Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997

Vol. 484 No. 1

Financial Resolutions 1998. - Financial Resolution No. 8: Income Tax, Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax

(1) THAT section 816 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 (No. 39 of 1997), be amended by the substitution for subsections (1) to (3) of the following subsections—
"(1) In this section—
‘company' means any body corporate;
‘quoted company' means a company whose shares, or any class or whose shares—
(a) are listed in the official list of the Irish Stock Exchange or on any other stock exchange, or
(b) are quoted on the market known as the Developing Companies Market, or the market known as the Exploration Securities Market, of the Irish Stock Exchange or on any similar or corresponding market of any other stock exchange;
‘share' means share in the share capital of a company and includes stock and any other interest in the company.
(2) Where any person as a consequence of the exercise (whether before, on or after the declaration of a distribution of profits by a company) of an option to receive in respect of shares in the company either a sum in cash or additional share capital of the company, receives such additional share capital, then, an amount equal to the amount which that person would have received if that person had received the distribution in cash instead of such share capital shall for the purposes of the Tax Acts—
(a) where the company is resident outside the State, be deemed to be income received by the person from the company, and such income shall be treated as income from securities and possessions outside the State and be assessed and charged to tax under Case III of Schedule D,
(b) where the company is resident in the State and is a quoted company—
(i) be treated as a distribution made by the company, and
(ii) be deemed to be a distribution received by the person, and
(c) where the company is resident in the State and is not a quoted company, be deemed to be profits or gains of the person, being profits or gains not within any other Case of Schedule D and not charged by virtue of any other Schedule, and be assessed and charged to tax under Case IV of Schedule D.
(3) Where a company is treated under subsection (2)(b)(i) as making a distribution to a person, section 152 shall apply with any necessary modifications as if the distribution were a dividend to which subsection (1) of that section applies.".
(2) THAT section 4(1) in the definition of "distribution", section 20(1) in paragraph 1 of Schedule F and section 130(1), of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, be amended by the substitution for "sections 436 and 437" of "sections 436 and 437, and subsection (2)(b) of section 816".
(3) THAT this Resolution shall have effect as respects shares within the meaning of section 816 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, issued by a company on or after the 3rd day of December, 1997.
(4) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
Financial Resolution No 7 gives effect to the decision to phase out tax credits on dividend payments made by companies. This change is an integral part of the restructuring of corporation tax to facilitate the introduction of a standard corporate tax rate of 12. 5 per cent.
Under existing rules roughly half of the corporation tax paid by a company is attributed to shareholders when they receive dividends from the company. This imputation of corporation tax paid by the company is achieved by attaching a tax credit to the dividend. The amount of the tax credit under existing law is 21/79ths of the distribution of profits subject to the standard rate of corporation tax. For dividends paid on or after today this tax credit is being reduced by approximately one half to I 1/89ths. For dividends paid on or after 6 of April 1999 there will be no tax credit.
A tax credit rate of 1/18th has applied to dividends paid out of profits which are liable to corporation tax at the 10 per cent rate. This rate will continue for dividends paid up to the 6 April 1999, at which time it will also be abolished. As a company is obliged to pay advance corporation tax equal to the amount of tax credits attaching to its distributions, the reduction in the tax credit rate will result in a lower advance corporation tax liability. With the abolition of tax credits from 6 April 1999, advance corporation tax will effectively be abolished as and from that date.
The resolution also contains technical amendments in relation to distributions made out of export sales relieved distributions received and the entitlement of overseas life assurance companies to tax credits.
Financial Resolution No 8 adjusts the tax treatment of scrip dividends issued by Irish resident quoted companies. Scrip dividends are shares issued to a shareholder in lieu of cash dividends. Since the Finance Act, 1993, the receipt by a shareholder of scrip dividends has not given rise to an income tax liability, but the shares were regarded as having been acquired for a nil cost for capital gains tax purposes. When the shares were subsequently sold a capital gains tax liability arose.
As a result of this Financial Resolution the issue of scrip dividends will give rise to an income tax liability. The amount of the cash dividend foregone will be treated as a distribution made by the issuing company to the shareholder and this will be generally subject to income tax in the hands of the shareholder. In other words, a similar tax treatment will apply whether a shareholder takes a distribution of profits from a company in the form of a cash dividend or a scrip dividend. This means the shareholder will be entitled to a tax credit, and the company will be liable to pay advance corporation tax. When the shareholder eventually sells the shares, the base cost allowable for capital gains tax purposes will be the amount of the cash dividend foregone.
This change in the tax treatment of scrip dividends is being made in the light of the significant reduction in the rate of capital gains tax and the phasing out of the tax credit on all dividend payments. It is appropriate, to protect the Exchequer, that the tax effects to a distribution should be similar, whether it is taken in the form of cash or shares. The tax treatment of scrip dividends from companies other than Irish resident quoted companies is being left unchanged. In such cases the amount of cash dividend foregone is liable to tax without any tax credit.

