about this? What is the Minister's view on it?
Due to the amendment subsection (4) only applies to the parties to the deed and not to professionals. That would cover it.
To the seller and buyer?
To the parties to the deed, the buyer and seller, and not to the professionals.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 84, line 13, to delete "or prepared,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 84, line 16, to delete "statement" and substitute "any statement to which subsection (2) relates".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 139:
In page 84, lines 29 and 30, to delete "such person as may be liable to a fine under subsection (3) shall (for purposes of that subsection)" and substitute "any person who executes such instrument shall for the purposes of subsection (3)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 140:
In page 84, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(6) Where such person as may be liable to a fine under subsection (3) is in doubt as to the application of law to, or the treatment for tax purposes of, any matter to be contained in an instrument, or in a statement to which subsection (2) relates, to be delivered by him to the Commissioners, he may deliver the instrument and, where applicable, the statement to the best of his belief as to the application of law to, or the treatment for the purposes of stamp duty of, that matter but he shall draw the attention in writing of the Commissioners to the matter in question in the instrument or statement, as appropriate, by specifying the doubt and, if he so does, he shall be treated as making a full and true disclosure with regard to that matter:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Commissioners are not satisfied that the doubt was genuine and are of the opinion that such person was acting with a view to the evasion or avoidance of tax and in such a case the person shall be deemed not to have made a full and true disclosure with respect to the matter in question.'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 89, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 90.
We come now to amendment No. 141 in the name of the Minister.
I move amendment No. 141:
In page 84, line 32, after "is hereby amended" to insert "as respects instruments executed on or after the 1st day of November, 1991,".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 90, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Limerick East): I understand this gives power to the Revenue Commissioners to adjudicate the value of the transaction to which the document which is being stamped relates. Have I gone astray again? The Minister's official seems to indicate that I have.
No. This is essentially a technical provision affecting the administration of stamp duty. It gives the Revenue Commissioners powers to raise assessments of duty. Under the existing law of 1891 the commissioners could only raise assessments when requested to do so by a taxpayer. This is inconsistent with the concept of a mandatory tax. The commissioners should have powers to raise assessments, additional assessments or correcting assessments of stamp duties as they can for all other taxes. It is bringing them into line with the powers to raise all other taxes.
(Limerick East): That is what I was attempting to say in a rather convoluted way. How can the Minister ensure there will be no undue delay while the Revenue Commissioners are in the assessment process when it is important to stamp instruments quickly? How can delay be prevented at the assessment stage?
Stamping in that situation will be an over the counter service. If the taxpayer presents the document properly completed, and his stamp duty, it is an across the counter service.
(Limerick East): Have the Revenue the right to challenge the amount of stamp duty which the customer is offering to pay? If there is controversy about the appropriate amount which is due will there not be a delay until the Revenue decide the appropriate amount? Has the Minister any procedure in mind to ensure that things do not drift on in circumstances where it is vital to the interests of the applicant that instruments are stamped quickly?
In response to Deputy Noonan, they can always stamp and have recourse back after the stamping has been done. If they raise doubts at the start, they can proceed to stamp and raise the questions for additional revenue or valuation questions afterwards.
(Limerick East): Where is that provided for in the section?
That is the normal procedure in the stamp duty area.
(Limerick East): Yes, but it is not in the section. The Minister has already told us, and we believe him, that this is not just a series of amendments to stamp duty. This is a major reform of stamp duty procedures. Perhaps the Minister would consider between now and Report Stage including a procedure in the text to the effect that over the counter the Revenue would stamp and that any disagreement there might be between the value put on it by the applicant and the value put on it by the Revenue would be a matter to be sorted out subsequently, but that the legal proceeding, which might depend on stamping, could proceed. A statement of practice would probably do just as well if that is the suggestion that is forthcoming and that would be acceptable. Because it is a reform of the whole area what was practice need not necessarily apply. I would like to see it nailed down.
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the practice and convention that has built up over the years will apply in this situation. I will take it up further, if the Deputy wishes, between now and Report Stage to see if they have anything further to add.
(Limerick East): That is a good assurance.
Section 90, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 142:
In page 85, before section 91, to insert the following new section:
91.—Section 14 of the Act of 1891 is hereby amended, as respects instruments executed after the 1st day of November, 1991, by the insertion in subsection (4) after ‘proceedings' of ‘or civil proceedings by the Commissioners to recover stamp duty'.
This is a technical amendment restating in a different form section 91 of the Bill. That section re-enacted subsection (4) of section 14 of the Stamp Act, 1891, in an expanded form. The expansion allowed for the use of unstamped instruments in civil proceedings taken by the Revenue Commissioners to recover stamp duty. However, section 91 of the Bill proposed to re-enact the provision in the 1891 Act which provided for the use of unstamped instruments in criminal proceedings. There was a concern that this was not a matter suitable for a money Bill. This amendment removes any such concern.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 91 deleted.
SECTION 92.
