It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. By agreement there will be no interruption for Private Members' Business. By agreement also it is proposed to take Nos. 14 and 18 first for the purpose of having the House agree to have both items withdrawn.
Order of Business.
Yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach under what statutory instrument it was proposed to introduce the 2 per cent levy on agricultural produce. Could he tell me now?
Under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957.
Does that mean it will be introduced by ministerial order and not in the Finance Bill?
By order, yes.
Does that mean there will be no debate on it?
There will be a debate. The order will have statutory effect from the date of the making of the order and, unless the order is confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas passed not later than the end of the year following that in which the order is made, the order shall cease to have statutory effect at the expiration of that period, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. It will have to be confirmed by legislation if it is to remain longer than a year.
That is not true.
If an order is made under an existing Act, when does it have to be confirmed by legislation?
Not for another year.
After a year. That is exactly what I said.
Does that mean that the debate on the 2 per cent agricultural levy will be postponed for a year? Is that the effect of what the Taoiseach said today?
There is a budget debate going on at the moment.
Is it the purpose of the Government to postpone a debate on this 2 per cent levy for 12 months? Is that the net effect of what is going to happen?
I have indicated what the procedure is to the Deputy. He does not have to ask a second time.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Taoiseach not think this is a cowardly way of introducing this objectionable tax?
May I ask a question?
I would like to answer Deputy Fitzpatrick first and then Deputy Cluskey may ask his question. If it is a cowardly way we have a precedent for it, because a 15 per cent petrol tax was imposed by the Deputy's colleague, Deputy R. Ryan, when he was Minister for Finance, under the same statute.
Why does the Taoiseach not stand on his own feet for a change?
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Government have 84 seats behind them and they should not steamroll objectionable taxes like this through the House.
I am calling Deputy Cluskey.
The Labour Party put down a motion to be taken in Private Members' Time asking the Government not to impose this most unjust form of taxation on any section of the community. The Chair notified us yesterday that it was not allowed as the matter could be debated in the budget. We accepted that ruling because at that time we understood that the vehicle used to give it legislative effect would be the Finance Bill. We now find that, in order to avoid political embarrassment, the Taoiseach and the Government are trying to use a parliamentary device which would not allow this House to take effective action against the imposition of this unjust tax for 12 months. In view of this evasive action for a full discussion in the House and an opportunity of trying to avoid the imposition of this iniquitous tax, and in view of what the Taoiseach said, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling as regards our motion.
The Chair ruled against the repetition of a debate which is currently taking place. It is perfectly clear and unambiguous that, according to standing orders, we cannot have a separate debate on a matter which is already being debated.
I take it for granted that when you made that ruling you were under the same impression as everyone else in the House—that the Government and the Taoiseach would not seek to avoid their responsibility with regard to the imposition of this tax and that we would have an opportunity of discussing it, voting against it and registering our protest against that type of taxation which is totally unjust and contrary to all ideas of social justice.
The Chair ruled on this matter. I will not permit a debate on a separate item which is currently under discussion.
When we submitted the motion it was our intention, and we expressed our intention, to take it in Private Members' Time. When you communicated with us yesterday that you would not allow it in Private Members' Time, the reason you gave was that we would have an opportunity of discussing it under the Finance Bill and would have an opportunity in the more or less immediate future of voting against that form of taxation. In view of the action of the Taoiseach and the Government in trying to deprive this House of an opportunity of discussing this——
We cannot have a discussion on this now. The Chair has ruled on the matter and the duty of the Chair was clear——
In view of what transpired here this morning and the Taoiseach's statement that he will bar a discussion in this House for 12 months——
What is wrong with the budget debate?
——will the Chair reconsider his decision?
What might have been the Taoiseach's intention had nothing to do with the Chair's ruling.
I do not think what is expedient for the Government should govern the rulings of the Chair. All I ask is that you reconsider your decision in the matter.
The matter is already being debated in the House.
The Taoiseach referred to the 15 per cent excise duty put on petrol four years ago. Is it not true that at that stage the Government of the day clearly introduced it under the Act quoted by the Taoiseach? It is not clear under what guise the 2 per cent farm levy is introduced under that Act. Is it not also true that the Government of the day provided Government time to debate that order before it came into effect?
No.
Immediately after.
After it was done.
Will the Taoiseach provide Government time to debate this order immediately it is introduced?
The matter is being debated at the moment. That is as far as I will go.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach provide Government time to have the order to impose the 2 per cent farm levy debated immediately it is introduced?
The Deputies have an opportunity of debating it now if they want to.