I am opposed to Resolution No. 7 on the grounds that it is a very arbitrary and unjustifiable double taxation. As I understand the measure, if a person receives a dividend from a company it involves double taxation. The company will have paid tax on the profit it makes before it decides the dividend and the person who receives the dividend will also be taxed on the income he or she receives. The same flow of income is taxed twice.

It is necessary to avoid inequities arising from the receipt of income in the form of a dividend rather than in the form of rent from property which one might let. If a person decides to rent a house, one is taxed once on the income one receives from the rent. If, on the other hand, one sets up a company which owns the house, one would be taxed twice under this system because one would be taxed on the income of the company and on the income of the rent. A person is not necessarily rich because they own an incorporated company or poor because they receive ordinary income. That equation does not apply. Corporations are often used by poor people and some rich individuals pay personal income tax and do not own incorporated companies. We should not assume that people involved in a corporation are rich.

People receiving income from dividends include the elderly or people who expect to be elderly soon and those who are no longer able to work and have received large compensation for an injury and invested the money in a company. Such people receive dividends to put aside money for the long-term care they will need when they can no longer care for themselves. These people will be hit by this measure. They will face double taxation. Just because it is corporation tax and dividends does not mean that it only concerns rich people. I wish to state that in case I am criticised by a Deputy from a neighbouring constituency.

(Dublin West): The Deputy had no trouble with double charges on water.

The Government is justifying the halving of the tax credit on corporation tax dividends on the basis that, in about ten years, the corporation tax rate will be reduced to 12.5 per cent. However, it is reducing the tax credit within two years. In other words, it is anticipating the reduction to 12.5 per cent in a reduction in the tax credit. It is entirely unjustified to do this within the next two years rather than in line with the reduction in the rate of corporation tax.

I do not understand why the reduction in the tax credit was not done on an ordinary annualised basis, step by step with the reduction in the corporation tax rate. That would have been fair and justifiable. A sudden cut in the dividend tax credit which accompanies a gradual reduction in the corporation tax constitutes a new wedge of double taxation on people on fixed incomes of this kind.

Two main groups will suffer as a result of this measure. First, those who have saved money, are no longer economically active and need this money for a good purpose. Second, pension funds. Every PAYE worker who is in a pension fund will suffer because their fund will be hit by this double taxation. I hope that people will see that this is a mean change, slipped into the tax code at 10.45 p.m. on budget night in the hope that no one is watching. It should not be introduced, least of all at this hour without a proper discussion. It should have been dealt with in the Finance Bill. It is not an appropriate subject for the application of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927. I do not understand why that Act is being used for this purpose. This is a matter of formal discrimination which should have been discussed properly. It could easily have awaited the introduction of the Finance Bill. I question the constitutionality of this procedure. It is not an appropriate measure for the use of that Act.

There is no question of slipping this measure through coming up to midnight. It was announced in today's budget and it has been discussed publicly for some time. The Deputy should be mindful that the reduction in corporation tax introduced in this budget will make much more money available to companies for distribution by way of dividends. The Minister has taken the decision to reduce the tax credit accordingly.

I accept Deputy Bruton's point about introducing this measure over two years when the phased reduction in corporation tax will take longer. However, the tax credit available has been the same for the past number of years despite reductions in the rate of corporation tax. Instead of accelerating the process we are just beginning to catch up.

This is a very arbitrary way of doing so.

The reductions in the rate of corporation tax in the past few years have not been taken into account in the amount of tax credit given in dividends.

People who get dividends will be paying for those who are getting extra benefits.

Deputy Bruton's Government recommended this measure.

The Deputy has to justify this measure. She is in Government.

The Deputy knows this is fair.

We also recommended the widening of the bands.

Deputy Bruton asked why the tax credits were not gradually reduced in line with the corporation tax and why this is being done now. Changes in tax credits announced today cannot be looked at in isolation. In the context of shareholders, one must look at the reduction in the corporation tax rates, the revised credit and the budget income tax changes. When all these changes are taken into account, a company's distribution of its profits will result in a shareholder, who pays tax at the top rate, suffering a reduction in their return after tax of no more than 87p per £100 of profit made by the company. I remind Deputies that the Government's proposed move to a single 12.5 rate of corporation tax was outlined today by the Minister for Finance. Part of this move involves the abolition of tax credits. The budget proposes their being phased out over a two year period, an approach which reduces the need for complex changes in tax credit arrangements which otherwise would be necessary each year we make amendments. The savings made by the Exchequer are being used to help implement Government policy in reducing the tax burden on business and those in employment.

