It is proposed to take No. 1 only.
Order of Business.
We have no objection to taking this Capital Gains Tax Bill today. In view of the constitutional provision that we only have three weeks to deal with a Money Bill of this nature, it must be taken at the earliest possible moment, but I do think, nonetheless, that it is, to say the least of it, unsatisfactory that we are in the position of having to debate this Bill today when the actual copy of the Bill as finally agreed to by the other House only arrived in our pigeon holes in Leinster House this morning. There were a number of changes made on the final Stages of the Bill last Tuesday. In view of this, one can only once again protest at the slipshod manner in which this Government are consistently conducting their legislative business. It will mean that we must discuss a Bill that in certain respects is a new Bill and has only reached us a few minutes ago. In particular, I would like to protest that it is quite unreasonable to expect us to discuss this extremely important and complicated Bill without an adequate memorandum. The only explanatory memorandum we have is the one that was issued on 20th December last with the version of the Bill as initiated. Since then somewhere around 30 or 40 amendments—it may well be more— have been agreed to in the course of discussions in the other House. Some of these are of a fairly far-reaching nature and yet all we have is an explanatory memorandum which relates to the Bill as initiated. This is not of such great importance, though obviously it is material in respect of the Second Reading debate, but I would urge the Government that it is absolutely essential before the Committee Stage debate on this Bill that we should have an adequate memorandum, even if it is only a duplicated document, either in the form of an explanatory memorandum which incorporates all the amendments or else if it was preferred— I suppose it would be adequate, though not as good—some kind of document explaining the amendments that had been made along the line, in other words indicating in what way the Bill diverges from the up-to-date position, because I cannot see how we can adequately discuss a Bill of this nature without some such explanatory document.
It has become a thing for Fianna Fáil to feel they are obliged to raise some kind of protest on the Order of Business. Senator Yeats is well aware it was the intention of the Government to take this Bill as soon as possible. Let us look at the position realistically. Senator Yeats is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. He makes no secret of that. I daresay he takes some pride in that. He is a man who is in the confidence of the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party and whose advice is sought by the Fianna Fáil Party. He is clearly a man—and he has given evidence of this time and time again here—who is prepared to devote himself to research in dealing with legislation in this House. I have no doubt that he is on the mailing list, as everyone else is, as regards the Dáil Debates, and I have even less doubt that being on the mailing list through the good offices of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Senator Yeats gets his copy of the Dáil Debates; and I have yet less doubt again that Senator Yeats is a man who goes through the Dáil Debates line by line and he is very well aware and very much up to date, probably more. So than most Members of this House, with the arguments which have been presented in the Dáil and with the changes which have been made in the Dáil.
In fact this Bill was discussed for 17 days in the Dáil and consumed a total of 98 Dáil hours, every one of which I have no doubt has been digested fully by Senator Yeats, and while I do not want to create any crude images I imagine some of what has been digested will be emitted here in the course of this discussion.
All of us appreciate the courtesy of Ministers and the work of their Departments when they produce explanatory memoranda. That is purely for the assistance of Deputies and Senators, with clearly no obligation to do it, and I feel quite sure the Minister will be more than capable of explaining everything in the Bill. If Senator Yeats or anyone else feels that his opening statement does not explain the position adequately, he will have an opportunity of raising any points he wishes and the Minister will be in the position to clarify any matters that require clarification when he is concluding the discussion.
Very briefly, might I point out that the debates for the last ten days or so in the other House are not available and we have no way of knowing what amendments were made in the recent discussions on Report?
Order of Business agreed to.