I move amendment No. 143:
In page 86, to delete lines 19 to 21 and substitute the following:
"(6) The provision of this section shall apply with effect as on and from the 1st day of November, 1991, to any instrument, whenever executed, which is unstamped or insufficiently stamped.'.".
In general, it is proposed that the provisions of this Bill relating to the collection and enforcement of stamp duty will come into effect from 1 November 1991. This amendment assumes that, in respect of instruments executed before that date, the new interest provisions will apply to them only with effect from 1 November. In other words, if an instrument which was executed before 1 November 1991 was presented for stamping in January 1992, interest would be charged at the current rates up to 1 November and at the new rates thereafter. This is the usual practice in other taxes when interest for late payment is varied.
(Limerick East): Is it transactions or instruments which are due for stamping between tomorrow night and the signature of the President or 1 November? When we come to 1 November there will be a certain retrospective element when this amendment is accepted. I am trying to establish when is the start of the period of retrospection? Will it be on the coming into law of the Bill?
The position is that of today there is no change. If an instrument was executed tomorrow the interest rate which exists up to 1 November would continue. From 1 November onwards the new rate will apply.
(Limerick East): I misunderstood the Minister. If something is due for stamping in a fortnight's time and it is not stamped until 1 November, penalties will apply, will those penalties be the old penalties or the new penalties?
The old penalties will apply up to 1 November.
(Limerick East): That is what I understood.
On a point of clarification, it seems to me from reading section 92 that the main charging section is subsection (1) of section 15 in the Principal Act. That appears to be the main charging section. The effect of amendment No. 143 is to delete section 92 (6). Amendment No. 143 is very differently worded from the proposed new subsection (6). First, it mentions a new date but, more particularly, the existing subsection (6) states:
Any instrument executed prior to the passing of the Finance Act 1991, shall, for the purposes of subsection (2),....
As that section stands it does not apply to subsection (1). Can the Minister confirm that one of the purposes of his amendment is to ensure that all penalties, interest and so forth, payable in connection with this section are now covered and not merely stamp duty or penalties under subsection (2)? It is very complicated.
It is not easy. The Deputy is correct in what he says.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 92, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 93.
I move amendment No. 144:
In page 86, line 22, after "is hereby amended", to insert "as respects instruments executed on or after the 1st day of November, 1991,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 145:
In page 86, line 36, to delete "so permit or provide" and substitute "so provide or permit".
This is purely a technical amendment intended to preserve the order of the words "provide or permit" contained in subsection (1) (a) and (b).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 146:
In page 87, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in subsection (1) the provisions of that subsection shall apply to any instrument, the date of first execution of which appears from that instrument or otherwise to be prior to the 1st day of November, 1991, and where the Commissioners wish to verify that date to their satisfaction.".
The effective date of the provisions of this section 1 November 1991, in order to avoid any retrospective effects. There will inevitably exist a temptation for some taxpayers to backdate documents so as to evade the more rigorous obligations imposed on documents executed after that date. The Revenue Commissioners must be allowed to use every reasonable means to counter such a practice. In the absence of this amendment a taxpayer could claim that the date of execution of an instrument was prior to 1 November 1991. This claim itself would prevent the Revenue Commissioners from engaging in the kind of detailed investigation which would establish if that date was correct, and which is provided for by section 93 of the Bill. This amendment would allow the Revenue Commissioners to use all the powers of investigation in that section to verify if in fact an instrument was executed prior to 1 November 1991.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 93, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Limerick East): Section 93 widens quite dramatically the inspection powers of the Revenue Commissioners. Under the old legislation they had the power to inspect records held by any public officer, but now they will have the power to inspect documents held by anybody who does not have a legal right to refuse them those documents. What did the Law Society say about that when they met the Minister? Were they quite happy that the Revenue Commissioners will have the right to go through their offices and inspect their documents?
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but as it is now 9.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance to Parts IV and V of the Bill and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; and in respect of each of the sections undisposed of in the said Parts, other than section 91, that the section, or as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to."
Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 157:
In page 90, before section 104 but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
"104.—Section 58 (2) (a) of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act, 1976 is hereby amended by the insertion of the following after subsection (2) (a) (ii):
‘(iii) a person or a child of a person with whom the disponer is living as man and wife.'.".
This amendment relates to an attempt to include in the area of capital acquisitions tax and gifts the anomalous situation where a couple living as husband and wife, for instance persons who may have obtained a church annulment and had been remarried in the Catholic church, the majority church here, and who would be regarded as husband and wife, would on the untimely death of one or other of the partners find that the maximum amount of money to which the partner was entitled by way of a gift would be £10,700 —"a gift to a stranger in blood," is the rather clinical, weird phrase used. This was first brought to my attention by a constituent and I put down a question on it to the Minister for Finance. I also raised this in private discussions with the Revenue Commissioners. I found them to be extremely courteous and very helpful. My constituent gave me a schedule which showed that if the house value was £80,000 and it was jointly owned, £40,000 came as a gift to the surviving partner. He or she would only be tax exempt on £10,700 and there would be a tax liability on the remaining £30,000 so that the person would have to dispose of the house in order to pay the tax benefit. Is my understanding correct?
