Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1975

Vol. 283 No. 6

Allocation of Time: Motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders

(1) consideration of Government business be not interrupted at the time fixed for taking Private Members' Business on and from Wednesday, 9th July, 1975, until the adjournment for the Summer Recess;

(2) the proceedings on Financial Motion No. 3 of the Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 22nd July, 1975 by putting from the Chair forthwith the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion; and a Member of the Government shall be called on not later than 9.15 p.m. on that day to conclude the debate;

(3) in the case of each of the following Bills where the proceedings have not already concluded the Question(s) necessary to bring them to a conclusion shall be put from the Chair at the time and on the day indicated; and the Question to be put from the Chair shall be (as the case may require) in relation to Committee Stage ‘That (all amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to and (as amended) is reported to the House' and in relation to the Fourth and Fifth Stages ‘That (all amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and) the Bill is hereby passed':

Wealth Tax Bill, 1975—Committee Stage—2.15 p.m. on Thursday, 17th July, 1975, Committee, Fourth and Fifth Stages—10.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 30th July, 1975;

Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1975— Second Stage—9.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 23rd July, 1975, Committee, Fourth and Fifth Stages—10.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 23rd July, 1975;

(4) in the case of each of the following Bills where the proceedings on the Second Stage have not already concluded the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion shall be put from the Chair on the expiration of one hour from the commencement of the debate on the Second Stage; and the proceedings on the remaining Stages if not already concluded shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiration of one hour from the commencement of the debate on the Committee Stage by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion and the Question to be put from the Chair shall be (as the case may require) ‘That (all amendments set down by the Member in charge of the Bill and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) (the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to and (as amended) is reported to the House and (all amendments set down by the Member in charge of the Bill, including any requiring Recommital and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and (Recommital and Fourth Stages are hereby completed and) the Bill is hereby passed:

Agricultural Credit Bill, 1975, Employment Premium Bill, 1975, Gaeltacht Industries (Amendment) Bill, 1975, Turf Development Bill, 1975, Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 1975;

(5) the time to be allowed for consideration of the motion in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to the Agreement establishing an International Energy Programme and the motion in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries approving the draft of the Elections of Conservators (Postponement) Order, 1975 shall not exceed two hours in each case; and if the proceedings in each case have not already concluded at the expiration of the allotted time the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion shall be put forthwith from the Chair; provided that the provisions of Standing Order 123 relating to the postponement of divisions shall be applied to any division demanded.

(6) the time to be allotted for the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates for the year ending 31st December, 1975 for Agriculture, Labour, Industry and Commerce and Transport and Power, introduced on 4th July, 1975, shall not exceed 1½ hours in each case; and if the proceedings have not already concluded at the expiration of the allotted time the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion in each case shall be put forthwith from the Chair.

In moving the motion standing in my name, I would like to explain to the Dáil the background of, and the necessity for, such a comprehensive motion. Its object is to allocate the time of the House to essential business over this week and the next three weeks, after which the House will I hope rise for the summer recess.

I would like firstly to emphasise that a good deal of the business of the House is arranged, not by dictation by the Government, but by agreement. Obviously it is the Government who decide on the initiation of legislation and other measures, but the Government endeavour by means of informal contacts between the Whips to order the sequence of business, or the time of commencement or interruption of any particular item on any particular day, in such a way as will not cause difficulty to the Opposition; and in the normal way if the Opposition indicate for instance their wish for the postponement of any item due to the indisposition or unavoidable absence of their spokesman, this is conceded as a matter of course if at all possible. Similarly, Opposition requests for special debates, for example, on Northern Ireland or on the economic situation, have been regularly met and the hours requested by the Opposition regularly conceded out of Government time. I accept that the same conventions were respected by the previous Government.

Mr. G. Collins

Thanks.

Mr. Kelly

The Government may, however, claim credit for an innovation showing its willingness to give the Opposition every opportunity of expression: namely, the recently adopted Standing Order under which time is given for Private Members' Business throughout the calendar year rather than merely in the short period when financial business is not being discussed.

Until now the Government on only one occasion availed of their right under this same Standing Order to appropriate Private Members' Time without agreement; and the consequence has been that up to today, with only half this calendar year over, 46½ hours have been given to Private Members' Business, compared with an average of only 17½ hours per entire calendar year in the years 1968-74. This does not take into account the one-and-a-half hours to be devoted to Private Members' Business tonight if this motion has not been passed before 6.30 p.m. Moreover, every three-hour Private Members' Debate resulting in a division, as almost all do, costs the Government a further 15 minutes for the taking of the vote. In all, it is true to say that under the new order roughly 25 per cent of normal sitting hours on Tuesday and Wednesday is given up by the Government for business determined by the Opposition.

This circumstances makes the Government's task in the Dáil peculiarly difficult when, as now, very substantial reforming legislation is being enacted along with the normal quantity of routine legislation. For this reason, on the Government's instruction, I proposed to the Opposition verbally last March and again by letter to Deputy Lalor on 2nd April that the Committee Stage of the three capital taxation Bills should be taken in a Special Committee such as is envisaged by Standing Order 90 and such as had formerly been used for such Bills as the Value-Added Tax Bill, 1971.

It seemed to us that these Bills were ideally suited to such treatment, and that the obvious thing was to have their sections discussed in a special Committee by about a dozen Deputies from both sides of the House —Deputies with special experience and knowledge of economic and fiscal matters—while the main body of the Dáil got on with other business; the whole Dáil of course had already debated these Bills very fully at Second Stage, and would subsequently have dealt again with these Bills anyway at the Report and Final Stages.

We were all the more hopeful of agreement to take these Bills in special committee, since the informal All-Party Committee on Reform of Dáil Procedure, presided over in the time of the last Government by Deputy O'Malley and containing a Fianna Fáil majority, had recommended that more Bills should be sent to special committees, and had said that Bills so referred need not be of a purely technical nature. The Government proposal was however rejected by the Opposition in a letter from Deputy Lalor to myself of 18th April last. The reason given was that "extremely important taxation measures of this kind are not appropriate for transfer to a small special committee of the House".

I might insert here for the benefit of those who do not realise it that a Special Committee of that kind would have been no less accessible to the Press and the public than a Committee Stage debate in the House.

On a former occasion, on the completion of the Second Stage of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973, the Government had suggested a special committee for the Committee Stage of that Bill, but this proposal was rejected on two grounds: that too many Deputies were interested in it, and that it had an "ideological" content which disqualified it for treatment by a special committee. In fact the Committee Stage of that Bill has up to now attracted contributions from only a small number of Opposition Deputies, who could very easily have been accommodated in a special committee; and it is a fair comment that if the only Bills which the Opposition are willing to co-operate in sending to a special committee are Bills of a relatively unimportant, ideologically neutral nature, of interest to few Deputies if any at all, the purpose of such committees is lost, since such Bills would pass Committee Stage in the body of the full Dáil in a very short time anyway. In fact only one Bill—the Bill to set up a Law Commission—has been sent to a special committee in this Dáil and the frequently uttered hope for an extended committee system remains unfulfilled because of the attitude of the present Opposition to what effectively was their own recommendation three years ago.

Having failed to get agreement on a special committee, the Government instructed me to propose to the Opposition Whips and to the Opposition spokesman on Finance, Deputy Colley, that a timetable might be mutually agreed between Government and Opposition on the disposal of the three capital taxation Bills.

I repeatedly asked them to suggest the number of days or hours they wanted for each Stage of each Bill, indicating that the Government would agree to any reasonable proposal—inviting them, therefore, virtually to draw up their own timetable for the disposal of the Government business. These approaches were however rejected. It is true that, after the Committee Stage of the Capital Gains Tax Bill had ended, agreement was secured on a timetable for concluding the remaining Stages of that Bill, but I could get no agreement of any kind for disposing of the Wealth Tax Bill or the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill.

Moreover, it became obvious that the Opposition proposed to delay the financial legislation for as long as possible, and beyond the point of reasonable debate; the worst instance being section 2 of the Wealth Tax Bill, on which after 18 hours of debate, the Government were obliged to move the closure. It is true that no exception could be taken to the Opposition's handling of the debate on the Report Stage of the Capital Gains Tax Bill; but in view of recent experience in the case of the Wealth Tax Bill, the Government could have no confidence that if the business proceeded in an open-ended debate, the tactic of deliberately prolonging debate to an intolerable extent would not be again resorted to.