Deputy Bruton asked how this measure would affect pension funds and trusts. Pension funds which have been exempted from tax are entitled to a payment from the Exchequer of the tax credit extending to dividends. As the level of tax credit is being reduced, pension funds will receive a smaller payment from the Exchequer. However, the asset value of pension funds has grown substantially over the past few years due to the strong performance of equity markets. For example, assets grew by almost £3 billion last year. In the short-term, the abolition of tax credits over two years rather than their gradual phasing out in line with the reduction in the rate of corporation tax will result in a temporary decline in pension fund income from equities. However, as corporation tax rates are reduced in future years, this trend will be reversed. In addition, a policy of reinvestment of company profits rather than dividend payouts is encouraged as the tax credits can be reclaimed. This will present a better long-term strategy for pension funds because of the higher corporate profitability which would be expected to flow from increased reinvestment.

Deputy Bruton asked whether all the corporation tax paid by a company should be imputed to shareholders. A company is a separate legal entity. As a result, it is granted a number of privileges, such as limited liability. A company is a user of services and, in these circumstances, it is considered appropriate that it should make a contribution by way of a tax charge. If shareholders were granted a reduction for all corporation tax paid by a company, this would mean that the company was not making such a contribution and that its tax payment represented an advance payment of tax on account of the shareholders' liability. I hope no Member is arguing for that. The practice until now has been to grant shareholders receiving dividends a credit for approximately one half of the corporation tax paid by the company.

We are now moving towards a new corporation tax regime with a much lower corporation rate. With that rate reduced, the tax credit should become less significant. Phasing out the tax credit until 6 April 1999 should release resources that could be put to better use by reducing income tax to reduce the tax burden on employment. That is what the Government wishes to do.

Deputy John Bruton asked why corporation tax rates will change soon when the tax credits change on budget day. Normal changes in corporation tax rates and credits take effect on the same day, but in this case, as part of the transition to a single rate of 12.5 per cent of corporation tax, the tax credits are being reduced by more than the usual amount. Both changes take effect on 1 January 1998, and there is a possibility that certain companies would maximise the amount of dividends paid before the reduced credits applied. Where shareholders would be entitled to a refund of the tax credit, the situation could be manipulated to the detriment of the Exchequer. To prevent this, the tax credits are being reduced with effect from today. There will, therefore, be no incentive to arrange for early payment of dividends which could otherwise happen. The difference in time between the rate reduction and the reduction in tax credits is only one month.

I need not remind Deputy Bruton that in the document produced in May on employment-sharing for growth, removal of tax credits attaching to dividend income was proposed. It was explained as a change to a classical taxation system, so that dividend income is subject to full personal tax rates in addition to the tax paid at company level. That was just over six months ago.

The corporation tax reductions are a revenue raising measure that will yield approximately £60 million in a full year. It is a net of offsets, and includes distributive dividend charges. It will help to meet part of the costs of the reduction in the corporation tax rates from 36 to 32 per cent and from 28 to 25 per cent. Those will cost £107 million in a full year. The House knows that we are committed to continuing those reductions over coming years. That has been negotiated with the Commission, and the payback is quite substantial.

As we move toward lower corporation tax, I am glad that we are moving small businesses toward a rate of 25 per cent. The House does not perhaps know that 94 per cent of businesses in the country return profits of less than £50,000, which means that as of close of business tonight, 94 per cent of businesses will be paying the 25 per cent rate. That is a massive improvement and a huge incentive for small businesses. Only 6 per cent of companies are in another category, and many of those are multinationals which pay the 10 per cent rate.

What is the relativity of tax paid between the 94 per cent and the 6 per cent?

I will check the figures. This position will cost hundreds of millions of pounds in changes, and we are admittedly under pressure from the Commission to move quicker. We cannot be Santa Claus when dealing with these issues as we must close incentives that were put in place as we cannot pay out twice. We are paying out vast amounts of money.

I am as interested as other Members in getting my pension at the end of my days.

When will that be?

How long is a piece of string?

I accept Deputy Bruton's position and the fact that he must put questions to me, but I will not shed crocodile tears for the pension funds industry, which is exempt from tax.

We are concerned with pensioners.

That industry has extraordinary benefits. I am glad I was party to putting some of those benefits on the Statute Book. I worked with other Ministers to try to get the industry to invest its profits here.

This is the opposite to crocodile tears.