It is.
Having regard to the fact that second recognised marriage relationships are more likely to increase, is it possible for the Minister to accept the amendment which extends from married couples to persons living as man and wife? That would include formal second relationships, for instance, people who had been married primarily in the State and remarried elsewhere, men and women living in common law marriages and so on.
I support the amendment. I have received representations from a constituent in this situation. We all acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, there is marriage breakdown and many second relationships. While what may not have been a problem in 1976 when the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act was passed, it is clearly a major problem in 1991. I would not care to comment on whether Deputy Quinn's amendment is legally watertight, and he assures me it is, but I am sure the Minister could come up with an appropriate wording on Report Stage. I accept what Deputy Quinn is trying to do. There have been common law marriages for hundreds of years; there is nothing new about it. I commend this to the Minister.
We discussed this last night to some degree. The amendment as drafted would not cover a case where death occurred as outlined by Deputy Quinn. This is an area which needs to be worked on. It is not the practice for tax law to lead the way. General law should lead the way. I accept that there is marriage breakdown. This must be recognised and work must start some time to regulate this area and a Government White Paper will be published towards the latter end of the year. In the meantime I will ask the Revenue Commissioners to address this problem to see if they can find a solution, taking on board the Murphy judgment and the problems that can arise in property law. One can conceive certain situations where people could operate on double sets of thresholds that might put them in a more advantageous position than married couples. Areas like that need a lot of teasing out. It is not an issue for which there is an instant solution. What I will say to Deputy Quinn and the House is that the Government will start to work on the matter and it is hoped that much ground will be covered by the time the White Paper on marital breakdown is issued.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I wish to clarify that the same argument put forward last night also applies here, that it is the constitutional obligation of the Government and, consequently, the Revenue Commissioners and the State to support the institution of marriage. I presume that the Minister has received legal opinion on the matter from the Attorney General.
Yes.
Let us not now become barrackroom lawyers in relation to the issue, but I wonder whether one could argue that the introduction of the unmarried mother's allowance, introduced by Frank Cluskey and Brendan Corish in the 1970s, could not be construed as taxpayers' money being given to people who had broken one of the vows of marriage and whether it was legally possible for taxpayers' money to be given by way of a social welfare payment on a regular basis to such people. Surely the constitutional impediment that the Minister was advised to cite in relation to this matter must equally have existed in the 1970s when that measure was introduced. That is the first point to which I should ask the Minister to have regard. Are the two measures consistent?
Secondly, I accept that proper practice would be that tax revenue reflect the laws of the land rather than lead. That is a backward way of doing things. That is not the primary role or the secondary role, of the Revenue Commissioners in their practice nor of the Department of Finance in the administration of the annual tax legislation, but let me inform the Minister of what the actual practice is. This is an Irish solution to an Irish problem per excellence — it is self-certification, it is nod and wink.
The Revenue Commissioners, I am informed — not by them directly, because they would not so say, but by a number of eminent solicitors who deal with these cases — have a widow or an unmarried widow, sign an affidavit, albeit falsely, to state that she is the wife of the husband. No tax liability attaches to that portion because they are "not strangers in blood". With very few exceptions, the Revenue Commissioners get in a set of documents in relation to an estate and will not go behind them. That has happened and is happening, but it will not happen for some people as against others because of the knowledge of the Revenue Commissioners.
Worse than that, it leaves open the possibility of the occurrence of incidents such as one that was cited to me in which spite from a first relationship brought to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners the fact that a second relationship was not one of marriage at all. In that instance a very devout person had acceded to a set of laws that she considered to be superior to the secular laws of this temporary republic as distinct from the eternal Jerusalem. Much trauma was caused in that instance. Where that leaves the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister for Finance I do not really know, but I am saying that with the advance of time and the increasing number of secondary marriages or relationships, the problem will not go away but will get worse. In addition to the actual practice, the legal advice to people in those circumstances is to take out an insurance bond. For a sum — in my case a sum of £11 a month — one insures against that probability. However, it is an additional cost. I am a relatively well-paid person and can therefore carry that extra burden, but it is an unnecessary burden and it comes about as a result of the position I have described. I thought the provision was rather tightly worded and rather well worded. However, I accept the observations of the professionals that it was worded by a poacher as distinct from a gamekeeper, and sometimes the poachers know where some of the best fish hide. The provision comes up again tomorrow on Report Stage as an amendment but realistically, having regard to the hour, I do not think that we will be much wiser tomorrow afternoon.
I appreciate fully the clear support of the Minister. This is not an ideological issue at this stage but a reality that comes about from the difficulties that exist.
I should like the Minister and his officials to have regard to the other constitutional argument I made on the Murphy case and to the treatment by the Minister for Social Welfare of two adults living together who were deemed for the purposes of the social welfare code to be a married couple and received less money then they would have been entitled to otherwise. In that position there is the makings of a very nasty and unnecessarily expensive settlement. Perhaps in this instance a way could be found so that the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance would not have to go out in front of social legislation but could be creative in its interpretation.