In all these circumstances—the refusal of a special committee and of an agreed timetable, and the likelihood of indefinite obstruction, aggravated by the considerable human strain on Deputies and on the staff of the House throughout the unusually long sittings of the last six weeks or so—the Government feel obliged to assert their right to impose a timetable for the despatch of the business which in the Government's view needs to be disposed of before the House rises. This business does not include the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill, which the Government propose to leave until after the resumption, but it includes the Wealth Tax Bill, and the Finance Bill; and several other items, most of which, however, are, or so the Government expect, uncontroversial and likely to be disposed of quickly.

The major item is of course the Wealth Tax Bill, and for the remainder of the Committee Stage, to which 44 hours of debate have already been devoted, the Government propose to devote the rest of today after the disposal of this motion, together with the major part of four more sitting days: the Report Stage and Final Stage of the Bill will get the major part of three further sitting days; and between the end of the Committee Stage and the taking up of the Report Stage a week will intervene. The Government believe that this amount of time, if properly used, will be enough for ample and effective debate of all sections and amendments; the responsibility for this will, however, lie with the Opposition.

To the Finance Bill the major part of another day is being allotted. As the Bill contains only two sections of substance, and since the proposals to which these sections will give effect have already been discussed at length in the budget debate, the Government consider this sufficient. The Government are of course not prepared to allow the Second Stage of the Finance Bill to be turned into the occasion for yet another budget debate.

For the other items, admittedly arbitrary times have been allotted. The Government believe that some of these items, being of a routine, uncomplicated and uncontroversial nature, should pass in normal conditions in well under the times allotted by the motion. Any Deputies who have experience of such Bills will know that Bills of this kind frequently pass in a matter of a few minutes. On the other hand, if a genuine difficulty should arise in connection with any of these items—such as to make it evident that it cannot be properly considered in the time allotted—the Government will be willing to agree with the Opposition on a reasonable extension of that time.

I conclusion I would appeal to the House to try to make this system of time allocation work well over the coming few weeks. I believe that if it were seen to operate satisfactorily, the system of allocating time to a number of items of business for periods of roughly a month ahead might become usual, though of course it would be desirable for such allocations to be agreed rather than imposed. I think both sides of the House and the public would greatly benefit from the more orderly and more rational despatch of business which such a system would bring with it.

Mr. J. Lynch

This motion, which the Parliamentary Secretary has just proposed, is euphemistically called a time motion but we know well what it is: it is a guillotine motion, and we know too that such a motion should be used sparingly and with due consideration for the rights of the Opposition.

This guillotine motion has been described by the Parliamentary Secretary as a comprehensive one and, indeed, it is so comprehensive that it literally cuts a swathe through the whole process of Parliamentary democracy and, if for no other reason, in the interests of parliamentary democracy we intend to oppose this motion and oppose it vigorously.

This motion is being introduced at a time when the country is facing serious economic difficulties. I can well understand the anxiety of the Government to get out of this House as quickly as possible to avoid the criticisms that we are bringing forward of the Government's mishandling of the economic situation. This motion undermines the authority of the Dáil in the worst possible fashion. Procedure in the Dáil is governed by Standing Orders and this motion, of course, is designed to set aside Standing Orders so that the Government can achieve their purpose.

Most parliaments operate by way of set rules of procedure and/or Standing Orders, but parliaments operate as well by way of precedent, and I suggest to the Government that this is a very, very dangerous precedent for them to adopt, and particularly in this case. It is dangerous, first of all, because of its unnecessarily comprehensive nature embracing, as it does several Bills, including Bills which are already before the House. I can understand the propensity of a government to shorten a debate or a series of debates on Bills that cause some difficulty for them. They may do so because of that very fact that it causes difficulty, because they feel that exposure of the terms of these Bills will not redound to the credibility or the standing of the Government. They may also, of course, and justifiably to some extent, seek a closure because they feel that a Bill has been debated for a sufficiently long time, and that is the usual procedure, but this motion goes far further than that. It is going to shut out reasonable parliamentary debate on a series of Bills, reasonable debate over a period of not less than four weeks at the end of which, I take it, it will be the intention of the Government to propose the adjournment of the Dáil for the Summer Recess. Therefore, because of the impending Summer Recess, the Opposition will be denied any opportunity of redressing in the Dáil whatever mistakes will have been made in the drafting and presentation and implementation of the provisions of a variety of Bills.

There is no use in telling the Opposition that these Bills will have to go to the Seanad. If the Dáil will have been in recess, as I expect it will, then whatever mistakes will have been made in the processing of these Bills in the Dáil will have to be perpetuated in the Seanad because there will be no opportunity for the Dáil to amend these Bills and I do not think I have to tell the Dáil that any amendment made in the Seanad would have to be approved by the Dáil. I assume that in the course of events these Bills would go before the Seanad towards the end if not at the very end of the session here in the Dáil. If not all of them, certainly some of them would have to be debated in the Seanad as they left the Dáil whether amended or otherwise, and amendments will be practically impossible in the conditions of the timetable now being imposed by the Government.

The second dangerous precedent is this and it is more important and more likely in this particular case, that an Opposition who will become the next Government will naturally have regard to that undesirable, and I might say in the circumstances of the damage being done to parliamentary democracy, disastrous precedent that we are now debating. An incoming Government will in these circumstances be justified, if justification is the word that one could apply to this, in bringing forward similar motions in the future, motions that will cut out adequate and reasonable parliamentary debate and, as well all know, this could have a snowballing effect. If in the event a succeeding Government is put out of office and the new Opposition come in then they will be disposed to using this precedent and perhaps even more ruthlessly than the present Government are doing it now. Therefore, we are facing a most serious situation as far as parliamentary democratic procedure is concerned here on this occasion.

A third and most serious precedent is being created. This motion refers to a Bill which is already for some weeks before the Dáil—a Wealth Tax Bill—a Bill which we are debating at length because we believe that that Bill is inherently and particularly at the present time damaging to our entire economy and it is not only our right but our parliamentary and democratic duty to ensure that that Bill will be so amended at least to do the least possible damage to our economy, and this is exactly what is being done by our very effective and I might say constructive and responsible opposition to this Wealth Tax Bill.

But, that apart, other Bills have been mentioned here: the Finance Bill which contains, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, two main provisions. We do not know if that is to be the end of it, but I will come back to that in a second. Paragraph 4 of this motion refers to five other Bills only one of which has already been circulated. The Parliamentary Secretary said that these other Bills not yet circulated will be of a routine nature and not likely to be complicated or controversial. Do we know that at this stage? Do the Government know whether these will be routine, uncomplicated and non-controversial?

Let us examine these Bills as they are and as they appear on this motion. The Employment Premium Bill—yet —we were given an indication in the Minister's budget statement a fortnight ago that this Bill is likely to contain proposals providing for an employment premium of £12 up to a limited period and for £6 for a more limited period thereafter to employers who can re-employ redundant workers. Quite rightly our spokesman and subsequent speakers from these benches commended the Minister on that initiative as being imaginative and possibly useful in the event. However, we have not seen that Bill yet. During the course of the budget debate I suggested that the proposition as put before the Dáil might not be the most equitable and efficacious way of providing a stimulus for the reemployment of redundant workers. I suggested that in certain circumstances a firm which was in a position to employ lowly paid labour could have an advantage over a firm in which the level of wages would be somewhat higher. I suggested that the premium might be based not on a fixed rate but rather on a percentage rate. I believe that if the Bill goes forward in the manner indicated by the Minister for Finance, that is on a flat rate, we would be entitled to put forward an argument, and amendments if necessary, to change the flat rate to one of a percentage. I am certain that the time-table put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary will not allow for adequate debate, much less debate on amendments.

We do not know what else will be in this Bill. I do not know whether any member of the Government knows what else will be in it. As of now we do not know where the money required to pay these premiums is going to come from. We do not know what, if any, provision there will be in this Bill which will be in the form of taxation, and this Government have imposed taxation by rather unorthodox methods in the past. Just before last Christmas they——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Leader of the Opposition will agree that the debate is limited to the arrangements of business set out in the motion.

