It is proposed to take No. 5 and that No. 1 shall be taken not later than 5 p.m. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Private Members' Business shall be No. 8 and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. today.
Order of Business.
There is only one matter to put to the House. Is the proposal that No. 8 shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. today agreed? Agreed.
In regard to the Government's proposed monster tax write-off — it is not an amnesty, it is a write-off; it appears that the Government prefers the Mafia vote to the PAYE vote — what legislation does the Government plan to bring before this House to seek democratic authority for this tax write-off or does it just propose to go ahead and give this tax write-off without the authority of the House?
Please, Deputy, this is not a time for speech-making. This is the Order of Business
It relates to legislation.
(Interruptions.)
Order, this is the Order of Business.
Does the Government propose to introduce legislation to abandon the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality which it so conveniently used to wreck the Beef Tribunal now that Ministers are freely briefing the media that six members of the Government voted against this monster tax write-off?
This is not in order on the Order of Business, Deputy Bruton. Your reference to the tax amnesty is a matter which can be raised in many ways in this House, for example, by way of question or motion.
It is promised legislation.
This matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
I want to know if the Government is going to attempt——
This does not arise now. There are many ways of raising the matter——
On a point of order, a problem arose here yesterday in regard to the Government's attempts to change the Finance Bill after it had passed Second Stage. I want to know if the Government has the courage to bring this tax write-off before the House for approval.
The Deputy can be assured that this matter will be dealt with in the appropriate legislative manner, as was the 1988 amnesty. If the Deputy does not know exactly what happened in that case he can refer back to it.
It is not the same.
I am not sure that anyone stood up and shouted from high about reliefs given to the PAYE sector in 1989, 1990 and 1991 as a result of the amnesty.
Does the Labour Party support this tax amnesty?
A Deputy
There was no write-off.
Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.
The PAYE workers are paying for the Taoiseach's friends.
The Deputies should stop engaging in this Pontius Pilate behaviour. They either want to relieve pressure on the PAYE sector and get this economy going so that jobs can be created or they do not. It is time for the Deputies opposite to make up their minds. We have made up our minds.
(Interruptions.)
Order, let us maintain free speech in this Assembly. I call Deputy Des O'Malley.
Can the Taoiseach confirm that it will be necessary for somebody availing of this amnesty, as it is called, to have been in breach of both the income tax Acts and the exchange control Acts? Can he confirm that someone who broke one set of laws only will not be able to avail of this amnesty?
This matter does not arise now. This is not Question Time.
This comes from a Government which was complaining about speculators. Is that not the truth, Tánaiste?
Please, Deputy. Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
Can we have an assurance that J. & P. McMahon who have an account in the AIB in Jersey will be able to avail of this tax write-off——
Speculators my eye.
——and will be able to bring that money home and put it into——
Deputies can raise this matter at the appropriate time by way of question, motion or Adjournment matter. Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
The party opposite is supposed to be looking for tax reductions. Such hypocrisy.
This is not how you do it.
The Government was complaining about speculators.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
There is no more appropriate time to raise this matter. If we raise it by way of question the Taoiseach will not be present in the House to reply——
As I said, this is clearly not the appropriate time.
You may say that, Sir. You are entitled to make your ruling.
I have advised Members that they may raise this matter in many other ways, and my office is at their disposal in doing so. This is not the time.
With regard to the announcement by the Government last night that it proposes to reward tax cheats, may I ask the Government if it is aware of the extraordinary damage this will do to the entire system of tax collection and the entire social services system?
I must dissuade Members from defying my ruling in this matter. We may not continue to debate this subject now.
I have no intention of defying you, a Cheann Comhairle.
I am grateful to the Deputy.
It is not clear from the Taoiseach's response whether it is proposed to deal with this measure in the present Finance Bill or in a Finance Bill to be introduced later this year. I know the Minister for Finance is opposed to this measure, but when is it intended to bring it forward?
I would have thought the Deputy and other Deputies would avail of Committee Stage of the Finance Bill which is being debated at present to put all these inquiries, where they will receive satisfactory answers.
There is no means by which——
This is Government by announcement outside this House.
I have already said that this matter will be dealt with in the appropriate legislative framework, as was done on previous occasions.
What does that mean?
Will it be dealt with within the present Finance Bill or in a future Finance Bill?
I will hear no further reference to this matter. I have ruled it out of order as it is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I have advised Members on how to proceed, not that they need advice from me in that matter.
The Taoiseach suggested that this matter be raised at the select committee dealing with the Finance Bill. A motion passed by this House ties the hands of the chairman of that committee and we are not entitled to introduce matter that has not been considered and approved on Second Stage.
I am sure the Deputy can deal with that matter in the committee of which he is a member.
Since that committee cannot be the appropriate means by which to raise this matter will the Taoiseach put down a motion today to deal with it?
