Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 10

Business of Dáil: Allocation of Time: Motion.

I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders and in the Resolution of the Dáil of 27th January, 1976 (as amended by the Resolutions of 6th April, 29th June and 9th December, 1976) relating to business and sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays:—

(i) consideration of Government business shall not be interrupted today and tomorrow at the time fixed for taking private Members' business;

(ii) the sitting tomorrow shall not be suspended from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

(iii) in the case of the Finance Bill, 1977—

(a) the proceedings on the Second Stage of the Bill, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. today by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion;

(b) the Motions for Financial Resolutions connected with the Bill shall be taken immediately upon the conclusion of the Second Stage and the Committee Stage of the Bill shall then be proceeded with: the proceedings on the Motions for Financial Resolutions and on the Committee Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. tomorrow 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 the Motions for Financial Resolutions connected with the Bill and not already disposed of be agreed to and that (any amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill), that the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to and (as amended) is reported to the House';

(c) the Fourth Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the proceedings on the Supplementary Estimate for Labour referred to in paragraph (vi) and the proceedings on the Fourth and Fifth Stages, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. to-morrow by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion: and the Question to be put from the Chair (as the case may require) shall be `That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Finance, 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';

(iv) the proceedings on the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1976 shall be resumed at 1 p.m. to-morrow and if the proceedings thereon have not already concluded the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion shall be put from the Chair at 1.30 p.m.: and the Question to be put from the Chair shall be `That the Order of the Dáil of 29th March, 1977 is hereby discharged, that the consequential Message to the Seanad is hereby cancelled, and that all amendments made by the Seanad to the Bill and not disposed of by the Dáil are hereby agreed to'; (v) the debate on the Second Stage of the Prisons Bill, 1977 shall be resumed at 1.30 p.m. to-morrow and the proceedings on that Stage and on the remaining Stages of the Bill, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 p.m. to-morrow 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 the Bill be now read a second time and that (all amendments set down by the Minister for Justice for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) that the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to and (as amended) is reported to the House and (all amendments set down by the Minister for Justice for Fourth Stage, 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';

(vi) consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for Labour for the year ending 31st December, 1977 shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the proceedings on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, 1977 and if the proceedings on the Supplementary Estimate have not already concluded the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion shall be put from the Chair at 6.30 p.m. to-morrow: provided that if a division is demanded such division shall be taken forthwith.

I want to give the House a few brief details of the history of the Finance Bill, 1977. The Bill was circulated on 27th April, which is nearly four weeks ago, and the Second Stage was, on the same day, ordered for 4th May subject to the Whips' agreement as has been frequent practice in the House. As Whip, I could not get agreement for the Bill to proceed on 4th May—the Opposition required more time before taking the Second Stage—and the Bill ultimately began its Second Stage on 10th May, two weeks all but a day after it was circulated. It has now occupied 22 hours, 35 minutes of debate and, assuming it gets some more debate this afternoon, before a vote is taken on the Second Stage, it will have occupied roughly 24 hours.

In order to put that figure into perspective, in case anybody thinks that is not enough for the Second Stage of a Finance Bill, I want to tell the House that I have gone back as far as 1957 and that the Finance Bill on Second Stage has now beaten all records in terms of the length of time it has taken to debate in this House. I did not go back any further than 1957 because it was less verbose in the earlier days not more and I have no doubt, although I cannot give the House definite figures for earlier years, this record will not have been exceeded. The longest debate on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill before this year was that on the Finance Bill of 1963. That Bill contained an extremely controversial and new taxation proposal, namely the turnover tax, which was bitterly opposed by the then Opposition. Notwithstanding that bitter and determined Opposition the debate on that Bill on Second Stage was concluded in 19 hours, 45 minutes.

The Finance Bill at present before the House, far from containing any new, controversial or far-reaching taxation proposals, consists very largely of taxation reliefs. Notwithstanding that, the length of time spent on it has already substantially exceeded the time spent on the Bill 14 years ago, which contained the turnover tax. While the Government appreciate that in normal circumstances the curtailing of debate is undesirable they have to observe their own programme as well. While I regret having to move this motion I feel—I say so without being contentious—that the motion before the House is the motion which the Opposition were aiming to force us to produce and to that extent their strategy has succeeded but in succeeding it will of course enable the Press and the public to discount at its true worth the indignation which our motion today will generate. I hope it might be in order for me to say a short personal word, on completing a little more than four years as Government Whip. I would like to thank the two Opposition Whips, Deputy Lalor and Deputy Browne, in my own name and I feel I should say in the name of my party and that of the Labour Party for their courtesy and their consideration. They worked very hard for their own side at all times but never drove their devotion to their own side to the point of unreasonableness or inhumanity. Their attitude has made every Deputy in the House, not just on this side, their beneficiaries.

It might be in order if I commence by thanking the Attorney General on behalf of my colleagues, Deputy Lalor and Deputy Browne, for the kind remarks he has just passed and wish him well in his record short term as Attorney General.

It is significant that the Attorney General referred solely to the Finance Bill in proposing this motion. Of course, the motion proposes to guillotine not only the Finance Bill but also some other quite important measures, including the Prisons Bill, the associated Resolutions with the Finance Bill, the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Labour, including the now notorious provision for the self-aggrandisement advertisements of the Minister for Labour and the Friendly Societies Bill. I will refer to those matters in a moment.

It is also significant, in dealing with the Finance Bill and in going back over the record, that the Attorney General did not discover what was really relevant in regard to previous years and what happened regarding Finance Bills in the House. First, I believe it is no harm to recall that in the week following the budget I asked the Taoiseach when we could expect the Finance Bill to be circulated and his reply was: "In about six weeks." Eleven weeks later I pointed out to the Taoiseach that he promised that the Finance Bill would be circulated in about six weeks and we still had not got it and asked him when we would get it and he said: "Next week." It came towards the end of the following week.

The clear implication in what has been said by the Attorney General and indeed in what has been fed out by the Government in recent days, not least, at the jamboree in the Mansion House, was that Fianna Fáil engaged in obstructing the Finance Bill. If there was any obstruction on this Finance Bill it was done by the Government and nobody else. The record to which the Attorney General omitted to refer shows that there has not been, certainly in any recent year, any comparable delay in producing the Finance Bill with what occurred this year. This year, from the date of the budget to the commencement of the Second Stage took 104 days and from the date of the budget to the date of circulation of the Bill took 90 days. Last year the corresponding figures were 68 days and 61 days. In the first budget of 1975 the corresponding figures were 41 days and 27 days and in the second budget of 1975 the figures were 27 days and 27 days. If we go back to the last budget introduced by Fianna Fáil the corresponding figures were 69 days and 61 days.

It is perfectly clear that this year the Government held back the Finance Bill a length of time that has not been exceeded in recent years. I doubt if it has ever been exceeded. If there was any obstruction of the Finance Bill it occurred from the Government benches. We all know pretty well why this obstruction occurred. The Government were in difficulty with certain parts of the Finance Bill. They were trying to placate a number of their backbenchers. They were trying to meet various interested groups to satisfy them and were holding back the Bill until they could hope to reach some kind of agreement with the groups concerned. They failed in that. The relevant fact, when this guillotine motion is introduced, is that it was the Government who held back the Finance Bill not the Opposition. The record shows just how strenuously the Government exercised their prerogative in holding back the Finance Bill.