I take on board all of the points raised by Deputy Quinn. I am well aware of the attitude of the Revenue Commissioners towards cases such as the hardship cases illustrated in the Deputy's earlier examples. Indeed, they would have the authority to deal with certain cases on a hardship basis. In the case mentioned by the Deputy the Revenue Commissioners would not have attempted to take possession of the House and have it sold or otherwise. They do approach cases in the light of the circumstances as they know them. I shall not comment otherwise on what the Deputy said, except to repeat that all of the propositions put will be taken together and considered. As the Deputy said, Members could not realistically expect anything between now and Report Stage tomorrow afternoon, but work will be carried out and the Government will take into consideration the various points made about social welfare legislation of the 1970s and the way that equates with different legal arguments that come up from time to time, for example, the Murphy case. The Government will positively look for solutions and not just trot out the same old arguments that have already been heard.
I thank the Minister for his undertaking. I accept fully the constraints that are built into that undertaking and that there is no guarantee that a solution will be found. Lest I seem to be making a selfish, personalised case, I wish to point out that the incidents to which I refer could by extension include, because of the thresholds and the potential value of property in question, a brother and sister, two brothers living together, and people who are "not strangers in blood". The thresholds are different — it is not £10,700, it is a higher threshold — but the threshold may nevertheless not be sufficient to meet the total amount of money that transfers. Perhaps, as in many other cases, an age qualification could be brought in, for example, a charge could be attached to the property so that someone who was 60 years or more would not find, having lived in a family house for all his or her life with an unmarried brother or sister, upon the death of that brother or sister, that the consequential duties and costs oblige him or her to sell the house. I am given to understand that in some applications, not all, the provision may have a wider effect.
That is absolutely true, and in section 108 the Deputy will see that I have addressed the brother and sister element because the threshold was so low. The threshold is being raised to £50,000 this year as a more realistic approach to the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 104 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 157a:
In page 90, before section 105, to insert the following new section:
"105.—Where a discretionary trust on which tax has been paid at the appropriate annual rate is broken up, an allowance shall be made in respect of such payments of tax as aforesaid in the assessment of capital acquisitions tax due on such breaking-up.".
The amendment was put down and circulated this morning. It relates to circumstances in which a family have organised their affairs in a discretionary trust, and tax, as we know, is paid on discretionary trusts. Suppose that tax is paid at the appropriate rate and everything is above board. As time goes on circumstances change and the trust is broken up. In assessment of the capital acquisition tax due to the breaking up of the trust, I want an allowance to be made in respect of payments already made when the trust was in place.
What is happening now on the break up of a trust is that people pay the full capital acquisition tax and no allowance is made for the tax already paid when the trust was in place. This does not have implications for an enormous number of people but it is very serious double taxation for those to whom it applies. In particular, where family businesses are organised and assets are put into a discretionary trust to benefit children, when the transfers are being made subsequently, it can lead to a situation where the imposition is so serious as to cause the break-up of family businesses. I should like to hear the Minister's initial response to that.
The 3 per cent and 1 per cent discretionary trust taxes were introduced in 1984 and 1986, respectively. The taxes are directed at those trusts which were set up essentially to avoid or indefinitely delay payment of capital acquisitions tax.
The main purpose of the tax is to compensate the Exchequer for such delay. If the annual 1 per cent charge is allowed as a credit against the capital acquisitions tax charged on the breaking up of these trusts, then such compensation will be entirely negatived. Furthermore, the tax would no longer be a disincentive to taxpayers to set up such trusts which are mainly tax avoidance vehicles. On the question of the yield to the Exchequer, as some discretionary trusts may have been in existence for many years, the total annual payments could, if credited against the capital acquisitions tax on a break up, entirely wipe out that capital acquisitions tax. Accordingly, I oppose this amendment.
(Limerick East): I agree that the measure was introduced to ensure that persons who availed of what is essentially a tax avoidance mechanism would pay tax at some stage. However, all tax avoidance procedures are entered into with the intention of avoiding tax, that is a truism as well as a cliché. The only reason for tax avoidance systems is to avoid paying tax.
Some people set up schemes for tax avoidance reasons at a particular stage in their family life and business and they do not intend them to continue indefinitely or that they would never be broken up. However, in circumstances where it comes to a break-up, there is a serious question of double taxation. I should like the Minister to re-examine the question as I am sure, over the years, he would have received submissions on the lines to which I referred. It is an area where a matter could be clarified by examining a particular case and it is difficult across the House to nominate one. Will the Minister go back on the correspondence in his Department in relation to noteworthy cases where there is a genuine problem, not because people were playing fast and loose with the system, but because of changing circumstances as a family organised their affairs? Will he look at it in that context? It is a confined area where particular cases have caused hardship. People cannot now foresee how they will break up the trust because the penalties will be so severe.