Mr. J. Lynch

Sir, on the Order Paper before you there are four Bills mentioned which we have not yet seen and on which we are asked to restrict debate. In so far as those Bills are mentioned I suggest I am entitled to indicate what I think is likely to be in them, why I think restriction on debate on them is undesirable, and I propose to continue in that vein unless I am ruled out of order, and I do not think I am.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Leader of the Opposition will agree equally that the merits or otherwise of the business would not arise in this case.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not think you can quote precedent in this case, sir, because never yet, to my knowledge nor I am sure to the knowledge of anybody else, and few other people have more experience in this House than I have, have we been subjected to a closure motion on legislation that has not yet even been prepared, as far as I know, certainly not published and not in the hands of Deputies.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Lynch

Surely Deputies are entitled to comment upon this position?

Mr. Colley

It is an incredible proposal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All the Chair is pointing out is that the motion is concerned with a time allocation.

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, a time allocation on the subject matter of the Employment Premium Bill, the subject matter of the Gaeltacht Industries Bill, of the Turf Development Bill and the Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill and on the Agricultural Credit Bill which has been circulated. None of the other four have been circulated. I am entitled to argue that it is unreasonable to impose a time limit on these Bills, Bills the content of which we do not yet know, and to give my reasons why, because of this, we are entitled to oppose this motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not disputing the Deputy's right to do that. All the Chair is pointing out is that going into the merits of a Bill is not in order.

Mr. J. Lynch

If you are not disputing my right to do that, Sir, I propose to proceed to exercise my right.

I mentioned that we do not know fully what this Employment Premium Bill will contain, whether it will contain means of providing money to pay the employment premiums and, if so, will the extra money be raised by means of a device which was used—the Imposition of Duties (Order) Bill—when £27 million extra taxation was collected by the Minister for Finance before Christmas, I am entitled to comment on that at least.

The Gaeltacht Industries (Amendment) Bill I should imagine will at least provide for an increase in the allocation of capital moneys to Gaeltarra Éireann. This is purely speculation on my part. I do not know what else this Bill will contain, in what way it might offend against existing legislation, for example whether it would be possible to apply grants to Gaeltarra Éireann to industries situated outside the Gaeltacht. I do not know that yet.

The Turf Development Bill I am sure will be a wide-ranging one notwithstanding the fact that I anticipate that it too will make some provision for the increased capitalisation of Bord na Móna. What else will it do? We do not know. What other provisions will it contain? We have been given no indication.

We have not seen the Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill either. We do not know what it will contain. We do not know what it will refer to at all. It may provide for extra capitalisation or a change in the form of capitalisation of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta. It may provide for giving power to Nítrigin Éireann to engage in the exploitation of minerals or other resources on our soil or in the seas surrounding our land.

Has the Employment Premium Bill come before the Government? If it has, has it been cleared? Has it been sent to the Parliamentary Draftsman and, if so, when can we expect to see it? The same applies to each of the other three Bills. If this motion is passed not only will the Opposition be forced to limit debate on these Bills but so also will Government Deputies who, like ourselves, have not seen these Bills. I believe there is no process whereby they can see Bills before Members of the Opposition. Will they be forced to go through the Division Lobbies in support of limiting their rights, as well as ours, of debate on these Bills? Will they be forced to go through the Division Lobbies like sheep, not only like sheep but like blindfolded sheep, not knowing what their Government have in mind by way of legislation on these matters?

I have asked for these specific questions to be answered. Have these Bills which have not yet been circulated been agreed by the Government? Have they agreed the heads of the Bills? Has the Parliamentary Draftsman drafted them? Has the draft in draft form come back to the Government and has it been approved by the Government in that form? Has any one of these Bills gone through that process? We have been given no information or no indication whatever of what the position is in relation to those Bills.

May I refer now to another aspect of this motion? Paragraph 4 provides that:

Where the proceedings on the Second Stage have not already concluded the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion shall be put from the Chair on the expiration of one hour from the commencement of the debate on the Second Stage.

The debate on the Second Stage commences when the Minister opens up his brief, reads its contents and explains the contents of the Bill in the House. We have no indication here of how long the Minister will occupy in presenting the legislation to the House. It may well be that it will occupy most of the hour. The Parliamentary Secretary or somebody else might say no, that they are technical Bills and would be uncontroversial Bills. If they are technical and uncontroversial Bills nevertheless they need explanation and exposure of their contents by the Minister.

The House will be denied that if the Minister limits himself to too short a time and, therefore, the Second Reading debate will be inconclusive and incomplete. Should the Minister take an undue proportion of that one hour's time it will leave only a very limited time for the chief spokesman of the Opposition on that particular subject, with no time whatever for a second speaker from the Opposition benches.

That is serious, but not as serious as the second part of paragraph 4 of this motion, which states:

the proceedings on the remaining Stages if not already concluded shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiration of one hour from the commencement of the debate on the Committee Stage by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion.

Further, and this is what I think is a most dangerous precedent, it says:

That (all amendments set down by the Member in charge of the Bill and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) (the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to and (as amended) is reported to the House and (all amendments set down by the Member in charge of the Bill, including any requiring Recommittal, and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and) Recommittal and Fourth Stages are hereby completed and) the Bill is hereby passed.

It may be that reasonable and necessary amendments would be proposed by the Opposition but these, of course, will automatically fall. It appears that any amendments deemed to be necessary by the Minister responsible will obviously not be fully debated and any amendments that have not been debated, irrespective of their merits and even irrespective of an explanation of what they mean, will willy-nilly have to be passed by the House and not only that but they will be sent to the Seanad. This House will have no opportunity whatever, because of the forthcoming recess, to mend the hand of the Minister or to correct mistakes that might have been made in the preparation by the Government or the parliamentary draftsman or in the processing of the Bill by this House.

Mistakes have been made in the past. Mistakes have often been cured in the Seanad. Indeed, many times mistakes have not been cured until amending legislation was subsequently introduced. We have enough experience of the matter of drafting Bills, of the manner of debating them and of ensuring full debate to ensure that they procure the desired results, that they do not offend against the Constitution and that they do not offend against existing legislation, to know that these things happen and that some Bills have offended previous legislation, that they failed to procure the results desired by the Minister and the House. They have often needed amendment, and often those defects were spotted in the Seanad and cured in that House. They were subsequently endorsed by the Dáil. There will be no opportunity whatever for this democratic process to be pursued on this occasion.

It is highly undesirable, to say the least of it, that this House should be asked to agree to a motion to foreclose debate on Bills, to preclude debate on the amendment of Bills, to preclude the possibility of Opposition amendments being considered and with the very possible undesired results. As I said at the outset, this is a serious time for our economy. Much of the content of these Bills will have an effect one way or another on the saving of our economy, if that can be done by the Government. Certainly, in advancing the spheres of the economy which will be covered by these Bills, the agricultural industry, the Gaeltacht industry, turf development, the manufacture of fertilisers or the provision through Nítrigin Éireann of the processing of our natural resources, all these impinge greatly on our economy. In present times, when that economy is floundering under the maladministration of this Government then at least in these particular instances we are entitled to have these matters examined, debated adequately and if necessary amended in the Dáil.

As I said, this is a negation of democracy. It is destroying parliamentary democracy in a manner that has never been done before. I should like to comment on a couple of the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening statement which I can describe as being more truly special pleading than any statement I ever heard read in this House. In the first place, he claims credit for the innovations by the Government's willingness to give the Opposition every opportunity of expression and later on, gratuitously, he accepted that the manner in which this was being done was as a result of recommendations made by the committee headed by Deputy O'Malley. These recommendations were made before this Government came into power. They had no alternative but to adopt them.

Even in this respect, if there was an innovation and if there were so many hours, 46½ hours already, allocated to Private Members' time, how many extra hours have we been willing to sit in the Dáil since this Government came into office? We have been sitting long days on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. We have also been sitting on Fridays. We have not demurred from this procedure because we felt all the time was necessary not only for the Government but certainly for us to expose the inadequacies of this Government. This special pleading of the Parliamentary Secretary does not wash against what is inherent in this motion, the establishment of undesirable and most damaging precedents and cutting across the parliamentary democratic procedure in a manner that was never yet witnessed in this country, and this from the so-called open Government.

Mr. B. Desmond

I must confess, having been in this House since 1965, that in relation to the ordering of business and with no disrespect whatever to the Leader of the Opposition, when I heard him talking about cutting through parliamentary democracy, by virtue of the fact that we have ordered a closure motion on the Wealth Tax Bill, which is the nett of what this is all about, I was bowled over by the sigh of relief from the Opposition benches that at long last we had done this.

Mr. Colley

If that is all it is why not propose it?

Mr. J. Lynch

Why not propose that?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Desmond.