I am subject to correction on this but eventually when the Bill came before the House and was debated I believe that of approximately 25 speakers, eight were from the Government side. It is clear enough, therefore, that there was no question of the Government simply waiting for the Opposition to finish the debate on Second Stage. The Government took part to a degree which, perhaps, is not usual in relation to Bills of this kind. In these circumstances there can be no justification for any allegation that the matter was simply obstructed on the Opposition side and that the Government were waiting patiently for the Opposition to finish speaking to Second Stage.

There are certain statutory time limits concerning the passing of a Finance Bill but these limits do not apply, for technical reasons, to this Bill. If they so applied, the Bill would have had to be dealt with much more expeditiously than was the case. Since the statutory limits do not apply in this case, the Government are under no compunction to pass the Bill. Consequently, we are entitled to ask why they are introducing a guillotine motion to steamroll it through. At least one political commentator has put forward a reason for the Government's action. It is clear that, although this may not be the whole story, it is a true explanation of the situation but there may be more to it than this. The reason that commentator gave us was that the Government are afraid, that going into an election without having passed the Finance Bill, some of their candidates on being subjected to pressure will waver and, consequently, the Government want to be in a position to have their candidates say that the Bill has been passed and that nothing more can be done about it. In terms of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties that is a legitimate approach.

I would not object to it from a party point of view but I object strongly to it from the point of view of the business of this House and of the country. It is purely a party tactic. It is dishonest to suggest that the business of the country requires that the Bill be guillotined through. If there is any reason for it, it is purely for the assumed protection of the Coalition candidates in the general election.

If the Government wish to approach the Bill in that way, they should say so but let them not pretend that Fianna Fáil are obstructing the Bill's passage or that the motion before the House is necessary in the public interest. It is not necessary in the public interest. The Bill need not be passed now. It can be dealt with in the next Dáil. The only reason for forcing it through is that of party political advantage as conceived by the Coalition.

The Government propose to allow a few hours for discussion of the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, a Stage which at the best of times would take a number of weeks especially at a time like the present when there is a virile and active Opposition. There may be precedent for a Finance Bill being rushed through in a few hours on Committee Stage but not at any time while this party were in Opposition. Contrary to what the Attorney-General has said, if one examines the Bill one finds that it contains a number of provisions which, in the public interest, should be teased out. Let us take one simple example to which I referred on Second Stage. There is slipped into a small section of the Finance Bill which purports to relate to a specific narrow situation a general provision affecting all taxation measures. This provision is slipped in surreptitiously. It is in the public interest that this Bill be examined in detail on Committee Stage and that points like these be brought out so that the Minister might either justify or amend them.

If I were given a chance to reply, I would.

We are not preventing the Minister from replying.

For five days I have been prevented from replying.

The Minister will get his opportunity of replying very shortly to the public who are about to make up their minds about the whole performance of this Government in relation to this and other matters. There are a number of other measures included in the motion. Apart from the Finance Bill and the associated resolutions there is the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Labour. This includes provision for various items but in particular it includes provision for the cost of the advertisement by which an effort was made to improve the tattered image of the Minister for Labour. I understand that there has been a change in that advertisement.

Although I have not seen the changed advertisement, I welcome the change. The fact that this has occurred underlines the necessity for subjecting the Minister and the Government to the full disclosure that would be required in a full-scale debate on the Supplementary Estimate when they would have to tell us what is the alleged justification for the change.

The Prisons Bill is being guillotined also. I can understand the reason for the Government trying to guillotine that debate. It must be most uncomfortable for the Minister for Justice and for some of his colleagues to have to listen to what they said when the original Bill was introduced and having to compare what they said then with what they are saying now when, by implication at least, they must acknowledge that in dealing with problems of this kind and with subversion in general, they are faced with an Opposition who are responsible and who, unlike the present Government had to face subversion on the one hand and ignorance and worse in this House on the other hand.

And in their own party, too.

Look at the record.

Where is Charlie? That is the question.

The Minister for Fisheries should be the last one to make a remark of that kind. His record is not one that he would welcome having pursued in this House.

My record in this House since 1957 in relation to subversion is there for anyone to see.

The record on the debate on the Prisons Bill shows exactly what was done by the Members opposite when they were in opposition. Naturally, they do not want further discussion on the present Bill so as not to draw public attention to the disgraceful performance of which they were guilty then and to what a shocking contrast there is between their performance in Opposition and the performance of this party in Opposition in matters of that kind.

The Friendly Societies Bill, too, is being guillontined. I concede that that measure would not be regarded as a matter of major political importance by either side of the House but it is being guillotined for one reason only, that is, that it contains something which would make any Government worth their salt hang their heads. Deputy O'Malley in this House pointed out at least eight errors in that Bill after it had come from the other House. It is extremely doubtful if the procedure adopted as a result of that has any legal basis but it is even more doubtful as to whether what is proposed now has any legal basis whatever—a situation in which it was to be sent to the Seanad but is not now being sent there. There is no provision in the Standing Orders of this House for dealing with that Bill. It is in such a mess that the only way of dealing with it now is to withdraw it.

A purely procedural problem has arisen, but it has arisen because of carelessness on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As a result the opportunity is being taken to shove through this Bill and hope to conceal or reduce as much as possible the exposure of, in the vernacular, the messing, that has gone on in relation to the Friendly Societies Bill. What we have before us is a guillotine motion in regard to a number of measures which I have touched on. The merits and demerits of each of those measures can be considered in more detail, but it is appropriate when we are discussing this motion to consider a somewhat wider aspect of the matter and that is the whole attitude of this Government to guillotine motions. This Coalition Government have guillotined more measures in this House than have all of the previous Governments in the history of this State put together.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

That is a record of which, no doubt, this Government will be proud. There are others who will be less than proud in that regard. They have even guillotined measures which have not been introduced and which the House has not seen. Of course it is not an accident that this Government have been guilty of such an approach and such a readiness to drop the guillotine on discussions in this House. It is not due to pressure of business. It is due to a mentality which is very obvious in certain members of this Government. In all fairness I must say that it is not in all members of this Government but in sufficient of them to give people very serious cause for disquiet. Remember that this is the Government who tried to guillotine the newspapers in a Bill they introduced here. This Government contains a Minister who acknowledged publicly that he is keeping a file on letters to newspapers, and in all probability if the Government had got their way criminal proceedings would have been taken against the writers of some of those letters. This Government are led by the man who whipped up an "Up the Blueshirts" climate in the Mansion House the other day. This is typical of what we get from Fine Gael in particular and from some members of the Labour Party in this Government.

It is not an accident that we have this motion here today. It is not an accident that this Government have been guilty of an attitude which says "if it is a discussion which we do not like we will shut it up and we will steamroll this measure through. If it is the newspapers we will put them in the dock. If it is somebody who writes to the newspapers we will silence him, we will charge him in the courts and that will shut his mouth. If it is the Opposition, bring in the guillotine". Nobody can suggest that a guillotine motion is never appropriate, but equally nobody can suggest that a guillotine motion can be appropriate so often on so many measures by this Government in their term of office, when every Government in the past were able to manage with little or no resort to the guillotine. It is something that the public in general are becoming aware of and are apprehensive about and are looking forward to the opportunity of dealing with in the very near future.