I accept that trusts will probably not be broken up because it is not feasible to do so as the resources required might not be available. During the budget debate this matter also arose and it does not necessarily follow that the way we now impose our taxes is the best way to get the most revenue. We are in the business of collecting revenue, that was the philosophy behind abolishing the two top rates of capital acquisitions taxes because they were a disincentive, we were not getting the revenue and I believe we will get more revenue the other way.
I gave an undertaking during the budget debate that I would examine all aspects of capital taxes and I will include this in the review. I will look back on correspondence in the Department as I am sure there are cases involved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 105.
Question proposed: "That section 105 stand part of the Bill".
This section, and some subsequent sections, are designed to relieve the obligation on some people to pay tax. We have been saying for many years — I have been saying it since 1978 — that the taxes on labour were too high and that taxes on capital were too low. The reduction in income tax and taxes on wages and salaries is essential but, in order to do this, I said that other taxes would have to be brought in. I was referring to taxes on property, capital acquisitions, capital gains and various company taxes. I know that the Progressive Democrats took up this cry in the past three or four years. It became the essential point of their whole economic policy of tax reform and reduction of tax on wages and salaries which would mean an accompanying increase in capital taxes of various kinds. Where relief from capital taxes is given? Will the Minister explain what agricultural relief is designed to do? Who are the people he intends to help?
The subsections read:
(a) "as respects a gift or inheritance taken on or after the 30th day of January, 1991, have effect as if ‘55 per cent.' were substituted for ‘50 per cent.' in the definition of ‘agricultural value'," and
(b) "as respects a gift or inheritance taken on or after the passing of this Act, have effect as if ‘80 per cent.' were substituted for ‘75 per cent.' in the definition of ‘farmer'."
The explanatory memorandum says that the increase from 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the market value of the property means that the relief will be given by reducing the market value of agricultural property by 55 per cent or £200,000, whichever is the lesser. Will the Minister explain who will benefit from this relief and what is its purpose? Will he also say what the cost of this relief will be to the Exchequer? I will be asking similar questions in regard to the next two sections.
The additional 5 per cent is some recognition of the additional items now included in capital acquisitions tax so far as the agricultural farming sector is concerned. I am sure the Deputy is aware that up to last year the thresholds were not even indexed for anybody. Therefore, it is fair to index them for a start and I took that step. Another large element has come into the capital acquisitions area from the farmers' point of view, for instance, in the dairying sector, where the milk quota pushes up the value of the holding and, consequently, lifts quite substantially the amount of capital acquisitions tax payable. It is in recognition of the changing circumstances there that the 5 per cent has been introduced.
The Minister has not told me how much this will cost the Exchequer. In regard to the milk quota, it is now an extra asset and can be sold at any time while retaining the holding. Therefore, I cannot understand why the fact that there is a milk quota — an additional asset to a farmer — means that relief should be given for it. I cannot understand the reason relief should be given for the milk quota unless the Minister can say that this is causing hardship to some farmers.
To small farmers.
Pardon?
If the ceiling of £200,000 is retained, this will be of help to small, not big farmers. The only people who will benefit are those in the lower bracket. We do not know what the exact cost will be but it will be small.
It is my understanding that large dairy farmers are purchasing milk quotas with the result that they will be given relief. The explanatory memorandum states that "this relief is given by reducing the market value of agricultural property by 55 per cent or £200,000 whichever is the lesser". Therefore, it is the farmer with a large holding who will be given relief. I fail to see why they should be given this relief. The Minister has not indicated that they suffer great hardship.
The Deputy seems to have misunderstood me. We are talking here about capital acquisitions tax, not capital gains tax, and it will not matter how many milk quotas the large farmer buys as the ceiling of £200,000 is being retained. Therefore, it is the smaller farmer — the value of whose property may not reach the ceiling of £200,000 — not the large farmer who will benefit.
I welcome this change which marks a move in the right direction. However, we need to go further and try to increase the rate of agricultural relief to 75 per cent. I accept that that would be a big step but we must provide an incentive to farmers to transfer their farms sooner. Capital acquisitions tax represents a disincentive to many to transfer their land. As the Minister is aware, farmers only have a few matters to settle with their families when they transfer land and the young farmer who takes over the land usually has to borrow or sell part of the property to pay this tax. This places a heavy imposition on him, inhibits development and acts as a discouragement. This suggestion is worth considering in the future, if we can afford to make the change. Again, I welcome the change in the Bill but we must try to improve the position in the future.
It is extraordinary that the Minister for Finance has proposed that a tax relief be increased without knowing how much this will cost.
The cost involved will be minimal.
The Minister has not told us how much it will cost. It should be simple enough to work out the cost involved. Has the Minister any idea at all?
How is one to know how many people will be involved?
The Minister for Finance when proposing a new tax relief should be able to give us a good idea of the cost of tax relief.
Let us face reality.
The Minister should know what the cost involved is. Can the Minister give us any estimate?
If the Deputy can tell me at this late hour how many people are going to die or are going to pass on their farms next year I would be able to calculate the cost involved.