The pension funds industry's assets grew by £3 billion last year. Successive Ministers for Finance have tried to get those companies to invest a small proportion of that money. I am happy to ask the House to unanimously introduce these measures of sanity, as then the public can see we are not trying to be overgenerous. The pension funds industry have had an extremely good return recently. A survey revealed that Irish funds showed an average investment return of 15 per cent last year and 18 per cent the previous year. The ISEQ index increased by 40 per cent from 1 January 1997 to this morning. The same survey estimates that Irish pension funds had a net cash inflow of £895 million and £663 million the previous year. My case stands.

A good Government.

I welcome the reduction in corporation tax. The tax rate is now at 25 per cent for small business, and 94 per cent of such businesses have profits of less than £50,000. I would go further and say that 94 per cent of such businesses have profits of less than £10,000.

That depends on what they pay their directors.

It was remiss of the Government to take into consideration rateable revaluations on small businesses, which are happening at an alarming rate. Members can give examples from their constituencies, but I know of one business which spent £200,000 renovating its premises and which showed a profit of £1,000 or £2,000 last year. They had been paying rates of £1,500 but rateable revaluation increased that to £6,500. That is a huge increase, and the Government is ignoring this indirect taxation. Reducing profit tax to 25 per cent is of no benefit to small business as they cannot show a profit. It is easy to pay 25 per cent of £1,000 or £2,000. Given the indirect tax, such as revaluations, which are taking place all over the country, the Government must introduce legislation immediately to reduce this extreme cost on small business.

I noted earlier the Taoiseach said 18p on the gallon of petrol would bring in £14.5 million. I was surprised given that I had expected it would have generated much more. I am also surprised this increase will bring in £60 million in a full year. The Taoiseach said 94 per cent of small companies have profits of less than £50,000. I presume 94 per cent of investors invest in these companies and have small returns on their dividends. How many taxpayers will be involved in paying this £60 million?

Given that the Taoiseach has identified a saving of £60 million will he identify the sectors from which the money will come? As regards pension funds we are happy our pensions are relatively secure. However, people who have invested in pension funds for a number of years are coming out with small pensions and this proposal is giving rise to major concern. Will the Taoiseach say how it will affect pensioners who are worried about the stability of their pension fund?

The Taoiseach dwelt extensively on corporation tax. All small businesses in the UK are taxed at the rate of 21 per cent, while the top rate of corporation tax is 31 per cent. As a result business in England is becoming much more competitive. Investors and business people who had businesses on both sides of the Irish Sea say there is a more investment friendly environment on the British side given the social costs associated with creating jobs on this side. I welcome the reduction in corporation tax but we must move faster.

(Dublin West): Phasing out the tax credit on dividends, may mask somewhat the extraordinary cuts in corporation tax. The Government should explain this to the hard pressed PAYE worker. After ten years of extraordinary profitability in business — increasing at the rate of about 10 per cent per annum — with no restraint on profits, while the incomes of PAYE workers were battened down to a real increase of 1 per cent per year, the Government gives a massive £107 million by means of the cut in corporation tax and capital acquisitions tax, which can only be seen as benefiting speculators who play the Stock Exchange in large measure. Will the Government explain to the PAYE worker this extraordinary disparity in the treatment meted out here? A massive £5 billion in profits is sent out of this country to their headquarters by multinational companies without let or hindrance every year. Between £1 billion and £2 billion is invested abroad by Irish nationals for speculative purposes. I am not convinced by the Taoiseach's explanation that 94 per cent of the businesses affected by corporation tax are small. Has the Government even considered that in giving such large hand outs to big business and the rich who are the main beneficiaries, it should put in place a mechanism whereby the extraordinary profits they will now earn will be invested here as opposed to swelling further Ansbacher accounts?