Taking individually the measures proposed to be gullotined here, it can be shown that there is no justification for this motion. Taking them collectively and viewing them in the context of this Government's record on the guillotine and of their attitude to criticism they do not like, there can be no justification at all for this motion, and this party intend to oppose it. We know the Government will steamroll it through but we also know that the time is very close when they will not get the opportunity to steamroll through their measures to guillotine anything that they do not like or any opposition they cannot stomach. Thank God we are still a democracy and the people will get their opportunity soon to ensure that proper democratic procedures are going to be followed in this House in future.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

There have been proposals in recent years that television should be introduced into Dáil Éireann. It is a pity that television is not already in the Chamber because I would like the Irish electorate to have seen Deputy Colley's clenched fist and the arrogant face of him, and the viciousness with which he opposed the Government's reasonable proposal that there be an end to the nonsense of the debate on this year's Finance Bill. This year's Finance Bill, as all reasonable people know and are ready to admit, is a Bill of concession. It gives the taxpayers very substantial reductions in tax, to encourage them to work harder. The Fianna Fáil Party have no wish to see this legislation on the Statute Book before the electorate are consulted. Even if this House were to sit from now until 27th February, 1978, it is clear that Fianna Fáil would wish to pursue the policy of obstruction that they have clearly adopted in the course of the financial debate. We have had a most ridiculous debate. Deputy Dowling referred to the blood count of people over 65 years of age. Whatever relationship that has to the Finance Bill I cannot imagine, nor could the Chair understand.

The Chair has a right to decide.

If I had the time to go through a long range of items—I have not, I have far more important things to do for the nation—I would find that the Chair during the course of this Finance Bill had to reprimand the Opposition on more occasions than ever in the past for an irrelevant contribution to a debate. There has been some reference by Deputy Colley and others to what they alleged was a long period between the budget and the introduction of the Finance Bill. We came in as a Government of consultation and we have endeavoured to practise consultation. There were two items in this year's budget which involved very detailed consultation and calm consideration. One was a unique incentive to promote employment and increase industrial efficiency. That was the incentive of providing a 25 per cent corporation tax rate as compared with the 58 per cent corporation tax rate of Fianna Fáil. This new rate would apply in the event of a 3 per cent increase in employment or a 5 per cent increase in production. This involved not weeks but months of detailed consultation with the Confederation of Irish Industry, the accountancy profession and other people in a position to advise and to give information. I could certainly, as Minister for Finance, have curtailed such consultations and brought in and rushed through a measure which would not have been generally acceptable to people whom we were seeking to encourage and to incite to further production, to investment and to increased employment. I make no apology that over many weeks and months we engaged in patient consultation with those best in a position to advise what should be the appropriate employment and production targets for 1977.

Furthermore, we had changes in this year's Finance Bill in relation to the taxation of farming profits. As we introduced those changes once again we undertook to have consultations with the farming organisations and their advisers as to what was the most appropriate form of tax to deal with the special problems and indeed the opportunities and challenges presented to the agricultural community. These consultations involved not merely meeting the hierarchy of the professional or vocational organisations involved but also with their tax experts. These involved many weeks of patient, calm and profitable consultation.

There are occasions when there are time constraints in relation to the introduction of a Finance Bill. Those are years in which there are new taxes imposed, in which the validity of Financial Resolutions adopted on budget day has to be confirmed by the passage of the Second Stage of the Finance Bill. That problem did not arise this year because the budget was one of tax reductions and incentives. One might fairly ask: why is it that an Opposition deliberately set out on a campaign of obstruction in Parliament to prevent the quick passage of a Bill which would confirm the tax reductions given?

Perhaps the only positive aspect of the Finance Bill debate was that some very rare contributors to the House appeared—I had difficulty in recognising some of them—possibly there were one or two maiden speakers. The Opposition sent in 25 people to contribute to the debate. Most of their contributions were irrelevant because they did not even understand Finance Bills or taxation. Certainly, as Minister for Finance, I have never seen them here before contributing to any Finance Bill, not that that is any reason why they would not come in now—better now than never because some of them may never come back again. It is about time there was some sense of reality and sincerity in relation to the comments of the Opposition.

The Attorney-General has pointed out that going back over 20 years there has been no Finance Bill debated for so long as has this one. But there was never any occasion when a Finance Bill gave reliefs and did not impose any taxation on which the debate went on for more than one day. Deputy Colley considers it to be a virtue that the Government's proposals should be opposed, that they should be delayed at great length——

"Examined" was what I said.

——and that they should leave in doubt and uncertainty the passage of the legislation. For some months past we have heard very brave challenges being thrown down by the Opposition seeking to have an early general election. Last year they pleaded with the Government for an early end of summer term so that Deputies could leave on holiday early. They were mighty grateful when we brought the proceedings of the Dáil to a conclusion before the end of June. We presume that is still their attitude, that they would wish to see the proceedings of this session of this Dáil concluded before the end of June but at the rate they were going we would not get away until August or September. I am not certain whether it is now an expression of their unwillingness to face the electorate that they are opposing the Government's wish——

Try us; drop the whole thing and go now and we will face it all right.

——to terminate the pantomime travesty of their performance on the Finance Bill or whether it is that they really wish to sit during July. As far as the Government are concerned we are anxious to see the passage of the Finance Bill, 1977 because it confirms what has been almost universally accepted—the wisdom of the budget of 1977. It has not yet statutory effect but we are giving the tax reductions pending its passage. We would consider it intolerable that the Opposition should delay any further the passage of the Finance Bill.

Deputy Colley raised one or two technical questions on some sections of the Finance Bill in the course of his remarks. It would not be relevant for me to deal with them now—I could if the Chair would give me permission to do so—but I do not think it relevant to this motion. I am only too willing to answer queries that have been raised. I believe that Deputy Colley as a lawyer and, I take it, as a sincere Member of Parliament would be only too happy to accept the replies I have to give, but I am not being allowed to reply to the Second Stage of the Finance Bill because it has been drawn out in an unforgivable manner across a whole field of irrelevancies. How on earth can we get to the Committee Stage unless we terminate the Second Stage? Deputy Colley knows, as a Member of this House of long standing and as an ex-Minister for Finance, that the main debate on a Finance Bill occurs on the Committee and Report Stages when those who have some skill, knowledge and experience in the intricacies of fiscal laws get down to the nitty-gritty. I want to reach that stage.

Since I had the privilege of entering this House 18 years ago I can remember two occasions only on which this House sat through the night. One was in relation to the debate on the arms trial and all the embarrassment connected with it in 1971. The other was an occasion when the Opposition insisted on dragging out the debate on the Finance Bill and challenged the House, and myself in particular, to sit all night. They were laying bets in the bar the night of the all-night debate on the Finance Bill and the bets were that Richie Ryan would not stick it out until the morning. I do not care how long it takes to pass the Finance Bill; we are prepared to stick it out. We want to see the benefits of this year's budget and Finance Bill passed for the benefit of our people.

Who is stopping them?

It is not a question of personal fatigue any more than it was some years ago when they lost their bets because we sat through the night and it cost them very heavily, many of them, on a personal basis——

Play-acting.

——because of what they had to surrender.

A lot of bull.

We now face this nonsense, that once again in a area most people do not understand because it is complicated, Fianna Fáil want to pretend there is something sinister, difficult, which we want to cover up in the Finance Bill. If they would now just hold their whist I believe I could give them replies on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill which would satisfy even them and which would certainly satisfy the ordinary Irish citizen, because they would not see in the proposals in this year's Finance Bill any of the sinister suggestions of the Opposition.

On the contrary they would see that this year's Finance Bill is probably the most unique in the history of the State because of the reliefs and incentives it gives to taxpayers as a whole. I find it very interesting that we were the first that I know of, certainly in the Western world, to build in special incentives for the increase of employment and production. I find it very interesting indeed that the new Administration in the United States have now seen fit to imitate our example because they see how very positive, creative and unique are the incentives we have provided in this year's Finance Bill.