I take it that the Taoiseach will not provide Government time to debate this 2 per cent levy when it is introduced. Is that correct?
I have answered the Deputy.
This is a cheap ploy by a Government with a majority of 20 to prevent the most important measure to come before the House, as all rural Deputies will tell the Taoiseach, being debated in the House.
It is being debated at the present time and Deputies will have every opportunity to debate it ad nauseam.
It is certainly not being debated by the agricultural Members of the Fianna Fáil Party because no Deputy from a rural constituency has spoken. Every Deputy from that side who has spoken was from Dublin.
Does the Taoiseach think that it serves the interests of parliamentary democracy that he deliberately and consistently tries to debar debate in the House on such matters as the EMS, food subsidies and now the farm levy?
I do not like those unfounded and unwarranted charges being let go without some answer. Deputy Cluskey just throws those charges around like confetti. The EMS was debated in this parliament four times, more often than it was debated in the parliaments of any other member country of the Community.
The Taoiseach had to be forced into it.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies please resume their seats when the Taoiseach is speaking.
The Deputy makes a charge, he changes it and makes another charge.
It is no trouble to him.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On the order of business, Item No. 14 on the Order Paper has been withdrawn.
Not yet.
It is the first item to be taken. If the Deputy will resume his seat I will take it now.
It has not yet been withdrawn.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I will reserve what I have to say until it is actually withdrawn.
Will the Taoiseach say under what provision of the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957 the farm levy is being introduced? Is it a customs duty or an excise duty that it is being introduced under?
It is not my function to interpret legislation for the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that he has decided to use the powers of the Act to introduce the levy? One would presume, therefore, that he would be acquainted with which particular power of the Act he intends to use.
I have taken the Attorney General's advice on the matter.
Is it an excise duty or a customs duty?
I have nothing further to add.
Does the Taoiseach not know?
We are going on now with the business on the Order Paper.
I object to being cross-examined in this manner.
In this pointless manner.
In view of the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the 2 per cent levy where the Minister for Finance made a statement in his budget statement and subsequently made a statement at a Fianna Fáil Party meeting that he was prepared to reconsider the proposals he had made in his budget speech, does the Taoiseach think that it is necessary to have a debate on the introduction of the 2 per cent levy?
The 2 per cent levy is being debated and if the Deputies want it they can debate it ad nauseam.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not being debated by the Taoiseach's rural Deputies.
If the Deputy wants a debate he can have it.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach tell the House if the terms of the order under the Imposition of Duties Act will be published before they take effect or will people find that they are acting under an order they have not seen before the day it takes effect?
It is the usual procedure to publish an order of this House before it takes effect and that will be done.
How long before? Will there be an opportunity for amendments to be proposed?
I have referred the Deputy to the legislation in question and he will get all the information he wants from it.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat. We want to get on with the business. I would like to point out that the questions that are being asked and discussed on the levy are all relevant for discussion in the budget debate. The time of the House should not be taken up now with it.
With your permission, I wish to raise on the adjournment today the decision of the Minister for the Environment to raise the rents of local authority housing.
I will communicate with Deputy Quinn during the afternoon.
With regard to this ministerial order, we have moved on a number of occasions to have such orders annulled and established that we have the right in Government time to have them annulled. Will the Taoiseach promise the House now that when we move to have this order annulled he will provide Government time immediately for it?
I will not promise anything in advance.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Taoiseach only promises things before a general election.
Could Deputy Fitzpatrick please contain himself. He is the most senior Member on the other side and he seems to be hopping up like a new Deputy. Would he just contain himself.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is very hard to contain oneself.
When the Deputy's deputy leader asks me a question, if not out of courtesy to me out of courtesy to Deputy Barry he might listen to the answer. When the order is made it will be a matter for the Opposition to take their own course of action. I will not advise them in advance or give them any undertakings in advance of what action they will take.
The Taoiseach knows very well what the action will be. I want a guarantee that when we move to have the order annulled the Taoiseach will provide Government time, as we have established is our right, when that is done.
If it is the Opposition's right they will have that right.
The matter is ended. No. 14.
On the Order of Business, in view of the emergency throughout the State relating to the postal strike, could the Taoiseach tell us when he proposes to bring forward the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs? Does he consider the matter so serious that he will bring the Estimate forward immediately?
I cannot say that but I do not believe that bringing forward a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs would have any effect on the current situation. In fact it might exacerbate it.
It is not about time the Taoiseach began to lead the country instead of standing back?
Order. I am calling Item No. 14. Will Deputy Harte please resume his seat.
(Interruptions.)