I think the Taoiseach was being demagogic in some of his references to pension funds and was almost becoming emotional in his "brave boy on the burning deck" style attempt to take on the evil barons of the pension funds and how he was going to put everything right. I remind the Taoiseach the people we are talking about are pensioners and the prospective pensioners, people who actually get money from pensions. They are the people that the £60 million will come from. The bulk of dividends nowadays is paid to pension funds of one kind or another, the so called well known institutional investors, the grey men in the grey suits who represent pensioners or potential pensioners. This £60 million the Taoiseach proposes we take will come out of the funds that will be used to pay pensions to people who are not fortunate enough to have a public sector pension. If there was a proposal to introduce some form of clawback, the effect of which would be to reduce suddenly the source of the funds from which public sector pensions would be paid, there would be an outcry and the Taoiseach would not be as brave in his defence of his proposals. Given that we are talking about pensions which are paid in the private sector, through the intermediary of a pension fund which is administered by law, the Taoiseach is able to conjure up the picture of people running these funds for some benefit other than the recipients of the pensions. I do not believe that is the case. It is important this issue should not be presented as the Taoiseach versus the pension funds. It is a case of the Taoiseach versus the pensioners and the would be pensioners and £60 million of their money being taken away by an arbitrary change in tax practice that is not justified on principle. It would be justified to reduce the tax credit in a digressive way in line with the digressive reduction over the same period and at the same stages as the rate of corporation tax. To reduce the tax credit over two years while reducing corporation tax over ten years or more is not fair and is in effect, depriving pensioners of the future of a tax treatment benefit that pensioners of the past received. It is changing the rules so far as pensioners who made contributions in the past were concerned. They assumed there would be constancy in the treatment of the dividend income for tax purposes that was the source of the pension they would anticipate receiving. Changing the principle in an arbitrary way, as is now being done here, is unfair to future pensioners.

Is the Taoiseach aware that there are 160,000 businesses, a considerable number of which under the Companies Act fall into the category of sole trader? Is he also aware that while small businesses — the backbone of the country — employ more than 400,000 people, approximately 97 per cent employ fewer than 50 people? In many instances the owner's expertise is limited which is a considerable constraint. While the proposed reduction in the rate of corporation tax to 25 per cent is welcome, it is a source of concern that 94 per cent of small businesses have incomes of less than £50,000. That is a clear indication of their determination to survive despite the bureaucracy.

In offering an employee £200 an employer must give the State £120. This anomaly in the system should have been rectified in the budget. While the State provides considerable assistance in the industrial sector there are no grants available in the services sector. Employers in this sector should be compensated by way of tax breaks. While I welcome the proposed reduction in corporation tax to 25 per cent many small businesses will not benefit. In general, they have been overlooked.

Rates are a form of indirect taxation, a topic raised by Deputy Reynolds. Businesses are required to pay sums up to £10,000. The amount payable should be assessed on profits, not property values.

Deputy Bruton either misunderstands this measure or is deliberately seeking to misrepresent it. People invest in pension funds to receive a pension. Part of the income comes from dividends. After tax profits, out of which dividends are paid, will increase considerably as a result of the changes announced by the Government. These include the reduction in the rate of corporation tax and the partial abolition of the tax credit available for dividends. This represents a partial clawback by the Revenue Commissioners. The £60 million involved will be available to the Government to reduce the tax burden on the PAYE sector. Deputy Bruton therefore is being mischievous and his comments are inaccurate and unhelpful to the PAYE sector. Pensioners will be net beneficiaries. I cannot understand why Deputy Bruton will not support this measure.

It was recommended in that Deputy's document.

Will the Taoiseach now explain it to us?

In relation to the sum of £60 million, most of the money is held in pension funds or life assurance funds, although some individuals will be affected.

It is a pensioner's tax.

As the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, said, most of the companies involved will gain substantially through higher profits as a result of the proposed changes under which they will have a reduced tax liability.

They will come out of fresh air? They have to come from somewhere.

The figure of £60 million has to be compared to total savings well in excess of £400 million in moving from a rate of 36 per cent to 12.5 per cent. The companies concerned will find themselves in a far better tax position. There would be no justification for offloading it on to pensioners. The State stands to lose well over £400 million as a result of the proposed measures.

How will the profits be spent?

For the benefit of PAYE taxpayers.

(Dublin West): They will be transferred out of the country by big businesses and rogue investors.

High quality jobs have been created in companies such as IBM and 3Com in the Deputy's constituency.

Although there may be 160,000 listed companies, 55,000 are actively trading, approximately half of which do not pay tax as they are not making substantial sums following the removal of directors' fees. Some have tried to suggest that small companies are having a difficult time but the reality is that some 94 per cent of companies will pay tax at the rate of 25 per cent. They do not pay tax at high rates.

What is the tax yield?

The overall yield this year will be £1,690 million.

How much of this will be paid by the 94 per cent?

Multinationals and companies based in the IFSC account for the remaining 6 per cent.

Many of those companies pay tax at the rate of 10 per cent. I do not have the figure sought by Deputy Howlin.

In accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day I am now required to put the following question: "That Financial Resolution No. 7 be agreed to".

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 51.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Blaney, Harry.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Doherty, Seán
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moffatt, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Flynn, Noel.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wade, Eddie.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Sheehan.

    Question declared carried.

    Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Hugh.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.

    Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.O'Keeffe, Jim.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Yates, Ivan.

    In accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day I am required to put the following question: "That Financial Resolution No. 8 is hereby agreed to".

    Question put and declared carried.