Deputy Colley referred to other matters, including the recent advertisement which drew people's attention to the incentives provided for employers for increasing the number of employees they engage. It is relevant to say that the advertising firm that designed that advertisement has a very long and well-known association with the Fianna Fáil Party. Perhaps they have a certain flair; they have certainly drawn attention to the availability of the incentives. However, I will not go into the merits or demerits of a particular advertisement; I shall leave that to those who are expert.

Very wise.

I recall a very large advertisement in 1972 picturing the physiognomy of Mr. Jack Lynch, T.D., then Taoiseach, bearing a facsimile of his signature exhorting the people to support membership of the EEC for the reasons which he advanced. The picture on that advertisement was of Mr. Lynch signing one of the EEC Treaties. It is extraordinary how some people can change their dispositions towards advertising and other matters when they move across the floor. This, of course, may be another case of faulty memory.

Why was it changed?

Those who stand up to criticise should examine their own record and try to do something about improving their memory before they proceed to accuse others of engaging in practices that they suggest they would never engage in.

The amount of time left between now and the ordinary summer recess at the end of June, in accordance with the agreement which was reached last year, is now comparatively short and we have had enough waste of public time in unnecessary and futile debate. I am anxious to get down to the objective aspects of the Finance Bill. They can best be dealt with on the Committee and Report Stages. With the greatest respect to the Opposition, the best thing they can do by Ireland is to get down quickly to the debate on the Committee and Report Stages of the Finance Bill. We are ready to answer all their questions. If they give us a chance, they will find that their genuine fears are answered and that they and the people of Ireland will recognise that the 1977 Finance Bill and the 1977 Budget are unique in Irish history in providing encouragement and incentives, the power to produce growth in our economy, and the jobs and the resources for social improvement that we badly need.

The Minister in his speech took it on himself to decide whether or not those who spoke from this side of the House spoke relevantly. The Minister should have another look at the script of his speech when introducing this political Finance Bill. A more political speech was never heard in this House. If any Member from this side of the House spoke irrelevantly, he did not even match up to the wide-ranging political coverage in the Minister's introductory speech. I invite anybody to examine the records side by side with the speeches delivered here.

When I first came into this House we had long lectures from Fine Gael parliamentarians, particularly Mr. Dillon, who was a great exponent of the democratic rights of the parliamentarians elected to this House. The cheek of the present Minister to suggest that anybody coming in on this side of the House had not the right to speak on his Finance Bill. That is going a bit too far. There are over 30 people who have yet the right to speak on this. It is the right of every Member to speak on anything he wishes that is relevant and before the House. That is exactly what we were doing.

If bloomers were made in this House in the past four-and-a-half years they were not made on this side. The period now coming to a close will be characterised by some of the most unique incidents ever recorded, such as when the Taoiseach trooped into our Lobbies to vote against his own legislation. These are the people who would lecture us on how to behave as an Opposition. Every Member elected to this House and those who will come in after the 15th June, or after whatever date the election is held have the right to speak. I believe that the haste in relation to this election is an effort to beat the publication of the new consumer price index and to hold the election before the new school leavers flood the streets in riot. The guillotine is being applied here in order to circumvent these problems which lie ahead, which are serious obstacles in relation to this Government's mismanagement of the country. As the days go on, the promises that have been made and the goodies that have been dropped like manna from Heaven in the last few weeks will backfire and will be seen by the people for what they are worth.

There is no regard for what this House can or should do. The Opposition mean nothing. This is the most scandalous example of arrogance by any Government. For their own convenience, in order to avoid the impending disasters that might upset their election estimates, the Government are prepared to guillotine four important pieces of legislation and to tell the Opposition that they have no right to speak, that 25 people spoke already. We have 25 more who would like to speak and who have the right to speak. The Government blatantly tell us that because they are the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong, that because the Government have decided that this must go through, it does not matter a damn whether the Opposition speak or vote on it, that they are going to put it through anyhow so they might as well use the guillotine. That is the attitude from the Government side of the House. I sincerely hope that those who are really concerned with the meaning of democracy, those who are watching the behaviour of this Government who seem to abhor completely any attempt at opposition from any direction, will give them the answer they deserve on that score alone. I believe they will.

I remember occasions when we sat through the night in order to give the Opposition every moment they wanted to discuss any matter in relation to anything. The Minister for Finance actually made our case when he reminded us of that. In those days, according to my recollection, we regarded the use of the guillotine as the last resort, and only when there was positive evidence of filibustering did we use it. There was no such evidence on this occasion.

It is only natural that, in the last session of this Dáil, Deputies would wish to contribute on a Bill which relates to the entire spectrum of our economy and, as the Minister did in his introductory speech, cover a wide range of subjects in relation to the economy. The Minister told us one of the reasons why the guillotine is being introduced is that he felt our contributions were not relevant.

I said the Chair felt that.

The Chair has the sole responsibility for deciding that, although at times one can observe an attempted influence in that direction, to put it very mildly. The Minister has no right to tell us we canot speak on any Bill he produces. This Parliament consists of the two sides of the House. The Opposition are just as relevant and just as important as the Government. In fact, in this context the Opposition are more important, and the Minister has no right to tell us we have no right to contribute on the four important items on which the Government are now using the guillotine.

They are doing it for their own personal benefit. They want to fix the date of the election before a time when it would be very embarrassing for them to hold it. That is exactly the reason why they are applying it. The world knows that in the Finance Bill the Government are easing some of the burdens they imposed over the previous four years. If they considered it was marvellous, as the Minister put it, why did they not produce it earlier and allow discussion on it? The more discussion there was on it, the better it would be.

We have the right to propose amendments, even though we might have little hope of having them carried because of the arrogant Government we are dealing with. The public have a right to see an analysis of the legislation and to hear our proposals and the reasons the Government would give for not accepting them. That is what debate in this House is all about; to expose to the public what is in the mind of every Deputy and to show what may be the weaknesses in what the Government are proposing. We are being deliberately deprived of that opportunity.

The Government are using the guillotine to suit their own political tactics. This type of thing has been a characteristic of the Government since the day they first took office. The arrogance grew with the weeks, months and years. Now they have reached the stage where they think it is only a matter of form to bring in a Bill and get it through as quickly as possible. The fact that they get Bills through because they have the majority does not mean the Opposition should not be allowed to tease them out for the public and to use their democratic right as Members of this House to speak on them.

I am shocked and dismayed at the approach of the Minister for Finance in accusing, as he did, backbench Members on this side of the House of speaking in the House as if they had no right to do so. When I spoke on the Finance Bill—and I defy contradiction on this from the other side of the House—I said it was the greatest piece of political cajolery ever to come before the House as was evident from the Minister's statement on that occasion. We never saw in the introductory speech to any Finance Bill as much politics as we saw in the first nine pages of the Minister's statement which dealt with wide-ranging political issues which were irrelevant to the Bill.

The Finance Bill is an important measure. It gives effect to the monetary and fiscal adjustments the Minister is making. The Minister is now taking from the people more money in taxes than ever was taken from them in the history of this State, and we have a right to take a long look at the Finance Bill which gives effect to those measures. The Minister seeks to play down the serious damage he did over the years and surely we have the right to expose that. At least 30 more Deputies on this side of the House have the right to speak on this Bill unless the Chair tells them they have not. The Minister has not got that right. It is in keeping with the arrogance of the Government that he should try to assert he has that right.

I did not, of course. I was referring to the Chair's rulings.

The Minister took it on himself to tell us whether or not our Deputies were relevant when they were speaking. He even used one Deputy's name. I listened to some of the eight acolytes the Minister brought in behind him. If relevance was the test, they were as far away from the Finance Bill as the proverbial man in the moon.

