It is proposed to take No. 42a, Finance Bill, 1998, Financial Resolutions; No. 3, Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998, Second Stage (resumed); No. 4, Roads (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 42a. shall be taken without debate. Private Members' business shall be No. 77, Motion reHomelessness (resumed).
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 42a. agreed?
We have received rafts of amendments in recent days; two amendments received yesterday are 66 pages in length. I am not saying the current Minister for Finance is the first to do this, but it makes a farce of Committee Stage attempts to deal with technical legislation when we received even more amendments this morning.
Unfortunately, this happens annually. A number of days are allotted for Committee and Report Stages to deal with the Bill. I know late amendments create great difficulties for those dealing with the Finance Bill.
There are difficulties in dealing adequately with technical amendments which arrive late. We can make political points in committee, but it is impossible for us to give the Bill the technical scrutiny it requires. Will the Taoiseach allow extra time on Report Stage? If we miss something we will then have the interval between Committee and Report Stage to return to it. We will not have sufficient time as things stand on Report Stage to do so.
I support the remarks made although I appreciate the Government's position. It would be helpful if the House could reconvene in committee on Report Stage to consider late amendments. That would facilitate the passage of the Bill as well as its scrutiny by the Opposition.
This can be discussed at the Whips' meeting but there are dates for the conclusion of the Finance Bill to be reached. However, I am sure those dealing with the Bill will be able to reach agreement, as there is usually a small number of Deputies involved.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Institute of Taxation in Ireland, which is concerned with implementing this legislation, has also expressed great concern about late amendments and their inability to make technical submissions on same? The result of this is legislation which is not as good as it ought to be.
In addition to the request for extra time on Report Stage, will the Taoiseach ask the Department of Finance to produce the Finance Bill earlier? If necessary, we should consider amending the constitutional time limits for dealing with the Finance Bill so it can be scrutinised properly. When that constitutional provision was put in place the technical tax legislation we now deal with was not contemplated and the time limits are not conducive to producing good legislation.
Deputy Bruton's point about looking at this in the long term is valid. As a former Minister for Finance, I note that those who complain about the lack of time are those who tend to generate amendments because of their ingenuity.
Probably, but that is not quite the point.
I accept that. The Finance Bill has become very complex compared to even a decade ago and it is valid to look at this in the long term.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 42a. agreed? Agreed.
Yesterday the Taoiseach gave extensive answers on proposals to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. A referendum is also proposed on the Amsterdam Treaty. Those referenda may both be in May, with the latter being held in late May according to the Taoiseach. What is the Taoiseach's best estimate of the date for publication of details of the proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3? When will the House see those proposals, given the necessity for proper consideration of amendments of the Constitution, particularly Articles 2 and 3?
It is too early to say when the overall agreement will be reached. We are working to try to achieve that by Easter.
I do not know if that is possible, but I hope it will be. As I stated yesterday, as Easter falls in the middle of April and due to the 30 day rule it would be impossible to hold a referendum on 8 May. That gives us adequate time for consultation. It has yet to be decided whether the referendum will take the form of one or two questions, but as soon as we are making sufficient progress I will consult the party leaders in the House.
Regardless of whether the Taoiseach's target of Easter is achieved, it is worthwhile having that target. If an agreement is reached by Easter can I assume amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution will be published almost immediately thereafter in the form of a Bill, in other words, in the second half of April?
Correct.
I thank the Taoiseach for what he put on the record of the House yesterday, but the complexities surrounding the exchanges we are now having is a clear indication that the Whips or Party leaders should be briefed on the timetable the Government envisages and, in particular, on the way the matter should be addressed. There is the added complication that the Government may be tempted to run two unrelated referendums on the same day, the referendum required to give approval to the Amsterdam Treaty and a referendum, which may take the form of one or two questions, on Articles 2 and 3. While it is appropriate to raise this matter on the Order of Business a more constructive and comprehensive discussion could take place between the party leaders who, without anticipating the position of other parties, broadly support the Government on both issues. Therefore, will the Taoiseach consider holding, at an appropriate time, a consultation with the party leaders on the timetable for both referendums?