There are six experts sitting behind the Minister.
What are the aggregate amounts for the past five years?
The amount involved last year for capital acquisitions tax for all sectors was £38 million. No matter how far I am prepared to go to explain the position the Deputy does not want to hear the explanation.
I wish to protest about that remark by the Minister.
The Deputy will be given an opportunity to respond.
I have asked a legitimate question but I have been abused by the Minister.
I will call the Deputy when he will be able to make his protestations but he cannot interrupt the Minister.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should have interrupted the Minister when he made his last remark.
I am very sorry if I offended the Deputy. I did not come here to offend the Deputy or any other Member.
The Minister did his best.
If the Deputy wants me to I can try and I will make a better job of it than I have up to now.
I asked a simple question.
What I want to do is to look after the small farmers. Large farmers who have to pay capital acquisitions tax can avail of the following reliefs: first, they can avail of agriculture relief up to the ceiling of £200,000 in addition to relief up to the exemption limit of £161,000 for each child thereafter. I want to protect the small north Kerry farmer and so on and remove him from the net. If the Deputy has a commitment to rural society, which I think he has, I do not think he would not want to see small farmers having to sell their holdings to pay capital acquisitions tax. That is the reason I made provision for section 60 policies to allow them cover the cost involved. I am not interested in large farmers who have their own ways of dealing with the matter but in alleviating the social problems caused for families where holdings are split. I hope this provision will help and encourage farmers to pass on farms much earlier. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me.
Has the Minister any idea of cost involved?
The cost will not exceed £500,000 unless many people die and change their wills.
What is the average?
There is no average.
Having listened to the discussion it is easy to see that Deputy Mac Giolla represents an urban constituency.
The Deputy has not made many speeches.
I have made many speeches but the Deputy was not here to hear them, unfortunately.
We are going to have to do something about the heat in the Chamber.
I can see that the Deputy represents an urban constituency but his speech does not match that of his colleague, Deputy Stagg, who champions the cause of small farmers. The Minister has responded to the demands made by the farming organisations, including Macra na Feirme, that the rate be increased. Many people will say that the Minister has not gone far enough but I am sure improvements will be made in the future. An improvement has been made and we acknowledge this.
It appears that the Minister has gone too far for The Workers' Party and not far enough for Fine Gael which indicates that he must have got the balance just about right. This legislation has been designed to help the small farmer and that is the reason the ceiling of £200,00 is being retained. Deputy Mac Giolla suggested that the milk quota was an extra asset, but does he have any idea of what the milk quota is? The introduction of milk quotas has led to the value of agricultural land in the hands of dairy farmers being reduced. Deputy Mac Giolla also made the ideological point that in reducing the amount collected in capital acquisitions tax the Minister is limiting his ability to reduce the amount paid by the PAYE sector. The Minister has said that the total yield from capital acquisition tax, from all sectors, last year was £38 million, approximately 20 per cent of which was paid by the agricultural sector.
Perhaps less.
We are discussing a proposal to increase the rate of agricultural relief from 50 per cent of the market value of a farm to 55 per cent with an upper ceiling of £200,000. The amount of revenue lost to the Exchequer will be minute and will make no impact on the PAYE system. If we want to reduce the amount of taxation paid by the PAYE sector that is not the way to do it.
I now call Deputy Michael Ahern.
With regard to capital acquisitions tax——
(Limerick East): A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I did not get in yet.
There are two cohorts here and I will try to move from one to the other.
(Limerick East): I do not mind Deputy Ahern contributing but I want to speak on the section. The Chair has kept me out for 20 minutes. I have been offering for 20 minutes and I have not been called yet.
Why did your two colleagues beside you offer?
(Limerick East): They are quite entitled to come in.
The Chair is quite entitled to call them. I am now calling Deputy Ahern. I have not ignored anybody.
Under a provision of capital acquisitions tax, a nephew or a niece who works for an uncle or aunt over a five year period is treated as a favourite nephew or niece and therefore gets the allowances of a son or a daughter. I have come across the situation on a number of occasions where a nephew worked all his life for his uncle but when the uncle, who had not made a will died, the farm went to the uncle's wife——
That is not unreasonable.
The wife then willed the farm to her husband's nephew on her death but he did not get the allowance as a favourite nephew and was taxed as if he were a stranger.
Eat your heart out John B. Keane.
In such cases, the relative should get favourite nephew status and get the same exemptions as a son or daughter would if the uncle had made a proper will, stating his intention to leave the farm to his nephew. In the cases I mentioned, it was the intention that the nephew would get the farm. The Minister should consider this. The change could be implemented at a minimal cost to the State and in justice it should be done.