The Deputy is now doing what he condemned me for doing.

They covered a range of subjects which had nothing whatever to do with the piece of political manipulation before the House. We have the right to speak our minds, but we are being deprived of that right now. There are other measures which we are not allowed to discuss at all. I congratulate the new Attorney General on his blowing in for a short time but he sought to justify the action he has taken, cutting down on the entire business of the House, by saying we are getting out of here. They cannot afford to stay too long before the school leavers get on the streets again and before the consumer price index in blazoned across the headlines of the newspapers. They must have the election before that happens. We would not care if they held it tomorrow. The Government know what their fate will be. The writing is on the wall. It is a foregone conclusion. The person who would go into the polling booth to endorse the mismanagement of the past four-and-a-half years would need to have his head examined.

The Deputy should not depart from the subject matter of the motion.

The Deputy is insulting the majority of the Irish people.

At least I got that said and I will not go any further.

I said the Deputy is insulting the majority of the Irish people.

On behalf of the Irish people I want to lodge a protest. The Government have prevented them from seeing the Finance Bill being analysed, debated and properly screened, as well as the other important measures about which they know nothing. I remember once, at an inter-parliamentary conference abroad, the subject being discussed was the control of parliament over the Government and we noticed that in some of the countries which were moving rapidly towards Fascism the Parliament met only occasionally and the Government passed measures on their own. They could not tolerate coming into Parliament to hear their measures being discussed——

This Dáil sat more hours than any other Dáil ever sat.

——and they intended to put them through anyhow.

This Dáil has sat for more hours than any other Dáil in the history of the State.

It does not matter how long we sat. On occasions we dealt with legislation that was purely cosmetic in formulation and other measures were left aside. What about the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Bill which has been on the Order Paper for two years?

We are getting away from the motion.

That is different.

What is different about it?

The motion before the House.

They could not face the people with it. It is sickening listening to the Attorney General. If he wants to heckle and interrupt me I will tell him more than enough. I am sick looking at him.

One of the measures included in this guillotine motion—in poltical terms it is probably the least important—is a Bill that does not have any great consequences except to a small number of people who are immediately affected by it. It is No. (iv) on this list but the fact that it is included in this motion raises doubts and suspicions which are a great deal more important than the terms of the Bill itself. The Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1976, was dealt with here in Committee regarding the amendments which were made to this Bill in the Seanad. It was originally a Dáil Bill and that debate took place on Tuesday, 29th March last. On that occasion the debate was rather short-lived. One of the amendments was passed and then we went on to the next one. I pointed out that there seemed to be a number of errors in the Bill. You, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, were in the Chair and I drew your attention to these errors. The Parliamentary Secretary agreed that the errors existed and a debate took place as to what should be done. The errors were called out by me and when they were added up they amounted to eight. Their existence was agreed. They should have been rectified by the Seanad and this had not been done. I suggested that the Bill should be sent back to the Seanad as it was not fit to be passed and that was agreed. Finally, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you agreed to that yourself and it was sent back to the Seanad.

I quote from Volume 298 of the Official Report at column 520. You, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, stated:

On the points made by Deputy O'Malley it would seem that the appropriate thing would be to adjourn consideration and send a message to the Seanad in regard to the errors that have been made and send the Bill back to the Seanad for the correction of these errors.

I then stated:

That was my original suggestion and I think it is an excellent one. Since I suggested it, I thoroughly agree.

At column 521 the Parliamentary Secretary stated:

This matter will be considered by the Seanad in any case and I do not know that it is necessary to indicate the number of errors at this juncture.

Earlier, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you had referred to the fact that the errors could not be corrected in this House. I quote from column 515:

Standing Orders rule it out.

Later you said:

Standing Orders do not seem to leave scope for that.

The position, therefore, is that this Bill has been sent to the Seanad. The Seanad is now seized on it, in the technical, legal sense of that word, and it is a matter of some doubt to me whether this House had any power to send a Bill to the Seanad in those circumstances. Standing Orders have no provision for it and as far as I can see the Constitution has no provision for it. In any event it was done. I wish the Attorney General, in the more senior office which he now holds, could control himself better than when he was Whip and stop interrupting people.

I wanted to ask if the Deputy would give way for a moment. I should like the chance to reply to this technical and perfectly reasonable point. I should like to explain——

The Attorney General can reply when I am finished. He proposed the motion and he will reply to it. How many times does he want to speak?

For all I know, the Opposition may wish to talk this motion out as well. If I get in to reply I will raise this point then.

Page 506 of today's Order Paper has a list of Bills which are headed "Dáil Bills with the Seanad". The first of these is the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1976. That Bill is in the Seanad. It may not be there legally or properly or constitutionally but it is there for the purpose of Standing Orders of this House and of the other House. I do not have the Seanad Order Paper with me but I understand that Bill appears on it. Could the Chair or the Attorney General or anyone else explain to me how a Bill which is in the Seanad— at whatever stage—can be plucked from the Seanad and brought down here and placed on the table of this House for the purpose of being guillotined into so-called law? That, I submit, cannot be done and all the guillotines in the world will not make law of something which is patently not law. All the guillotines in the world will not bring within the Standing Orders of this House and the proper constitutional procedure of this House a proposed procedure which is patently outside Standing Orders and was never contemplated by the Constitution.

People may not be very worried about this and they may think it is not very important. The Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill is not in itself a matter of any consequence. There was no controversy about the terms of the Bill. I suggested amendments but there was no fundamental disagreement on the terms of the Bill. The amendments were of a drafting and legal type. We got on quite well with it. The fact that the Bill is not politically important does not matter; it is the principle being established here that if someone wants to force something through one can pluck it from the Seanad, bring it down here and guillotine it and call it law. If that procedure for making law is allowed and if we have any more of this Government who are prepared to do things in that way, then it is a poor look-out for this country.

The only redeeming feature is that this is taking place before a general election and the people will have the opportunity within the next few weeks to pass their verdict. This is a clearly improper procedure and it must be remembered, as Deputy Colley has said, that the guillotine has been used more often in the 20th Dáil than in the other 19 Dála combined. It is appropriate that this Dáil should go out on the note of patronage and the guillotine because these have been the hallmarks of this Administration over the past four-and-a-quarter years. While this is being done and while we purport to make law in this way, I suggest we are not making law.

I do not know the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court in inquiring into the non-observance of the Standing Orders of this House or of the other House in the purported or alleged making of law. If they have any jurisdiction in these matters I hope that they will exercise it. It is clear for them to see, as it is clear for any member of the public to see, that the proper procedures have not been followed.

It is worthy of note that, with all the resources at his disposal, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whose appointment to that position four-and-a-quarter years ago was hailed almost as the Second Coming of some kind of Messiah who was going to save Ireland, was so incompetent, despite all the resources of the huge Department behind him, that it was left to a Member of the Opposition, with no resources at all, to stand up here and point out no fewer than eight errors in the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill and those eight errors were agreed by the Chair and by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary as existing in the Bill and it was agreed that the Bill could not be passed with those eight errors in it. It is most inappropriate, therefore, that the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill should be included in this guillotine motion because it is forcing into law, not by the democratic process but by a guillotine motion, a Bill in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the latter being the promoter of the Bill, agrees there are eight errors and this motion is, therefore, forcing the Bill into law with those errors.

It will, therefore, be a totally defective Bill. As well as being defective because it contains all these errors, it is also defective because Standing Orders of neither this House nor the Seanad have been complied with. It is not far-fetched to visualise a situation where the Government of the day had, for example, lost their majority in the Seanad and there was a Bill up there bogged down on Committee Stage and the Government of the day, with a secure majority in the Dáil, decided they would do what was done in 1977 with the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill and apply the guillotine.