That is a reasonable request. I do not wish to be pessimistic or optimistic about the matter, but, to use the Deputy's words, we must wait for the appropriate time. There is a great deal yet to be agreed. We are near agreement on several issues, but it is not easy to pull it all together. There are 12 or 13 groups involved, some of which want to concentrate on one issue and others who wish to concentrate on a range of issues. As I explained yesterday, I am endeavouring to narrow down the areas of disagreement. It would be extremely optimistic to say we can do this but, in spite of the terrible murders last night, if one is not optimistic one will not get anywhere. We have to be optimistic.
That is correct.
On a separate but perhaps related matter, will the Taoiseach confirm that despite the callous and brutal murders in Northern Ireland last night, the Irish Government is determined to proceed these negotiations to a successful conclusion? Does the Taoiseach agree with Seamus Mallon that those murders are an attack on the peace process and, in my view, attack the very basis of civilised living and give the lie to those who claim, through the use of murder, to defend one side of the community or the other? Last night was a classic example of the indiscriminate murder of people simply because of where they drink or worship.
The brutal murders of Damien Trainor and Philip Allen last night from the so-called opposite sides of the divide and the bomb found yesterday in a hay barn are designed to derail the peace process, as people have been trying to do for years. Unfortunately, as we are discussing these issues this morning people somewhere else are working out their next move. That is the brutal reality of the matter. As I continually state to the parties involved, the more threats, intimidations and attempts to ruin the peace process, the more those of us who believe in non violence and democracy should claim we are going to proceed. If enough people hold that view — I believe 98 per cent do — we will finally win through.
I want to be associated with the comments of Deputy De Rossa and the Taoiseach in condemning these awful murders of a Protestant and a Catholic last night. Their friendship across the religious divide symbolises hope and a common humanity shared by people of different political opinions and their lives, although brought to a premature end, are an example of friendship across the religious and political divide which is needed on this island, particularly in the North. It probably best illustrates the warped sectarian and hateful approach of the killers that they slaughtered two people of different religions because they were probably seeking to make it impossible for such people to be friends. That shows the depths of the evil with which we are dealing in sectarian killers like those who killed those two decent men last night.
My party supports the two parties in Government in their effort and determination to pursue a democratic solution to this problem. It is tragic, rather than ironic, that in the bicentenary anniversary of the United Irishmen who sought, among other things, to replace the titles of catholic, protestant and dissenter with the common name "United Irishmen" that two people who possess the titles catholic and protestant and who were celebrating friendship were shot simply because of who they were. They were not shot for an opinion they had uttered or for a stance they had taken, but simply for who they were and for what their friendship represented to those who are fearful of diversity and pluralism on this island. I extend my sympathy to the families of the murdered and to the people of Poyntzpass, a town which held itself up as a model of good community relations. This assembly on this part of the island should extend sympathy to all the people of that community. I join the leaders of the Fine Gael Party and Democratic Left in urging the leader of our Government to pursue without fear or favour a democratic solution to this problem.
It is only fitting that the House should express sympathy to the family of the late Dermot Morgan who was one of the leading—
While the Deputy's remarks would have the support of all the Members, under Standing Orders the House cannot pass votes of sympathy for people who were not Members of the House.
There are numerous precedents of votes of sympathy and expressions of sympathy here for far lesser people. Dermot Morgan had a special place in Irish political life. He was probably the most foremost political satirist of our time. No place was better illustrated to the public by Dermot Morgan than Dáil Éireann. His contribution was stupendous and should not go unnoticed or unmentioned. It is ironic that a man who had to go abroad to earn a livelihood often referred to the fact that his famous radio programme Scrap Saturday was shelved because of political pressure on RTE.