Mr. B. Desmond

When Deputy Lynch used the phrase that we are undermining parliamentary democracy, that this is a negation of parliamentary democracy, that this is a disastrous motion and that wealth tax would be inherently damaging to the economy. I felt like reaching for a very large dose of salts from the Dáil restaurant because, quite frankly, I do not believe a word of it. I suppose we have to go through the motions this afternoon, we have to have a mock battle and we have to have a little bit of shadow boxing between the Opposition and the Government in relation to something that they all knew was coming for the past month and which, with due respect to Deputy Lynch—no finer practitioner in the art of parliamentary procedure than the Leader of the Opposition, a magnificent, competent leader in that regard—we all knew at Government level we would give sufficient rope to the Opposition to hang themselves from any part of Leinster House they might wish to in relation to this motion. We have done so. We have bent over backwards and we have sought agreement but have not been able to reach it. I personally as one of the Government Whips have the greatest personal regard for Deputy Lalor and Deputy Browne, both performing their jobs within the constraints of Opposition quite well on behalf of the party. I can understand that they were a bit irate when the Minister for Finance last night hogged some time and I thought he deserved a bit of a kick for that and Deputy Colley gave it to him but that is over and done with.

Deputy Lynch used the words "special pleading" but I would throw back the words "selective pleading" and suggest that it is necessary that we pass this motion as quickly as possible because I would hope we would not spend the rest of the evening debating this motion and then have to apply the closure to it because that would make a farce of parliament. It may well be that we shall have to do so. I would refer to the very strong comments made by Deputy Lynch in relation to the agriculture and NET legislation pending. I have not seen the Bills either but I can assure him, and it is clearly contained in the final statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Government will be willing to agree with the Opposition on a reasonable extension of that time and if there is anything particularly unique about the Employment Premium Bill, and no doubt it is quite a complicated issue and from my trade union experience I can see quite a number of complications in it——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Are you happy with it on First Stage?

Mr. B. Desmond

I am quite prepared to make representations on the Deputy's behalf to the Government and should anything particularly unusual arise in relation to these three Bills, the NET Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Employment Premium Bill, I have not the slightest doubt that Deputy Lalor and Deputy Browne can get together with Deputy Kelly and myself and work out an effective timetable for that. There will be no problems in that regard but what we will not do, and we do have a responsibility in Government, is hand over to the kind of spectacle we had here of section 2 of the Wealth Tax Bill being debated for a solid 18 hours until finally we had no option but reluctantly to bring in a closure motion because a Government has to have some sense of government. A Government cannot abdicate.

If I might make a few more brief points, the Dáil and indeed the Seanad have met on more occasions, have sat through more hours and had more debate in relation to a wide range of legislation than at any time in the period since the State was founded. This is imposing a strain on all Deputies and other members and particularly imposes a strain on the staff of both Houses of the Oireachtas. For example, looking at some of the Seanad debates, I find that for the first time in its history, it has now met on something like 42 occasions this year, because a great deal of material had to be sent to the Seanad because it could not be got through this House. The average in the history of the State has been about 35 times and by the time it finishes sitting it will have sat 60 times, a historical record.

For the first time in the history of the State Dáil Éireann has put in more hours, has given more time to the Opposition and has sought every possible agreement—this is why I talk about rope—and we have sat back patiently and tried to reach agreement. For instance, we made a suggestion in the case of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, Deputy Haughey being the spokesman for the party, and we suggested it in relation to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill and there was not a budge from the party in opposition. We repeatedly said that these two Bills could very usefully go to Select Committees. The Law Reform Commission Bill went to a Select Committee, of which I was appointed Chairman. We had a very co-operative session, notwithstanding the Galway by-election, and Deputy O'Malley turned up with his exceptional legal competence, as a former Minister, and was fully aware of the difficulties of that legislation and we were able to put through the Committee Stage of that Bill with great expedition but we did it in this House. We could not do it of course in relation to the Misuse of Drugs Bill, because apart from a few medical doctors on the other side of the House and a few laymen with a particular interest, together with some doctors on this side, virtually nobody of the 144 Members knows anything about the question of the misuse of drugs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will want to keep to the time arranged.

Mr. B. Desmond

With regard to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, we suggested a special committee for that Bill and now I discover to my amazement that the Fianna Fáil Party are showing an enormous desire to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible. I wonder why did they change their mind and I leave that question hanging in mid-air. They are screaming to get it through the House at the moment and yet they will not go to a special committee. In relation to this Wealth Tax Bill, there are three or four Deputies on the opposite side —Deputy O'Malley who I concede has competence and brilliance in relation to wealth tax measures and Deputy Colley, former Minister, who has shown a great mastery of the complexities of the Wealth Tax Bill, the Capital Gains Tax Bill and of the Capital Acquisitions Bill and Deputy de Valera who is fully confirmed in his knowledge of his ability to handle it, as he would think, well. Deputy Fitzpatrick is another who has shown exceptionally assiduous attention to the Bill, but if I may say so directly to the Opposition, quite apart from those Deputies and one or two others on our side, Deputy Esmonde, Deputy FitzGerald, Deputy Ryan and Deputy Fitzpatrick, nobody else has the foggiest idea of the complexities and technicalities of this Bill.

It was eminently reasonable that we should have sent this Bill in the House to a Joint Committee. It would have sat publicly. We made that offer to the Opposition and we were told no, these Bills are of such major ideological and national importance that they must be debated line by line in the full glare of national publicity and to the eternal boredom of the members of the Press Gallery. Therefore I do not accept at all the allegation of Deputy Lynch that in putting down this motion we are in any way undermining parliamentary democracy. We have simply set a timetable but we set it well in advance, to the end of July, and if things go bad we can revise it. I have no objection personally to sitting until the middle of August or September but I do think we have to have some regard for trying to get the business of this House through. We sought agreement from the Opposition; we got none. In no way do I blame the Opposition Whips for this; I do blame what I would call the consensus of attitude in the parliamentary party. People say —to use a colloquialism—"We will screw them one way or the other and this is the way we might as well do it." But it will not work.

I suggest to the House that as regards the other Bills they will be published quite quickly. For the most part they are capitalisation Bills and as we know from the initial announcements in relation to them there is no major ideological or controversial viewpoint emerging in regard to them. I have no doubt that the staff of this House have to be taken into consideration, both ushers and reporters, whether people are getting payments or not for it. They have to be taken into account also. We must bear in mind that we must resume after the Summer Recess and it is best now that we finish at the end of July having put the Wealth Tax Bill behind us.

The Government have been quite accommodating. We scrapped the idea of putting through the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill in this session; we will take it next session because we are determined to complete our programme. With due respect to the Fianna Fáil party's assumption that it was going to get a particular constituency benefit and kudos from its opposition to the many capital taxation measures, I believe it will go down in the history of the State as about the most misguided piece of opposition in the history of that party, and when future generations come to read of the emergence of new taxation measures in this House I think they will not regard the Fianna Fáil party as either republican or central or populist but rather as speaking over the past couple of months in this House for a couple of wealthy accountants who have been advising people on how to avoid capital taxation.

Mr. Lalor

Our party in Opposition are fully against this guillotine motion which, despite what Deputy Desmond said and what was said previously in the Parliamentary Secretary's lecture to the House covers up the fact that it deals with eight Bills. It means guillotining eight Bills through the House between now and 30th July, coupled with two motions and four very important Estimates. I have before me a record of the contributions made in this House by Deputies who are now on the Government side and by Deputies who are no longer on the Government side, of contributions made when the previous Government, on two occasions——

Mr. MacSharry

On a point of order, who is conducting business for the Government?

Mr. Kelly

I am.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Lalor

This motion is the greatest negation of democracy ever introduced in the House, and it is rather remarkable that, the motion having been introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, we cannot have a Minister present. Not one of the brilliant Cabinet can be here to stand over this motion.