That would be voided. This is not voided for a reason the Deputy has not mentioned.

Deputy Colley mentioned the Finance Bill and the Prisons Bill. I want to deal with the latter. The Prisons Bill has an interesting history. It is a re-enactment for a further three years of a Bill I introduced in 1972 in the immediate aftermath of a serious riot which wrecked Mountjoy Prison, the biggest prison in the country, and in which more than half the prisoners in the country were held in custody at that time. Its speedy passage was necessary in order that a very large number of very violent and subversive prisoners would not have to be released. That Bill was passed but only after the most strenuous opposition from both the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. The opposition of the Fine Gael Party was purely verbal because, when it came to a vote, they did not vote against it, but about half the Labour Party voted against it, including members of the present Government.

At that time I accepted an amendment designed to limit the operation of the Bill to a period of two years. It was argued that one year would be sufficient and that Mountjoy could be restored in one year. Several speakers, who are now members of the Government, said the Bill should not be kept in operation for one day longer than it took to repair Mountjoy. It is now five years later and Mountjoy has long since been repaired. As well as that, various other prisons have been established. I provided most of them. I got Arbour Hill started. I got Cork started. I got Shelton Abbey started. All these are now available. They were not available in May, 1972. The number of prisoners held in military custody at the moment is, according to the Minister for Justice, 30.

He also gave the figures for the number of prisoners in all the other civil prisons. There are considerable, if one may use that description, vacanvies in almost all these prisons and there would not be the slightest difficulty in accommodating a further 30 prisoners in the civil prisons. Indeed, 130 could be easily accommodated in them. It is not necessary, therefore, that this Bill should be passed by 31st May which is the date on which the authority to hold people in military custody expires. It is not necessary because 30 of them could be transferred to no fewer than four other prisons and held in them without any difficulty. The people in the Curragh are not by all accounts violent people. It was alleged by the Minister they were. He gave a long account of violent acts in recent years, but that account was confined to activities which took place in Portlaoise. It is a civil prison.

It seems to me extraordinary that the most violent prisoners we have can be held in civilian custody and that very much less violent prisoners, so far as one knows—in fairness, one must assume this is the case—cannot be held in civilian custody. They are in military custody even though there are ample vacancies throughout our civilian prison system. It is not necessary, therefore, that this Bill should be passed before 31st May or before any date in fact but, as Deputy Colley said—and I thoroughly agree with him —there have been only five speakers and I do not think anyone spoke for longer than half an hour or 35 minutes. I was the longest; I think I spoke for 35 minutes, and there were four others, including the Minister and one of his backbenchers—that debate was uncomfortable and embarrassing for many people on that side of the House because they were reminded of the attitude they took up five years ago at a time when they were giving encouragement and succour to people who were seeking to act in an extremely violent way. I think it is fair to say now that it is not necessary to include the Prisons Bill in this guillotine motion because it does not have to be passed at all, certainly not for an indefinite period.

As I said, it is most inappropriate to include the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill for the reasons I stated. This is a matter that would worry people interested in the democratic system and in the proper working of Parliament. Unfortunately, such people do not include the members of the present Government and it is not, I suppose, surprising that they should be now trying to force into law in this undemocratic way a Bill about which there is no controversy. Because of the eight errors in the Bill it will be impossible to implement the provisions of the Bill.

Deputy Colley has dealt with the position in regard to the Finance Bill. We had all sorts of selective figures from the Attorney General. He gave us the times for the Second Stages over various years. What he did not give us was the total length of time in each year and, of course, the Committee Stage is in the normal way the longer part——

——of a debate on a Finance Bill. Very often there was quite a lengthy Report Stage lasting over a day or two, lengthy by usual Report Stage standards. The position now is that we may have, perhaps, an hour or so for Committee Stage and that will be quite useless. There will be no Report Stage at all. The time spent by the House on the current Finance Bill will probably be shorter than the total amount of time spent on any previous Finance Bill in the past 15 or 20 years.

It is quite possible.

The total length of time that will be spent on this Bill will be shorter. I am glad the Attorney General agrees with that and in spite of that fact—none of us has the exact figures but we can take it that my statement is correct—and that this House has spent less time on this Finance Bill as a whole than on any Finance Bill nevertheless it is chopped it is guillotined. We are told: we will do without parliamentary democracy; we will do without parliamentary discussion. Having seen a bit of what happened last Saturday and Sunday—I did not inflict myself to look at it too much—it does not surprise me that the organisers of last Saturday and Sunday would be the people who would carry into effect what we are now about to witness happening here today, the guillotining of everything that does not suit, the cutting off and the making redundant of a Parliament here.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Peculiarly enough, it is rather appropriate that the 20th Dáil which has been marked by a preponderance of guillotine motions should be approaching its dying hours with a discussion on another guillotine motion. During the course of a debate on the most recent appointment of a Minister by the Government I found fault with that appointment on the basis that there was a man more qualified for the Ministry concerned than the person appointed and on this occasion I should like to express to the mover of this motion, the Attorney General, my congratulations to him on his appointment. While we may have a pile of political differences, from the point of view of arranging the business of the House I found him an extremely honourable man. I also wish to acknowledge his expression of appreciation and goodwill to my colleague, Deputy Browne, and myself. I always admired the Attorney General's capacity to be able to present a case as a straightforward black and white justification. He has managed to do the same in moving this motion on behalf of the Taoiseach.

It is remarkable that the man selected to lead this Parliament always had the capacity to be so silent within the House while he could be so loudmouthed outside it. It is possible that the Taoiseach's colleagues in the Government advised him not to move this motion because they were afraid he might lose his head as he did last week-end. Is that the reason why they asked the man who was not present at the Ard-Fheis last weekend because he was pleading our case in Europe to make a case in justification for this final guillotine—it may be the second last guillotine because we could have a further guillotine between now and 7 o'clock. Nothing surprises us in relation to a guillotine.

We listened last weekend to a Taoiseach who had gone wild. He went out of his way to quote figures—the Attorney General quoted the same figures and it is possible he is due credit for having presented those figures to the Taoiseach as part of his scripted contribution—which showed the number of hours the 20th Dáil sat and the volume of work it completed. It should be remembered that it takes two sides to do that amount of work. I should like to draw the attention of the Government, and the Attorney General, to the fact that while the Dáil sat for the number of hours quoted by the Attorney General he always complained that the Opposition were holding up the business of the Dáil. This open Government have made that complaint since they were formed.

The Attorney General must accept that we conveyed to him the view that if it was necessary to sit longer hours in order to get the work completed we would prefer that to the sort of fascist-type guillotine motion we have become accustomed to. A big song and dance has been made of the fact that five days have been spent on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill. The Attorney General told us he researched the position over the past 20 years but I was surprised he did not go back further. At the weekend the Taoiseach categorically said that five days was the longest time that had been spent on the Second Stage of a Finance Bill, since the foundation of the State. I hope that was researched.

I did not hear him say that. I did not research further back than 1957 but I am almost certain it is correct because the tendency has been for debates here to get shorter and shorter——

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance had something to say about debates on Finance Bills since the twenties. The Attorney General said he was speaking from experience gained over the last 20 years and I accept that.