(Limerick East): Will the Minister comment on section 105 (b)? Everybody has been welcoming the extra relief the Minister is providing even though it is a small relief. However, paragraph (b) is a restriction. Will the Minister explain how the movement from 75 per cent to 80 per cent will work. It seems that this could seriously hurt small farmers and I do not think that was the Minister's intention. Up until now somebody could avail of agricultural relief if 75 per cent of their activity was derived from agriculture, now that figure will increase to 80 per cent. In agricultural activity the land — and that will include the quota, if a quota applies — the farm buildings, stock, and plant and machinery for farm work will be included. However, the house will not be included. Suppose a farmer has shares in the co-operative, as a great many of them have, and the 10,000 shares now have a monetary value they did not have a couple of years ago, I do not think they would get agricultural relief on that either. Let us take the example of a small farmer with 60 or 70 acres, and say the land is valued at £130,000. On top of that he has a tractor and plant and machinery which could be worth another £15,000, as well as farm buildings and stock in addition to the House. It would not be difficult to envisage that the total estate would be worth £200,000, but the house would be worth £50,000. Because the non-agricultural portion was worth 25 per cent of the total, agricultural reliefs would not now apply. Then the farmer would be in a very serious position. He would have an exemption limit of £164,400 and would be paying tax on almost £49,000. He would pay 20 per cent on the first £10,000 and 30 per cent on the next £30,000-£40,000 approximately. Very big sums of money are involved. Things would work out fine if he was better off because the house would not be as big a percentage of the total value, as in the case of a farmer with 100 acres, but for a farmer with 60 to 65 acres, the Minister had opened the trap.
The Limerick fellow.
(Limerick East): I cannot see why the Minister is tightening the provision and increasing it from 75 per cent to 80 per cent.
There is no trap. The reason it does not react against real farmers is that the computation of capital acquisitions tax on a farm with a house on it is treated as agricultural property. However, this gets at the city dweller or business man cum farmer who has a large business interest as part of the total property, and it will certainly affect him. It will not affect the person who has a good house worth £40,000 or £50,000 on a farm that would be worth somewhat less because, for assessment purposes that is covered under the heading of agriculture land.
I would agree with the Minister.
(Limerick East): I have a minor point to raise. We are encouraging transfers to take place at an early age and when there is a transfer, it is quite common to have a second house on the farm.
For the son or daughter.
(Limerick East): Usually the retired couple live in it and I can see circumstances where these farming people will get caught.
With regard to the same paragraph, I can see cases where people may get a little worried. Where a farmer decides to change from one type of business to another farm business for example and he dies between selling off all his cows and getting into dry stock or some other farm enterprise where he has to spend the money he got for the cows, the cash could account for more than 20 per cent of the value of his farm and the estate would be caught by this provision. This is what is worrying a lot of people, and not what Deputy Noonan has been speaking about. These situations might not happen too often but they could happen and quite a number of people have expressed a worry about this.
(Limerick East): Is the Minister going to reply to Deputy Ahern?
As I said to somebody earlier, I will consider these examples in the review and I will consider the case Deputy Ahern mentioned of the man dying without leaving a will.
I have given another example under paragraph (b) — the farmer who decides to change over from one type of farming to another but dies after having sold off his cows and leaving a large amount of cash which would be over the 20 per cent of the value of farm allowed for agricultural relief.
Deputy Ahern will be well aware that it is what is there on valuation day that matters——
It could happen.
There is a possibility of circumstances arising as in the case the Deputy is talking about, but I do not have any more cheap professional advice here tonight. However, if the Deputy contacts us tomorrow we might be able to find out more for him.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 106.
Question proposed: "That section 106 stand part of the Bill."
This section proposes to reduce the top rate of inheritance tax from 55 per cent to 40 per cent. Who will benefit from this reduction and how much will it cost the Exchequer? I do not want a speech on the matter; I merely want the Minister to give me the answers. What is the purpose of reducing the top rate?
The Deputy does not want to hear that the cost will be negligible; he wants figures. There is no basis for giving the Deputy figures. All I can say is that the cost will be negligible and that only 2 per cent of the people who paid did so at the top rate. When one looks at the payments, one can see that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean that there will be more Exchequer revenue. We are all interested in getting more Exchequer revenue.
Is the Minister bringing in more money?
The amount involved will be negligible. When one looks at the amount brought in by the very high rates which have been in existence for the past 25 years one can see that a new industry has been created in tax planning. Because it is worth their while to do this, people do not pay the 55 per cent rate. The system has been tried for 25 years and we have got very little money from it. I am prepared to introduce lower rates and I believe that in time we will get more Exchequer revenue from these lower rates, which is what the exercise should be all about as far as any Minister for Finance is concerned.
I agree with the Minister that the aim should be to get more revenue. However, I am baffled as to how this reduction in rates will gain more revenue. The Minister has not explained to me how it will bring in one penny more in revenue. It will lose the Exchequer a negligible amount, but will not gain revenue? Why does not the Minister introduce a system which will bring in more revenue?
Which system is that?
I could list hundreds of them.
My proposal will encourage people to take advantage of lower rates and not spend their money in a tax planning industry which, as both the Deputy and I know, has blossomed here over the past 25 years. A person who owns a supermarket and who wants to increase his turnover discounts it. The same principles of commerce apply in this system as apply in any other system. It is worth giving this system a try and despite what the Deputy says, I believe it will work.