I have been at the receiving end of lectures from the Parliamentary Secretary and I have listened to them in the House but because the Parliamentary Secretary has paid tribute to his opposite number over quite a while, I want to say that outside the House I find the parliamentary Secretary to be a gentleman but when it comes to performing his business as Parliamentary Secretary I am afraid I cannot say the same on his behalf. Putting his name to this motion is, I think, the greatest mistake he has ever made. He endeavours to present everything in a rational way but I do not think that anybody, even the Parliamentary Secretary with all his legal training, can justify before the House this type of guillotine motion which spells out that eight Bills—four of which, 50 per cent of those listed, have not yet come before the House for observation as the Leader of my party has just said—must go through the House before 30th July. These Bills are known or should be known to nobody except the Government: perhaps they have not come before the Government yet. They were all introduced hurriedly last Friday morning and although Friday's Official Report is not yet available I have a clear recollection that the Minister for Agriculture was not here and the introduction of his Bill was moved by the Minister for Labour who, peculiarly, was here. When I asked when the Bill would be circulated he quite brazenly said: "Next Tuesday or Wednesday". When I asked when the next Stage would be taken he replied: "The middle of next week". I asked if he could give any idea of what was in the Bill and he said: "Wait for the circulation of the Bill" or something of that nature. I cannot give the exact words as the Report is not yet available.

Generally, there was this rushed arrangement resulting in the Agricultural Credit Bill being introduced last Friday morning and the Minister for Agriculture was unaware of it. With due credit to the Minister for Agriculture he has ensured that the Bill has been circulated. I was watching this situation over the past few days, having been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary last Friday that a time motion was being introduced today. I was subsequently officially informed of it in the House and sought a copy and was informed that in the case of motions of this nature copies were not available. Subsequently, last Monday, I was presented with what was described as an incomplete copy subject to correction. I fully accept that: it is a very long motion and would have to be corrected on Monday by the Parliamentary Secretary's office. Later on Monday I got a typed, unrevised copy from the Dáil Office itself. The end product was a motion on the Order Paper yesterday which differed considerably as I see it from the draft copy which the Parliamentary Secretary gave me and also differed from the copy I got from the Dáil Office. I should like to know at what stage were the amendments made. Yesterday's Order Paper carried this motion and if one did not look carefully one would think today's Order Paper gave the same wording of the motion but, strangely, between yesterday and today the motion had again been changed. Yesterday's format was changed on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Colley

That does not matter: it is a simple, non-controversial motion.

Mr. Lalor

My understanding of the situation is that there is nothing in Standing Orders which makes any special provision for the introduction of a Government motion and it does appear to me to be becoming more and more the norm for the Government to find their own way to circumvent and overcome Standing Orders. This is most unfortunate and I should like the Ceann Comhairle to explain to me how these changes can be arranged under Standing Orders. I have studied Standing Order No. 28 which covers the matter. It provides that, by agreement with the Ceann Comhairle, motions and amendments may be made on shorter notice. I would like to know if it is not possible for the Opposition to be given an opportunity of making amendments. Having seen the blunders in the original motion I should like to know what provision there is for this side of the House to put in amendments. I am referring to the technicalities now. I should like to hear from the Chair at some stage how the Opposition are enabled to put in amendments.

We have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and the Assistant Whip coming in here and telling us this medicine is good for us. The Assistant Whip laughingly endeavoured to get across to us that we are more pleased with this motion than they are over there.

Mr. Kelly

Equally pleased.

Mr. Lalor

I do not think I am breaking confidence when I say the Parliamentary Secretary gave me to understand that I would be receiving telegrams of thanks from the wives of Fianna Fáil Deputies because of this motion appearing on the Order Paper. One thing the Parliamentary Secretary carefully refrained from mentioning today is the fact that he indicated that all of this business is urgent and needs to be cleared before the summer recess. I do not know why he did not mention that. I told him officially that, if the Government were anxious to get the Wealth Tax Bill before the summer recess, the Opposition were willing to sit through August and September to debate that measure.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

Hypocrisy.

Mr. Kelly

This is a deliberately maneouvred and concerted effort on the part of the Opposition to have it both ways. They want their "holliers" and they want——

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins)

Members must not interrupt. Everyone will get plenty of time to speak. There will be no closure while I am in the Chair.

Mr. Lalor

I do not know whether the Chair heard it or not, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs called me a hypocrite.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I spoke in general about hypocrisy. I did not mention the Deputy.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister is not willing to withdraw, but I take it as a compliment coming from the Minister.

Deputies

Hear, Hear.

Mr. Lalor

I have said what I told the Parliamentary Secretary and I stand over it. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs have just heard the Deputies on this side endorse my remarks.

Mr. Kelly

Not very heartily.

Mr. Colley

Draw us out. We are calling your bluff now.

Mr. G. Collins

Be man enough now to take out your motion, you unmannerly——

Acting Chairman

Deputies must cease interrupting. They will get an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Lalor

I did not interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary went into details purporting to show how the Opposition handling of business costs the Government time. The party Leader has just indicated quite clearly that at no stage—the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this—has he received any approaches from me as Opposition Whip to curtail time in any way. He orders the time and we accept it and we are willing at all times to give a sufficiency of time at all stages to deal with all business.

It is rather remarkable that the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with his request to refer Bills to a special committee indicated that he had been in communication orally and in writing with me as Whip of the Opposition Party. He said the reason given by Deputy Lalor in reply to him on 18th April was that extremely important taxation matters are not appropriate for transfer to a small special committee of the House. He changed this today. That is why I have repeated it now.

I notice he carefully avoided talking about the number of Fianna Fáil Deputies who have contributed to the Capital Gains Tax Bill. He paid a well-deserved tribute to the Members of this party and his colleague, Deputy Desmond, paid tribute to the number of Deputies who have debated the Capital Gains Tax Bill in detail and helped the Minister for Finance considerably. Having kicked the Minister for Finance in the groin, the Assistant Whip, Deputy Desmond, went out of his way to pay these tributes and to spell out specifically that the only people who seemed to know what they were talking about were Deputy Colley, Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy de Valera, Deputy O'Malley and some others from our side of the House. It was rather remarkable that he deliberately omitted any reference to the Minister for Finance and, quite honestly, I could not agree with him more because over the period during which we have been debating the Capital Gains Tax Bill the one man who proved he knows nothing about finance is the Minister for Finance. That is pretty well established now. It has been pretty well established in the light of the economic state of the country at the moment.

The Parliamentary Secretary said this Special Committee would be no less accessible to the public and the Press than the Dáil Chamber is. He went on to say that we had the case where the Bill setting up the Law Reform Commission had been discussed at Special Committee level. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me what publicity was given to the contributions made at that Select Committee.

Mr. Kelly

It is not my job to organise publicity.

Mr. Lalor

No, but it is the Parliamentary Secretary's job to check his facts before coming in here.

Mr. Kelly

The Press were perfectly entitled to go to that committee and they chose not to go because it was not important enough.

Mr. Lalor

The Parliamentary Secretary, like Beelzebub, quotes Scripture to suit himself and the Parliamentary Secretary, if there is some aspect of business that suits him, or something that has gone before that suits him, will use it, but he will leave out far more blatant things that do not measure up to his requirements. I suppose that is fair game from his point of view.

Mr. G. Collins

It is dishonest.

Mr. Lalor

The Parliamentary Secretary said they repeatedly asked the Opposition to suggest the number of days or hours they wanted for each stage of each Bill, indicating that the Government would agree with any reasonable proposals, inviting them therefore, virtually to draw up their own time table for the disposal of the Government business.

I fully accept that the Parliamentary Secretary said that to Deputy Colley and myself. When we were being offered that, no indication was given to me or to Deputy Colley or to anybody on this side of the House that an Agricultural Credit Bill, an Employment Premium Bill, a Gaeltacht Industries Bill, a Turf Development Bill and a Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill would be introduced and discussed. We are being asked to do the Government's job for them in the dark. We will not do the job for them. Despite the allegations made about the Opposition, it is quite obvious that if they followed our advice over the past year and a half to two years their job would have been done for them, reluctant as we are to give them that advice.

The Parliamentary Secretary came to me and asked me to create a time table for him. As he says, a good deal of the business of the House is arranged, not by dictation by the Government, but by agreement. I fully accept that is the main way business is done.

Mr. Kelly

And would still be done if it could be done, but it will be done with or without agreement. That is the Government's job.

Mr. G. Collins

Is it now? We will see.

Mr. Lalor

Two weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary came to me and asked me to come to some sort of an arrangement about the Capital Gains Tax Bill. We finally agreed that it would be cleared through the House by last night. With certain break periods we would have three full days and they should be sufficient to clear the Report Stage of the Capital Gains Tax Bill. I checked this out with our spokesman on Finance and this was agreed. Once the Minister for Finance knew there was a closing time on that Bill he became what he had not been for a short while, his old arrogant self. In justification of what I am saying the Parliamentary Secretary gives credit— and I admire him for it—to the manner in which the Opposition dealt with the Capital Gains Tax Bill.