This is the sixth Finance Bill to be discussed here over the last four-and-a-half years. There was a statutory requirement in relation to four of the last five Bills—which does not apply to this Bill nor the first Bill—that the Bills be completed within a given time. The Attorney General will recall discussing with me the problem of agreeing to finish the Second Stage of the 1975 Finance Bill when we had many more people anxious, willing and capable of speaking on it. Under a statutory requirement the Second Stage of that Bill needed to be cleared within so many days following the Financial Resolution, which was the initial budget. Two years ago that requirement was altered to give more time. The co-operation of which the Attorney General spoke earlier required that certain statutory commitments be adhered to. He always got the co-operation of the Opposition in this regard.

The end product of the 1977 Finance Bill, in spite of the squawking of the Minister for Finance and the croaking of the Taoiseach over the weekend, is that this will be the shortest debated Bill on the records of this House. Normally it is the Committee Stage that takes up time. Last Tuesday week we started debating the Finance Bill. Since then we have had six sitting days and debated it for five. We still have many speakers. I reported progress.

As Deputy Colley said, the establishment of government will not stop because of the non-passing of the Finance Bill at this stage. If I were a member of the Government I would be anxious to see if we could get to the stage of agreeing. The Attorney General made no reference to the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill or the Prisons Bill but he said that he had tried to get agreement with the Opposition Whip to finalise the Finance Bill and we were not ready to do it.

To begin it earlier.

The only approach made to us last week was to know if there was any hope of reaching agreement for finalising the Finance Bill. If I had said to the Attorney General last Wednesday night that we would finish the Finance Bill on Thursday and have a vote at some stage that evening, he would have asked me to postpone it until today because neither of us would have had the troops to vote on it if we intended opposing it.

The Taoiseach stands between the people and anarchy. He made a remarkable statement that the blowins here could be blown out for all he cared. The office of the Government whip may have been in a disturbed state last week. Over the last four-and-a-half years, most of the closure motions appeared on the Order Paper arising from agreement. This open Government have been famous for their guillotine motions. The description of a closure motion and a guillotine motion is the same. It all depends on whether there has been agreement beforehand. If there has not been agreement, a guillotine motion is introduced.

No approach was made to the Opposition Whip asking for agreement with a view to finding time to finish our business. Perhaps the date of the dissolution of the Dáil had to be kept a secret but notice of the guillotine motion was not conveyed to the appointed elected Members of this House until Monday morning, although the media had the information on Saturday. Open Government, how are you! It is open to the extent that it is for political worth.

I examined the envelope in which I got the copy of this motion yesterday morning. It was posted in Dublin at 9.30 according to the postmark. There is no post delivered in the greater Dublin area on Saturday; we have that benefit in the country and will have it, provided the Government are not reelected and the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs decides, as is predictable, that nobody in rural areas should enjoy anything that those in Howth have not got. I received the post from the Dáil on Saturday morning, the post that would be sent out normally at 5.30 or 6 o'clock or whatever is the latest time for posting. I had post redirected to me on Friday to my home address in Abbeyleix and I got it in proper time on the first post on Saturday morning. Press representatives were in touch with me to know if I had any information on this guillotine motion and I confessed I had not. I learned that the information was freely available at the Mansion House. The Attorney General smiles but this is so. On Monday morning it transpired that the information freely available in the Mansion House was factual; the Press had the story right.

The only explanation was that the motion from the Taoiseach's office was deliberately handed in at the Dáil office at a time on Friday night to qualify under Standing Orders to be taken today but so as to keep Members of the House—particularly the Opposition Members because Government Members had the opportunity of getting the information on Saturday morning—without the information until Monday.

That was not deliberate. It is true that it went out late but it was not deliberate.

It was an amazing coincidence. My information from three different pressmen who were in touch with me on Saturday was that they could not get the information or confirmation of it. If it was not deliberately withheld, why did the Government Information Service not issue it? They never sleep. The outgoing Government had two successes, the Government Information Service and the Government Whip. They were great and only for them we would not be at this stage now. The Dáil would have dissolved a year-and-a-half ago and we would have beaten the Government by a vote in the House. We had the amazing situation where I heard—I think it was the Minister for Finance—talking about forgetfulness today in his usual snide way on this motion. It is rather remarkable that the Taoiseach on Saturday when he was conveying the information to the reformed mongrel foxes that the Finance Bill would go through this week despite the Opposition because anything the Government brought into the 20th Dáil the Government saw it through. He forgot about one very important measure that the Government brought into the House and did not see through. There is no need for me to remind the present Attorney General what that important measure was.

The Attorney General, for some reason, was concluding that we were proposing to filibuster on this motion. This is not so, but we want to put some things on record and that is being done. The situation would have been different if a decent, proper gentlemanly approach had been made by a Government representative to the Opposition last week-end. The Taoiseach felt it was necessary—and rightly so—to appoint an Attorney General but not to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary: he should have appointed somebody to act on his behalf who could have approached the Opposition Whip. Perhaps it is unfair to say this but if the Government Whip did want to discuss business with the Opposition Whip confidentially, he probably appreciates that he could do that. But no approach was made.

My point is that if the Government had approached the Opposition and said: "We are now about to answer the demands you have been making for four-and-a-half years for us to get out. We propose to get out next Wednesday night. Could you talk to your leader with a view to clearing the Finance Bill, the Prisons Bill and the Friendly Societies Bill?" I do not know what answer I could have given but I think this would have been a far more honourable way to have done it than to have sneakingly—or as the Attorney General says, mistakenly or by oversight delivered this motion to Leinster House last Friday night too late for the post. The Attorney General is liable to react by saying: "If you are willing to do that through a normal, gentlemanly approach why are you opposing it now?" I am opposing the jackboot method so consistently used by the Government. I say without fear of contradiction that we have had more guillotine motions from the present Government in the last four and a half years than we have had from the former collective Fianna Fáil Governments over their 16 year period. If the Attorney General is in a position to contradict this, I am sure that during the election campaign either himself or the Minister for Finance can do so. I doubt if he would bother to do the research during the election campaign. In the context of what the Attorney General has put on the record of the House and put in as part of the Taoiseach's script last weekend as regards the volume of work done, I want people to appreciate that you do not get through that volume of work, get those longer hours, unless you have the wholehearted co-operation of the Opposition.

I strongly suggest that the Attorney General should research the volume of contributions from the Government side on all those measures through all those hours by comparison with the contributions from the Opposition. I suggest that if he did he would find that even with the long hours, during the term of the 20th Dáil, Government contributions fell far short of Government contributions in the past. I think this is wrong. It is a terrible thing that Deputy Molloy had to come in here some moments ago, two days short of the dissolution of the Dáil, and ask for a quorum. He had to try to get these cocky Fine Gael and Labour backbenchers into the House to listen to the debate. They are doing their best to stay out of the House but, at the same time, they are trying to talk the people into sending them back.

It is unfortunate in these dying days of what has been a lengthy and businesslike session with plenty of hard work done by both sides that the Government have adopted the course of action now proposed without making any effort to reach agreement. In tribute to the Attorney General, irrespective of whatever way he might have worked it out with Deputy Browne and myself, I think he would have tried to reach agreement with us. Now he has the good fortune of being promoted to the position of Attorney General—a promotion that quite wrongly was delayed—but if he were still the Government Whip I think he would have suggested to the Taoiseach before the guillotine motion was sent out that he be given permission to make contact with the Opposition Whips to see if a deal could be done with regard to finishing the Finance Bill this week. Perhaps the suggestion was made; perhaps the Taoiseach on Friday had not got as far as opening his mouth as wide as he did on Saturday until somebody told him on Sunday to try to close it.