To use the supermarket analogy, it is fair to say that if you haemorrhage in the first few weeks and do not get your volume up you will have lost on both counts.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Minister estimate that there will be an increase in revenue before the end of this year as a result of this reduction?
This year?
Yes.
I can assure the Deputy that I will get more than 2 per cent of the people to pay at those rates.
Will the Minister increase the revenue?
I have no doubt but that I will increase the revenue.
I will wait to see.
I will not be here in ten years time but if the Deputy is still here he will look back and say, "I remember the night we got a discount in tax and it paid off".
The Minister will be sitting back on a Taoiseach's pension at that stage.
(Limerick East): The Minister is making a great case for reducing the 21 per cent VAT rate on live performances.
If I had enough room I would do it.
A live performer has arrived.
Does the Minister want me to deal with somebody?
(Interruptions.)
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 107.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 158:
In page 91, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to gifts as they apply to inheritances.".
I should like to thank the Minister for bringing in this section this year. He promised to reduce it last year but did not have enough time between Committee and Report Stages to do so. I had referred to tragic circumstances where a double transfer occurred when the son to whom an estate had been transferred died tragically and on the reverse transfer to the parent a double tranche of inheritance tax had to be paid. This amendment is simply to test the Minister to see if he would have any serious objection to applying the same procedure to gift tax also. Obviously, there would not be tragic circumstances but there would be valid circumstances where a child may want to transfer property to a parent for good social reasons. The loss of revenue to the Exchequer would be absolutely negligible. It is common throughout the code to apply the same criteria to both inheritance tax and gift tax. Will the Minister do the entire job or will he consider it overnight and do it tomorrow?
The Revenue foresee that this amendment would create tax avoidance. However, I will look at it in more detail.
Could consideration also be given to the transfer of an estate between a brother and sister so that they would not be liable for gift or inheritance tax? In some cases a brother may want to allow the donation to revert back to his sister or brother.
I made one improvement in regard to transfers between brothers and sisters by raising the threshold of £150,000 from its previous unrealistic figure so that a brother or sister will not have to sell his or her house in order to pay this tax. This is a different issue and deals with a case which arose on Committee Stage of last year's Finance Bill. The case related to a man in County Kilkenny who had transferred all his property to his son, an only child, who was subsequently killed in an accident. Consequently, all the tax would have had to be paid on the double when the land was being transferred back to the father. That is the type of situation dealt with under this section. We also found further cases and this is why we back dated it.
What about the transfer of property back to a brother or sister?
I did not go that far because somebody could come in next year and ask about the transfer of property to a nephew or niece. The case we dealt with last year was one of real hardship. It would not have been right to allow this inequity to continue in the tax system. However, I do not think we could make the case to go further down the line in this regard.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I should like to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this provision. I know of a ludicrous case where a man who had transferred his farm to his son had to pay tax when the property was transferred back to him after his son died.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 107 agreed to.
SECTION 108.
Question proposed: "That section 108 stand part of the Bill".
(Limerick East): I should like to thank the Minister for fulfilling the promises he made last year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 109.
Question proposed: "That section 109 stand part of the Bill."
(Limerick East): I should again like to thank the Minister for fulfilling the commitment he gave last year.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 110 and 111 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 159.
In page 94, before section 112, to insert the following new section:
112.—(1) Section 57 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—
(a) in subsection (1) by the substitution of the following definition for the definition of unit trust scheme:
"‘unit trust scheme' means an authorised unit trust scheme within the meaning of the Unit Trusts Act, 1990, whose deed expressing the trusts of the scheme restricts the property subject to those trusts to securities.",
and
(b) in subsection (2) (as amended by section 40 of the Finance Act, 1978) by the substitution for "Unit Trusts Act, 1972" of "Unit Trusts Act, 1990".
(2) This section shall have effect in relation to gifts and inheritances taken on or after the 26th day of December, 1990.
Certain securities are exempt from all taxation in the State when in the beneficial ownership of a person who is neither domiciled nor ordinarily resident in the State. Section 57 of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act, 1976, exempts these securities from gift and inheritance taxes when they are taken as a gift or inheritance by a person who is neither domiciled nor ordinarily resident in the State. The exemptions also extended to units of a unit trust scheme registered under the Unit Trusts Act, 1972, whose assets consisted exclusively of these types of securities. However, as the Unit Trusts Act, 1972 was repealed by the Unit Trusts Act, 1990, an amendment is required to continue to apply the exemption to units of similar trust schemes authorised by the Unit Trusts Act, 1990.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 112 agreed to.
As it is now 10.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the resolution of the Dáil of 21 May: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of that the section, or as appropriate the section as amended, is hereby agreed to, that the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules and the Title are hereby agreed to, and that the Bill, as amended, is hereby reported to the House."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Calleary and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
In accordance with the allocation of time resolution passed on 21 May, Fourth Stage of this Bill will be taken tomorrow.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 23 May 1991.