On a number of occasions Deputy Colley drew attention to the fact that, once this agreement was reached, the Minister for Finance, who had become reasonable for a couple of days and had been willing to discuss things, automatically became his old arrogant self. Last night there was a vote at about 9.30 p.m. and the House started to deal with the Final Stage of the Bill at about 10 o'clock. There was a quarter of an hour left for debate on the Final Stage and the arrogant little Minister for Finance could not let that quarter of an hour go without strutting his words across the House. When challenged, after a dissertation lasting seven minutes, by Deputy Colley seeking the right to reply to him, he offered him half the remaining eight minutes. This is one of the handicaps the Parliamentary Secretary is labouring under. We have to put up with the arrogance of a number of Ministers in the House but when it comes to arranging business I will stand for none of that arrogance. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

It is true that no exception could be taken to the Opposition handling of the debate on the Report Stage of the Capital Gains Tax Bill.

I want to say categorically that we take exception to the Government's handling of it through their Minister for Finance.

Mr. Kelly

What I was trying to say was that if the rest of the financial business had been handled in the way that Report Stage was handled, there would be no need for this motion.

Mr. Lalor

The Government's response to legitimate, straightforward, unexceptional handling of a Bill by the Opposition is this guillotine motion. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that he hopes to be able to give the major part of the next four sitting days and the remaining hours this evening to the Committee Stage of the Wealth Tax Bill. With the knowledge we have of the conduct of the Minister for Finance when it comes to the allocation of time, there is nothing to stop him from using up most of that time operating his old propaganda exercise. We have last night's example.

The Parliamentary Secretary in his own lecturing way goes out of his way deliberately to write down in a prepared speech that the responsibility for the guillotining of eight Bills, two important Motions and four important Estimates rests with the Opposition. There is nothing the Parliamentary Secretary cannot persuade himself of if he sets out to do it.

Mr. Kelly

The whole country knows it.

Mr. Lalor

The whole country knows that the reason for this guillotine motion is that the Parliamentary Secretary has lost control of the back benchers in his own party.

Mr. Kelly

I have lost control of nothing.

Mr. G. Collins

He cannot keep them here.

Mr. Lalor

He is told to go to blazes day in and day out by Members on his own side.

Mr. Kelly

No. The Deputy's dreams are invading his waking hours.

Mr. Lalor

I am in the happy position that I can go to bed with an untroubled conscience and sleep. The Parliamentary Secretary said—and it was a big admission for him—that for the other items arbitrary times have been allotted. I am not putting those words in his mouth. He says they are arbitrary times but they are our responsibility.

I will not bring out the Oxford Dictionary of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs but I should like to quote from column 3255, Volume 255 of the Official Report. We had a similar motion on the Prohibition of Forcible Entry Bill, on 4th August, 1971—mark the date, 4th August. The spokesman I want to quote as opposing a guillotine motion to deal with that Bill, which at that stage was on Report, not at Second Stage or Committee Stage, was the present Minister for Lands, Deputy Fitzpatrick. He said:

The guillotine motion which has been proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary on instructions from the Government, is a rare parliamentary procedure.

It was rare even for Fianna Fáil. He went on:

It is a good thing it is rare because the object and the effect of the guillotine motion is to restrict Parliament in its deliberations on legislative proposals of the Government. This is the second time in the last ten years that such a motion has been proposed in this House.

I have not had time to check on the number of guillotine motions we have had from this Government. The Government, on 4th August, 1971, after days and days of debate on the Forcible Entry Bill, came in with a guillotine motion, on one Bill at Report Stage. We had Deputy Fitzpatrick saying:

This is the second time in the last ten years that such a motion has been proposed in this House. The previous occasion was on the Marts Bill, and I believe such a resolution has only been proposed in the House on a few occasions since the foundation of the State.

They are the arrogant Fianna Fáil people he was talking about.

Mr. Kelly

Deputy Fitzpatrick was talking to the motion.

Mr. G. Collins

The Parliamentary Secretary would do away with Parliament.

Mr. Lalor

We have now got the basis for Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's definition of "hypocrisy"—his own colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick. I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, as I told him two weeks ago, that we are willing to sit through August and September in order to see that the Wealth Tax Bill is a proper measure when it goes through. Deputy Fitzpatrick continued:

As I say, this is a procedure which takes away from Parliament the function of Parliament to examine, discuss and scrutinise legislation, particularly legislation of a controversial nature, affecting the rights of the ordinary citizen. One would expect, therefore, that when a resolution like this is introduced in the name of the Taoiseach's Parliamentary Secretary it would be justified on the grounds of urgency, at least.

I cannot see that the Parliamentary Secretary today learned anything from his colleague Deputy Fitzpatrick. Did he know when he came into the House with this motion so early in July that he was embarrassing the Minister for Lands? Deputy Fitzpatrick on that occasion said:

There is no urgency about this measure. There are many measures on the Order Paper which are much more urgent.

Deputy Desmond tells us that this is a guillotine motion on only the Wealth Tax Bill. Did nobody tell him that there are seven other Bills involved, two motions and four Estimates? Here is the Labour Party Whip who has got the message from his Labour partners quite clearly: "Deputy Desmond, get that wealth tax through because you never know what the Taoiseach might do in August or September. We must get that wealth tax through or we cannot hold our heads up in the next election".

You have the Fine Gael Deputies who are left without a service from the Government Information Service for the speeches they are making. The speeches of the GIS are one kind but the speeches being made by Deputy Esmonde and various other people appearing in the local papers at home are: "Listen, farmers my friends, there is no wealth tax. It will be watered down. You need not have any worries".

But here you have the socialists: "Get this wealth tax through". The Parliamentary Secretary will believe that I have friends in the Fine Gael party in my constituency. There are a few decent people in Fine Gael. I have met good people down there, people who have been agents for the not so good people who are Deputies, and they have told me things. "Listen," said I to one of them, "how in the name of God are you going to face your supporters in the next election with this wealth tax?""There is no problem," he said. "We are going it alone the next time. We are going to shake off those fellows and I can assure you there will be no wealth tax as soon as we shake off those Labour fellows."

I cannot understand this motion. I told the Parliamentary Secretary two or three weeks ago that we could have our summer holidays without the Wealth Tax Bill, but the rebels must have gone into action and said: "You will not". Here we have a guillotine motion to deal with urgent business.

Mr. Kelly

If as the Deputy predicts there were an election in September, would Fianna Fáil promise to repeal the Wealth Tax Act?

Mr. G. Collins

Shut up. Take your medicine.

Mr. Kelly

Would Fianna Fáil repeal the wealth tax?

Mr. Lalor

Fianna Fáil have their policy. The difference between Fianna Fáil and the people over there, particularly Labour, is that we will not say today that there will be no Coalition and then do something else the following day.

Mr. Kelly

Will Fianna Fáil tell the people that if there is an election in September there will be no wealth tax?

Mr. Colley

Considering the Taoiseach said four days before the last election that there would be no wealth tax, the people have not a lot of confidence in that kind of talk.

Mr. Lalor

That is why Labour, obviously led by Deputy Desmond at the moment, are kicking the Minister for Finance in the groin, to use his own words, in order to get this through and to say: "We want to get this tax before we go on holidays". I am very interested to know what Fine Gael will do about the Planning Bill because on 4th August——

Mr. Kelly

What will Fianna Fáil do about the wealth tax? That is what people want to know. Are they a wealth tax party or not? I saw Fine Gael shrink over the years because they were——

Mr. Lalor

They were never shrinking like the Parliamentary Secretary is now. At column 3257 of Volume 255, four years ago, Deputy Fitzpatrick said:

There is no urgency about this measure. There are many measures on the Order Paper which are much more urgent, measures which have been disgracefully neglected, measures which are not of a controversial nature.

Fine Gael put down a Bill to amend the Planning and Development Act in 1963, a Bill designed to take planning appeals out of the hands of the political head of the Department and his political friends. We debated the Bill for a considerable time and the then Minister for Local Government said he accepted our Bill in principle and that he would introduce his own Bill to bring about the desired changes.

Here we are, going on our summer holidays four years later, and it is the intention of the Government to take planning permission out of the Minister's hands and they do not think that is urgent now. Fair enough, I accept that.

Mr. Kelly

Would the Deputy agree to send that to a Special Committee and we will have it finished by autumn?