It is unfortunate that the last major contribution of the man who is now Attorney General should have been the indignity of having to move this guillotine motion. The Taoiseach owed him more. It is regrettable that the Attorney General was the man who had to perform this fascist act. The Taoiseach put his name to the motion and if he had mumbled in his inimitable manner the words "I move" with regard to the motion it would have been more fair to the Attorney General.

I wish to contribute to the debate on this motion simply to add my voice to those of my colleagues in protest against the procedure which has been adopted. We have now a situation where constitutionally and practically the most important piece of legislation which this Parliament is called on to deal with in a year is being guillotined. That is reprehensible conduct on the part of the Government, conduct which is being engaged in by them for their own political reasons but more important it is a procedure that does not auger well for the future of our parliamentary democracy.

The Finance Bill is the most important legislation we are called on to deal with in any year. The power of the House, representing the people, to decide all matters relating to taxation of the people is something which is fundamental to democracy. In the old days when the American colonies were emerging into nationhood the maxim and principle of "no taxation without representation" became almost biblical in its significance. In the complexity of the governing of a modern state these fundamental basic principles may tend to be overlooked but we do so at our peril. In a modern state there is a special onus on the Government to adhere scrupulously to these basic consitutional democratic tenets. It is that aspect of the move by the Government that disturbs me more than anything else.

I suppose if the results of the general election are as we and most people expect them to be, as a Government we will have plenty of opportunity to deal in our own way with the technical provisions of the Finance Bill, to repeal anything we do not like in the legislation and to make provisions which we think should be included in it. The fact that we will have another opportunity of dealing with these matters is not really the basic issue. The basic issue is the attitude and approach of the Government to legislation in this House and particularly to taxation legislation. I do not think there is anything that affects ordinary citizens in their everyday lives so directly and immediately as taxation and if a Parliament has any one function which over-rides all the others in importance it is the function of deciding on taxation, the level of taxation, the people to be taxed, the manner in which the tax is to be levied and so on. These things go to the very root of the processes of a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, this House should be very jealous of its power in regard to taxation and legislation.

Throughout the administration of a modern state today there is constant erosion of the control of the people directly over their affairs. Because modern government is so complex and difficult, more and more the taking of important decisions is being syphoned off into non-elected areas. For instance, the area of our economy which is controlled by the State bodies is enormous and increasing every day. Those State bodies, to a large extent, are not directly amenable to democratic control and are not immediately subject to the scrutiny of Members of this House. This is the case right through the administrative machinery. More and more, because of the nature of things, because of the pressures of modern society and modern administration, the daily routine decisions are being taken in an executive way by officials and by members of the bureaucracy.

The one thing that is left to us as a Parliament is the ultimate power of deciding on the taxes people pay. We should never part with that power or lessen it in any way no matter what the temptations are. When we are confronted with a complex tax Bill like this there is great temptation for the ordinary Deputy who is not a tax expert, an accountant or a lawyer to leave it to somebody else to deal with it, to send it to some select committee, to leave it to the experts to tease it out and come to decisions about it. I suggest from the point of view of democracy, that if we ever succumb to that temptation it will be fatal from the point of view of parliamentary democracy. Even though it may be tedious and difficult to plough through Finance Bills we must always discharge our duties in regard to them, understand what they are about and take decisions about what is included in them. That is not always as difficult as it might seem.

Taxation legislation, because of its very nature, must appear complex and difficult and must be couched in very technical language. Nevertheless, behind that there is always some very reasonable, simple, straightforward proposal which any of us can understand if it is explained to us. I believe that rather than do what we are doing on this occasion we should go in the opposite direction. We should try to devise procedures whereby every Deputy can comprehend what the implications of every section of this Finance Bill are even though he has no understanding of how those implications are derived from the technical language involved. It is very upsetting for anybody who cares about this House, its status and its prestige, and wishes to see it function properly and fully in those difficult, modern times, to be confronted with the procedure which the Government are resorting to here.

My colleague, Deputy Colley, gave a very clear and explicit outline of the situation in regard to this Finance Bill. He proved completely to my satisfaction, and I think to the satisfaction of everybody listening, that there is no basic parliamentary need for what the Government are doing here. I could add that the Government are doing this because of their inefficient aproach to the situation in the early months of this year but that is not the point. We are now in a certain situation and the Government are trying to exact some short-term political electoral advantage. In order to do that they are resorting to this totally unacceptable parliamentary device of bringing in this guillotine motion to rubber stamp the Finance Bill.

There are a few specific aspects of this Finance Bill that I would have liked to go into at some length on Committee Stage. There are a number of things on which I would have liked to have the opportunity of arguing about with the Minister for Finance and perhaps succeed in some cases in persuading him that without any great detriment to the revenue position some changes could be made and some injustices could be relieved. I wanted to talk about the situation of commercial travellers who are supplied with motor cars by their firms. It is quite clear to many Deputies that the provision in regard to benefit is working very unjustly so far as the vast majority of commercial travellers are concerned. Those provisions, which were introduced for a particular reason, are having the side effect of seriously injuring the financial position of commercial travellers. If we had time to develop this argument and discuss this matter I believe there would have been sufficient Deputies interested in this matter and we would have succeeded in persuading the Minister to make some change.

Another aspect of the current taxation legislation about which I would like to have argued at some length with the Minister is the allowance of Health Act contributions as deductions for income tax purposes. If I had time to develop this argument and go into all the circumstances I believe I would have mobilised considerable support among Deputies on all sides and perhaps we would have been able to achieve something. We might have been able to persuade the Minister at least to look into the situation if not to meet us immediately on the point of view we put forward.

That is the way taxation measures should be discussed in the House. We should take time over them; we should go into all the merits and we should try to get, outside of the Minister and the Executive, a consensus of what is reasonable and fair, what improvements can be made and what concessions should be considered. The procedure which the Government are engaging in this year rules out any possibility of that. It transforms legislation into a simple straightforward Executive act, no discussing, no teasing out, no examination, no consensus but simply the Minister and to a large extent the Revenue Commissioners. One is quite convinced these days that a great deal of the stuff that is being processed and channelled through the House in a slot-machine fashion comes out of the minds and off the desks of the Revenue Commissioners without any real understanding by the Minister for Finance of what is involved. The situation now is that the Minister for Finance, as far as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned, is the greatest automaton, the greatest slot-machine they have ever come across. They process him and programme him along certain lines. He comes into the House and what is put before us is machined through the House no matter what the views of the ordinary Deputies are.

Perhaps that is an efficient way of doing things. From the point of view of textbook taxation structures it may be the right way to act but from the democratic point of view it is not right and is merely storing up trouble for the future. For the Government to do this as their last act is thoroughly reprehensible and is very dangerous in terms of our parliamentary democracy. It is something that bodes ill for the future. Apart from the provisions of the Finance Bill the principle of resorting to this sort of tactic is undesirable and unacceptable. I suppose that in any parliament or in any debating chamber there must be included in the rules some provision for guillotine procedure.

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but I must move that the motion be now put.

Perhaps the Attorney General would explain why. Am I being repetitive?

The motion has been moved. Consequently, I am putting the question.

On a point of order, I know that you, Sir, are concerned with precedent in all your rulings on these matters. Is it not the position that precedent requires that you give consideration to such a motion and that normally you would not give a decision for 20 or 30 minutes?

That is essentially a matter for the Chair.

But in this case are you not disregarding precedent?

In the majority of cases the Chair accepts a claim in the first instance.

Was that the case during the terms of office of other occupants of the Chair?

Yes, and during my time also.

I suggest that it never happened during the terms of office of previous occupants.

Is this the chopper?

I move "That the question be now put."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 58.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the allocation of time motion be agreed."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 58.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share