Results 8,001-8,020 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: —— that this particular restriction has worked as intended. Various other extraneous comments were made about the banking system and alleged arrangements therein. First, had Deputy Burton been responsible as Minister for Finance for the banking system on 30 September last, the banks would have gone over a cliff by now. I certainly will not hazard——

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: —— pension fund moneys in investments that are not soundly based for the pension fund concerned. Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Does this pertain to amendment No. 24?

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: In respect of the materials pertaining to the amendment, I am agreeable to recommital. Bill recommitted in respect of section 21.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: First, there was an independent cost-benefit analysis prepared in respect of this relief for Cork County Council.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Yes. I can arrange for that to be done. I really deplore Deputy Burton's suggestions of corruption in respect of developers. On the section, it is not a tax incentive for property developers. It is a scheme to remove and relocate industrial facilities involved in the regeneration of urban docklands because of health and safety concerns that arise under legislation in the Seveso directive....

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: In reply to Deputy Bruton first, there was one meeting at official level with one company on this matter, not a sequence of meetings. The clawback provision is written into the legislation.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I will draw the Deputy's attention to it in a minute. The scheme is, of course, subject to EU approval. It is good that the European Commission will have to test the clawback provision for its robustness. In response to Deputy Morgan, in this instance we are talking about a regeneration programme specifically drawn up by a local authority. It is not a question of planning around the...

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The relevant provisions can be found at section 380V and 380W.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Deputies will appreciate that I am somewhat slow in responding, as I am not briefed for Committee Stage.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The purpose of the scheme is urban regeneration. There is no requirement in respect of non-urban regeneration. Section 380W states clearly that where the allowance under the sections has been made to any person in respect of expenditure incurred on the provision of machinery or plant or the construction of a building or structure that was sold by the person without the machinery, building...

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Market value is based on the date when the relocation starts but the final adjustment is made by reference to the actual sale price of the lands. It is the actual market price rather than a notion of past market values.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The date on which the relocation starts is the date for fixing the market value. In other words, a notional value is fixed at the start of the relocation but an adjustment is made by reference to the actual sale price agreed.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I am still trying to compose a reply to Deputy Bruton's question.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: On that issue, it is prospective in effect. It is subject to the existence of an urban regeneration plan developed by the relevant local authority. The market values will be determined when the relief is claimed and the relocation is made. The final payment represents the actual market value for the lands in question. Past market values are irrelevant to the measure.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: As Deputy Burton knows, the market value is always what a willing purchaser will give a willing vendor in an open market. This must be determined. In this context it is not a matter of going back to past values. This is a prospective relief and the market value is fixed by reference to what value is attached at the time of the relocation. There is provision for an adjustment where the...

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I was going to reply on the matter. It is clear we have restricted the legislation with regard to any suggestion of a productivity gain by the relocating enterprise, any suggestion of an additional benefit from the sale of lands and also in the non-use of the new facilities. We have attempted to deal with those matters.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I do not understand how one could incentivise the removal without giving the person providing the service the incentive to replace it with a facility that was of no greater advantage to the enterprise than the pre-existing facility.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The CGT and CAT rates were increased by 2% and the 1% levy did not apply to deposit interest. The 3% increase as provided for in section 26 was necessitated by general budgetary constraints. I was influenced by the fact that general levels of deposits in banks are very high currently.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (17 Dec 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The legislation at present requires that banks issue a certificate if requested. Deputy Bruton is looking for a more positive obligation on the banks.