Mr. Colley

Put it in the motion.

Mr. Lalor

There is one other quotation I should like to give. At column 3269 Deputy Cluskey, who is still with us, thank God, is reported:

The Government, by their complete denial of the rights of the Deputies in this House to discuss the Bill adequately and properly, in my opinion dealt a far more serious blow to parliamentary democracy than they have ever done in their history, and God knows their history, as far as parliamentary democracy is concerned, is nothing to be proud of.

That was Deputy Cluskey's idea of Fianna Fáil when we were moving a guillotine on a Bill on Report Stage, having discussed three amendments in 40 hours. Of course we then had a contribution from the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who had some difficulty with the English language.

Mr. G. Collins

He was just back from Africa then.

Mr. Lalor

The then Deputy Cluskey who felt it was wrong at that stage, however has changed his mind now. He felt that a Bill that had been debated for a considerable number of days in the House needed further debate. In fairness to him, he saw something in the Bill with which he disagreed. But we are being asked here today to deal with four Bills and we do not know what is in them. This House including the backbenchers, the democrats, of the Fine Gael and Labour parties, are being asked to vote for four Bills. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Lands, Deputy Fitzpatrick, felt it was a negation of democracy to confine the time on a measure that the Government felt had been adequately dealt with.

If the Government felt that the Wealth Tax Bill should be confined, one could make a case for them, apart from the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to the amount of time we spent on the Second Stage. The Second Stage debate proved to the Parliamentary Secretary that his allegation was wrong that there were only four or five people on the Fianna Fáil side that had an interest in the Wealth Tax Bill. We proved on Second Stage that every member of Fianna Fáil would have had something to say about the wealth tax but for the guillotine that was used.

Mr. Kelly

I considered the system that the Deputy is suggesting. It would not have worked. If we had not included all the business the rest would have been talked out.

Mr. Lalor

I give the Parliamentary Secretary credit that he is honest enough to have given consideration to it. I find it impossible to believe of him as a democrat, as I accept he is, and as a reasonable man, that he would come into the House and ask Members of Parliament to give a mere two hours debating time to four Bills which we have not seen. We know from our experience of the Minister for Finance that every one of the Ministers involved in those Bills would be capable of making a 60 minute Second Reading speech. We know from the example we got from the strutting, arrogant Minister for Finance last night that they would be capable of doing that, thus ruling out any contribution from the Opposition. In regard to the Gaeltacht Industries Bill, the Government Information Service, with the full and wholehearted co-operation of RTE, dictated to by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, have spent the last week on the projection of the Minister for the Gaeltacht, and the least he could be expected to be given to project himself would be an hour.

There are so many questions that the ordinary person here wants answered that he would need an hour. He was not here yesterday and was very incompetently represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. No blame to him. He just had not the information. If you are going to invent something for television scripts the Government Information Service want something to give the impression that something is happening. The poor old Minister for the Gaeltacht tried to supply it and sent this reference to 1,000 new jobs. He will have to justify it in some way. It appeared that the capacity of the Department of the Gaeltacht to supply back-up information tion that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government could use in this House fell short of requirements.

Our legitimate fear arises from our experience. In regard to the election of conservators, there is no reason to believe that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will not take a full two hours on the motion. Nobody in the House could imagine that the Minister is not capable of speaking for two hours.

Mr. Kelly

I will make sure that does not happen.

Mr. Lalor

We would have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on the conservators motion and when he is playing to the gallery in order to create the impression that he is the most ingenious man in the Government he is quite capable of taking two hours explaining why he has to postpone elections for conservators. The Parliamentary Secretary may nod his head. He is taking good example from his boss in that regard. He keeps his mouth closed, head down and shakes his head but nothing goes on the record. I want it on the record.

Mr. Kelly

It is the happy smiles of men whose families are busy buying sun tan lotion that do not go on the record.

Mr. G. Collins

Give them a chance and they will go on the record.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

I must remind Deputies that Deputy Lalor is in possession. Deputy Lalor without interruption.

Mr. G. Collins

Remind the Parliamentary Secretary, if you want to maintain order.

Mr. Lalor

The parliamentary Secretary said that the Government are doing this out of respect for the staff of the House. That is a bit of——

Mr. G. Collins

A bit of a laugh. They would not give them a lunch break a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Lalor

That is the point. Deputy Cluskey made allegations in the debate I quoted. I am not making those allegations, but it is as well to put on the record what the then Deputy Cluskey said on that occasion because the Parliamentary Secretary is talking a lot about our wives being anxious to go on holidays. That is agreed.

Mr. Kelly

I would not be so anxious if I were they.

Mr. Lalor

What did the Parliamentary Secretary say?

Mr. G. Collins

Repeat that remark or withdraw it.

Mr. Lalor

There are occasions when it would be just as well for the Parliamentary Secretary not to make statements. At column 3271, Volume 255 of the Official Report, the then Deputy Cluskey said:

When we made it clear that we intended acting as an Opposition and intended doing what we were sent here to do by the electorate— oppose—and were not concerned unduly with our holidays, there was a campaign in the corridors of the House whereby Fianna Fáil Deputies brought ushers and other members of the staff into corners to tell them what bad boys the Opposition were, particularly the Labour Party, and that this was a tremendous blow against workers.

I am not making the case that Government Deputies are doing this at the present time, getting members of the staff to try to agree to this, because I do not accept for a moment that the Government give a damn about the members of the staff. They have shown that consistently from the type of business ordered both in the Dáil and Seanad, which I maintain is non-essential business in the normal course, in order to satisfy the ego of one or other Minister, and in some cases to try to fix up the problem within the party but they have consistently shown that they do not give two hoots about the staff.

(Interruptions)

Mr. Lalor

I expressed our willingness, on the instructions of the Leader of my party, two weeks ago to sit here and debate the Wealth Tax Bill until it is properly put through. We stand over that and we are willing to stay here. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks we are bluffing, let him withdraw the guillotine motion.

Deputy Desmond said this is for the closure of the Wealth Tax Bill only. Will somebody educate him? He said:

We all knew this was coming.

If the Parliamentary Secretary checks the record in regard to the two guillotine motions of the Fianna Fáil Government in 16 years he will find that in both instances the Taoiseach had specifically spelled out in the House about a week beforehand that if something had not been completed he would be forced to do something. This was not spelled out on this occasion. Deputy Desmond is a crystal ball gazer. He said:

We all knew it was coming.

He also said:

We have given the Opposition enough rope to hang themselves. I do not know what he meant by that. He admitted of course that Deputy Colley last night was quite entitled to kick the Minister for Finance in the groin. Deputy Desmond is not privy to what happens in Government, or he should not be, but he said that we have nothing to worry about in the four Bills which we have not seen. It has always been the practice that backbenchers and even Parliamentary Secretaries, with the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, should not know what is in Bills until they are circulated. Deputy Desmond apparently does know because he tells us that there is nothing in those Bills to worry about. There is a Finance Bill which the Parliamentary Secretary said contains only three sections and that there is no reason why we, the bold boys in Fianna Fáil, should be allowed to talk it out. He said they will give so many hours for it, most of the day. He will probably put in speakers to use up most of those hours——

Mr. Kelly

No.

Mr. Lalor

——or half the hours we agree on, if we agree on anything again. If Deputy Colley has not convinced the Minister for Finance I will not mention a stone wall but there is the saying that timber is dense. The situation is that we have to complete the Second Stage of the Finance Bill in the four or five hours of debate the Parliamentary Secretary speaks about. It will have to be completed at 9.15 or 9.30 and, irrespective of what ideas Deputy Colley or any Member of the House might get about an amendment for Committee Stage, we will have half an hour, if that amendment is allowed to be moved because if the Ceann Comhairle at that stage calls—there was a new development last night—on the Minister to move the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill that is the last time a Fianna Fáil Deputy will be given the opportunity of speaking on it.

This is the guillotine which Deputy Desmond says is only aimed at the Wealth Tax Bill. Here is a Finance Bill. Normally we only have one Finance Bill in the year but in this extraordinary year we will have three. There is no question of urgency. Time is not an issue because there is oodles of time. It is clear that the Parliamentary Secretary is obsessed with trying to facilitate the wives of the Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Mr. Harte

Is it not true that half a dozen Fianna Fáil Deputies booked into hotels in Donegal for the month of July?

