It is proposed to take No. 8.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, last night as the Dáil was concluding, a query was raised about the actual receipts from the 1 per cent income levy. I do not think that it was sufficiently answered and in fairness to the Minister I feel that an explanation should be given as to why in one set of figures in the supplementary tables accompanying the budget the total taken into account was £74 million——
The Deputy should know——
The Chair is ruling that I am out of order, but in fairness last night time was running out at 12 o'clock.
I would point out to the Deputy that we are now embarking on a general budget debate. That will afford an admirable opportunity for clearing up all matters like this.
I accept that anything can be raised in that debate, but it is important that this matter be clarified.
I would be happy.
This is not an argumentative point. These are the simple facts of the budgetary arithmetic.
If I could help the Opposition, I would.
If the leader of the Opposition wishes and the Taoiseach has no objection, I have no objection. However, I certainly do not want a debate on this within a debate not do I want to establish a precedent.
We want only the facts. Is the Taoiseach going to speak?
I am calling on Deputy Reynolds.
No, I shall be giving an explanation later.
Would the Taoiseach like to give it to us now?
We are not going to argue about it.
This matter was gone into pretty fully last night.
It was not answered. The simple matter is that it was raised last night, but the Chair would not let the matter proceed any further because he was under an order of the House to have a division at 12 o'clock. The Minister for Finance did not explain the matter. I do not think it is unreasonable that on the following morning we ask for a simple factual explanation of a very important aspect of the budget. The budget figures are already under suspicion as far as we are concerned. This is one clear matter which can be identified and explained.
I am against it because, presumably, the Taoiseach will be speaking today——
At 11 o'clock.
——and that will be an opportunity for clearing up the matter if it has to be cleared up.
The Chair is expecting Deputy Reynolds to contribute to the budget debate when this important aspect has not been explained to this House.
I am sorry, Deputy Haughey, but I am certainly not going to commence today's business by resuming the business which was concluded yesterday.
But it was not concluded.
I am raising the matter in the hope of getting an answer from the Government side. I do not mind whether it was given by the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance, but somebody should give clarification to the House about it. The distinct impression created by the Minister for Finance's budget speech yesterday was that the total revenue from the 1 per cent levy for 1984 would be £45 million, £5 million of which he would refund to those with an income under £5,000 — a total of £40 million, but, in effect, in another table of figures the total levy for 1984 is taken to be £74 million. Either the impression which is created is wrong or the figures are wrong. It is up to the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance to clarify the matter.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Of course.
That may be, but as I see it I am not going to start today's business by having a post-mortem into something of that nature——
This is not a post-mortem.
——particularly when the first and only item on today's Order of Business is a budget debate which will provide a forum for clearing up this matter.
The longer this goes on the longer will be the delay before the Taoiseach speaks on it. The Taoiseach will be explaining the matter.
What did the Government do with the £30 million? All this righteousness.
Last night, at the request of the Chair, Deputy Reynolds moved the adjournment. We are still today continuing last night's business. Last night's business was adjourned by Deputy Reynolds to be resumed this morning. So it is quite impossible for you to suggest that this is new business we are on today which has no connection with what took place last night. It is a continuation of last night's business. Before we parted last night the House was in doubt as to exactly what was the position in regard to this. No explanation was given. Therefore, it is very logical and reasonable for us to ask first thing this morning that this very important matter be cleared up.
Actually, I am going to be firm on this and I am going to rule now. What Deputy Haughey is inviting me to do is to interrupt Deputy Albert Reynolds's speech. Deputy Albert Reynolds moved the Adjournment last night.
I have to ask the same question; where is the answer?
A Ceann Comhairle, on the Order of Business——
I am calling on Deputy Albert Reynolds to resume the debate.
Before Deputy Reynolds or anybody else addresses himself to this issue the position is this——
This misbehaviour by the Chair is unacceptable to us.
There have been 15 other points raised in this way.
Before any Member of this House addresses himself to the budget Resolution, a discrepancy which emerged last night between the budget arithmetic and the tables accompanying the budget must be clarified, a discrepancy of £34 million. In those circumstances is it reasonable to ask any Member of the House to address himself to a budget resolution while there is a discrepancy of that sort remaining unclarified? That is the issue that the Taoiseach has to face now. It is not something he can deal with later after three or four Members have spoken.
One Member, I speak next. I will give the explanation in the next speech after Deputy Reynolds.
He does not know.
I am calling on Deputy Albert Reynolds to resume his speech.
I do not know whether the budget figures are right. You are asking me Sir, to speak on a financial Resolution——
I am asking you to resume your speech on the General Resolution.
That is entirely unreasonable.
That is a grossly unfair ruling.
If he talks about a budget deficit what figure is he to take?
Deputy MacSharry asked the Minister for Finance to clarify it in the House this morning. He is not in the House this morning and we have had no explanation.
You railroaded the thing through last night.
The House railroaded the thing and Deputy Haughey should not say that. I proceeded with a motion of the House to which Deputy Haughey, on behalf of his party, agreed.
The Minister for Finance knew last night that this would be a very important issue to be clarified. He did not clarify it. Surely the Taoiseach should have it clarified this morning.
I am calling on Deputy Albert Reynolds to resume his speech. If he does not do so I will proceed in accordance with Standing Orders.
You are being unduly protective of the Government in this matter.
That is a grossly unfair remark and Deputy Haughey should withdraw it.
The Taoiseach does not know.
I have no option but to protest to you in respect of this particular matter when we are seeking a reasonable explanation of a very important matter.
Deputy Haughey is bringing the House into disrepute. He cannot challenge the Chair's ruling in that way.
I am accepting your ruling under protest, Sir.
That is a different thing.
Deputy Haughey, leader, under protest.
Deputy J. Mitchell has been very quiet for a while. I think he would be well advised to remain quiet.
He will have to fix quite a few birth certificates of children who will have to buy their clothes in Switzers.