What does the Taoiseach plan to do in this regard?
I have already said that the matter will be dealt with by this House in due course.
As I said earlier, this is not Question Time.
This is an unprecedented attack on the tax system and we are entitled to know what the procedure will be.
Has the Government——
I have advised Deputies how to proceed.
The Taoiseach should answer the question.
I have already answered the question but the Deputy was not listening. This legislation was not promised in the House.
Does the Government seriously intend——
This matter cannot be raised in the committee.
There must be clarity on this matter. If it is appropriate to the Finance Bill we are entitled to know how we can get it on the agenda because it is not provided for in the motion of this House passed last week.
I advise Members that this is not the appropriate time to discuss the matter.
I have not said the matter will be dealt with under the Finance Bill; I said it will be dealt with in the appropriate legislative manner in due course before this House. Have the Deputies listened to what I said?
(Interruptions.)
I am very anxious to facilitate the Deputies if they will please have regard to what is in order.
They are out of order.
If Deputies continue to disregard my ruling I will insist on proceeding to the Business of the House.
Has the Government, particularly the Taoiseach, any serious intention of pursuing the proposal for an ethics in Government Bill in view of the fact that it is blatantly undermining the tax system with this proposal? Are there any standards left in this Government?
Rubbish.
I wish to put two points, the first——
The Government cut students' dole and they are introducing an amnesty for tax dodgers. Shame on it.
It is shedding crocodile tears for the people in the Mespil Road flats.
Deputy Pat Rabbitte, without interruption. I trust the Deputy will be relevant to the Order of Business.
You can rely on it, Sir.
The Government cut students' dole while giving free rights to tax dodgers.
For many years the Ministers, Deputy Taylor and Deputy Brennan, were opposed to this measure.
Please, Deputies.
I raised this matter yesterday on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill when I asked the Minister whether an amendment would be introduced on Committee Stage or Report Stage, to which he replied that no decision had been made. The Taoiseach should tell the House when legislation is likely to be introduced so that we can see the shape of this charter for tax cheats.
That question was raised earlier.
Will the Taoiseach state whether the Government consulted the Minister for poverty before bringing in this measure?
The Deputy should not make derogatory remarks of that kind about Ministers of the House.
That is what the lady calls herself. I want to know whether that Minister will receive any of the revenue that is likely to come from this measure to clear the "dirty dozen" on which she has misled the House and her own party.
Deputy Rabbitte, the appropriate title for Members of this House is laid down in Standing Orders and it should be adhered to.
This is a serious question which affects parts of my constituency, I am sure the same applies to parts of your constituency.
A Ceann Comhairle——
I am not calling Deputies again.
You did not call me.
I do not intend to call the Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach propose to make time available today to make a personal statement to the House explaining why he seriously misled the House yesterday at Question Time——
Please, Deputy.
——when he said something which is now known to be untrue?
The Deputy should not impugn the character of any Member of this House. Deputies who wish to make serious charges against the Taoiseach or any other Member can do so only by way of substantive motion. This is not a court of law; it is a national assembly.
I ask the Deputy to immediately withdraw that remark.
The Taoiseach should withdraw his proposal.
The Deputy should withdraw the remark before the proceedings go any further.
I repeat that the Taoiseach told the House yesterday he did not know The Sunday Tribune had these documents in its possession until 16 May. He is using the old formula of a source——
Deputy McDowell.
He informed a journalist on 12 May that he knew about the matter. What he told us yesterday is wrong. It is here in black and white.
The Deputy may not state or imply that a Member told a lie or deliberately misled the House. He must withdraw that allegation.
Now.
I did not say the Taoiseach deliberately misled the House; I said he seriously misled the House, and I stand over that statement.
The Deputy is changing his story.
That is tantamount to saying that the Taoiseach told a lie and it must be withdrawn.
It is not.
The Deputy should withdraw the remark now.
As I said earlier, this is not a court of law. I am in charge here and I ask the Deputy to withdraw the reference that an untruth was told.
What am I asked to withdraw, a Cheann Comhairle? The Taoiseach misled the House.
The Deputy should withdraw what he said.
The Deputy is asked to withdraw any element of lying or untruth on the part of the Taoiseach.
I made no such imputation; I said that the Taoiseach misled the House — he seriously misled the House.
The Deputy has again said that the Taoiseach misled the House. I insist on the withdrawal of that remark, otherwise the Deputy must leave the House.
I have no option but to leave the House because I know the truth when I see it.
The Deputy should stay outside.
That is an unbecoming remark from the Taoiseach. If he thinks he will maintain his position by making remarks like that he is mistaken.
It is time to proceed to the Order of Business. I am calling item No. 5.
What will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs say?
What happened to collective responsibility?