Mr. Lalor

If it is I am sure they inquired before hand if there was any danger of Deputy Harte being there, because I could not imagine anyone enjoying a holiday if he happened to be in the same hotel as Deputy Harte.

Mr. Harte

Donegal is the best county for a holiday. The Deputy should go up there and relax.

Mr. Lalor

I do not disagree. We are looking forward to the relaxation of a recess but, as so often in the past, Fianna Fáil are quite willing and indeed anxious to put the interests of this nation first. That is why we are willing to sit until such time as this Bill can be properly debated.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

I should like to congratulate Deputy Lalor on a very entertaining speech, one of the most entertaining I have ever heard in this House. I am only sorry he spoiled it a bit, for me at least, when he suggested—we have been sitting very long hours and they have been a strain on those who work in Leinster House—that his side of the House and that alone had concern for those who work here, for their conditions, for their hours. I do not think that is true. I do not think it is true of either side of the House. I think both sides of the House are concerned about it, and should be, and I do not think we should bandy that kind of approach around or get people involved in the political firing line who do not belong on it.

I have been reminded that in the past I have made very long speeches, as indeed I have, but I do not propose to do that on this occasion. I propose to make a very short one. I do not blame the Opposition for opposing or even for pushing, stern, stubborn opposition to a measure they detest to the verge of obstruction and even a bit over the verge. They have done just that. OK. They object strongly to the wealth tax for reasons many of which they have put on record and they have set themselves to talk out the wealth tax. That is of course what they have been doing. They talk now as if what they were at was being prepared to sit into August and into September in order to improve the wealth tax.

Mr. Colley

As we improved the capital gains tax.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I would admit that they have as much desire to improve the wealth tax as they have to sit into August and September, and that is none at all, because they do not want the wealth tax, they are opposed to it. Fair enough. But the Government are committed to the wealth tax and the Government intend to get the wealth tax through this session. Deputy Lalor has suggested, and has a political right to suggest, that the Government are divided on this issue and that there are rebels kicking one another in various parts of their anatomies and so on. It is not like that at all. The Government are united on this. We are determined to get this measure through.

Mr. Tunney

How much does the Minister know about his Leader?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It is the business of the Opposition to oppose but it is also the business of the Government to get Government business through and get it through on a reasonable schedule. If we are to be faulted at all it would be for not introducing this measure a bit earlier, for not getting on with it as soon as we saw the pattern of things but we, considering the various considerations that there are in this matter, and they are complicated, decided to allow a great deal of time for this to be thrashed out, more time than has been given to almost any other measure, but there comes a time to call a halt. I do not believe in this willingness of Deputies opposite to sit into August and September because I saw when in Opposition an example of it. I heard them when they were pushing a particular measure through which we were opposing with the same stubbornness and determination they have opposed the wealth tax. I heard them say: "Oppose away. Keep it up. Pour it on. Talk away. We will sit into August and September. Sit as long as you like." When they saw we were prepared to keep up that opposition into August down came the guillotine, bing, bing, bing, three times in a few hours, if I remember rightly. It went through. We complained about this. These things happen. That is part of the democratic process.

Mr. Lalor

We mean it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Deputies did not mean it then. They were not prepared to sit into August. It was within the Government's power at that time to sit into August.

Mr. Allen

Would the Minister say what legislation he has been talking about?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It was the Forcible Entry Bill.

Mr. Lalor

There was only one guillotine.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

There were at least three. Deputy O'Malley will recall it.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

The Deputies will get a chance of making their contributions. The Minister must be allowed to continue.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Leader of the Opposition spoke rather solemnly about this rather quiet measure we have here as if it spelt the death of democracy as we know it, and so on. I was sorry he made that plea because I think the cry of "wolf, wolf" should not be raised about democracy and that we should not say it is in danger when there is really no danger to it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister should tell that to the Minister for Finance. His budget speech gave three examples of that.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

If he did I will speak to him about it and I am sure he will be very grateful.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

What is proposed here is a reasoned and reasonable plan of getting through the business, and I believe the Deputies opposite know that I believe the country and those who work here know that this is the way the thing should be done.

Mr. Colley

Is the Minister serious in relation to Bills we have not seen? The guillotine is being put on Bills we have not seen.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I was about to come to that.

Acting Chairman

Deputies must stop interrupting.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We do not expect these Bills to be contentious. should any of them present problems it is my understanding that the Government will be reasonable and flexible in their interpretation of these measures. We have no desire to crush reasonable debate in this matter but we have a strong desire to get our measures through and in particular to get the Wealth Tax Bill through, which is the most important measure in our society, before the end of this month. It is our job to do that, and I believe the country know that it is our job to get through Government business. I believe the passage of these measures will be welcome.

I believe the passage of the Wealth Tax Bill will be welcomed more widely in the country, perhaps, than Deputies opposite, who have fought it so long, find easy or perhaps palatable to believe. In a debate like this, when everybody really knows, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in his bucket and spade intervention, that people here are anxious to terminate our proceedings as soon as reasonably possible and for the Dáil to go into recess, we have here something of a mock battle. It is possible to say about that kind of mock battle that it is unedifying, distressing, farcical and so on. It has elements of farce about it. Democracy has elements of farce in it and perhaps these are not unhealthy. Democracy is a substitute for a war. It is a kind of mock battle. There has been a lot of mock battling in some of the speeches we have heard here. It was one of the pleasantest aspects of Deputy Lalor's speech that he did not take it entirely seriously, and I do not think he intended the rest of us to take it so seriously either.

Mr. O'Malley

I suppose the sort of speech we have heard is really the only kind of one one could have heard from somebody who, when I was in that seat over there and he was in the Labour Party benches, spent six hours and three minutes not on one section, not on one subsection, not even on one line but on one word.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I could have gone on for 12 hours.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is making a farce of democracy.

Mr. Colley

That was certainly very constructive.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not believe we could have expected any other form of speech from such a man than the one we have just heard. It surprises me a little in the circumstances that out of the depths of his hypocrisy that was the best he could do. It has been suggested by speakers on this side of the House that the passage of this motion, which proposes to guillotine through four Bills that have not even yet been published, will be a negation of democracy or the death of parliamentary democracy in the country.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that well-known renegade Liberal, disagrees. He says it will not. I agree with him. It will mean that instead of having proper parliamentary democracy in Ireland, as we knew it over the years, we will have the sort of democracy they have in Portugal at the moment, a parliament that is elected and has about as much power as this Parliament will have when this sort of motion is passed.

Mr. Colley

It might be the kind they used to have in Ghana.

Mr. O'Malley

It would not surprise me that a man such as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would feel there was anything wrong with the sort of democracy that exists in Portugal today when he publicly went on record in this country as saying that the sort of government, the sort of democracy and the sort of parliamentary system he would like to see here is what they have had in Cuba over the past ten years or so.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is a lie.

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Malley is in possession. He should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. O'Malley

Immediately after this debate is adjourned, in about three minutes time, we will resume a debate on the action of the present Minister for Defence in throwing out the Chief of Staff of the Army and the general staff of the Army and in taking it on himself to make decisions regarding the promotion of officers and so on. This was not done because of any military reason, any personal ability or qualities they might have but because it is in the interest of the Irish horse that they be seen to be promoted to senior positions in the Army. Is it any wonder that a Government which contains a Member who is prepared to treat the Army of the nation, which has always been loyal to the State rather than to any faction or any party in this country in such a way, should come along and move the most comprehensive guillotine motion that has ever been known in the history of the State and that certainly has no precedent in the history of Dáil Éireann and for which I suggest there is no precedent in the parliament of any western democracy?

Mr. Kelly

Rubbish.

Mr. O'Malley

Never in any country that I am aware of has an effort been made to force through in two hours Bills which have not yet even been published.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Malley should be allowed to speak without interruption. Deputies must cease interrupting.

Mr. O'Malley

We have a situation that there are four Bills, not one line of which any of us have seen, and they are expected to be passed in each case in two hours. In each case the Minister concerned is entitled to start the debate and in each case, as Deputy Lalor has pointed out, he cannot be stopped utilising the entire two hours in relation to each of those Bills. Then the Bills must go through. We are asked to accept that that is democracy, that it is respect for the parliamentary institutions of the country, that it is respect for the people of the country in respect of whom the Members of this House are the elected representatives. I would like to conjecture what might have been the reaction of noted ex-liberals, like the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, if any Fianna Fáil Government ever tried to move a motion that contained one-eighth of what this contains.

Debate adjourned.