There is an amendment in the name of the Minister and there are also two amendments to that amendment.
Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill, 1988: Report and Final Stages.
What is the second amendment?
I understand that one is being circulated in the name of Deputy Connaughton.
Could we have a copy of the second amendment?
I understand it is a separate amendment. In respect of the amendment in the name of the Taoiseach, I take it that the Minister for Communications will move it and that Deputy O'Malley will then move the amendment to it on behalf of Deputy Kelly. I wish to remind the House that on Report Stage the mover of the main amendment, the Minister, will have a right to reply but that every other speaker will be confined to one contribution.
On a point of order, there are several amendments and I take it that we can speak separately on each one?
Of course but, in respect of the amendment in the name of the Minister, he will move it and he will have the right to reply. Other amendments will be moved and discussed but the mover of the amendment will not have the right of reply although he may have the right to ask a question.
Dr. G. Fitzgerald
Thank you.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, lines 20 to 22, to delete "in such manner as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, directs" and substitute the following:
"for the purposes of such projects or undertakings (including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution) involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine".
We had a long debate on this earlier today and I do not want to delay the House any further. I cannot add much more to the discussion except to say that the amendment was put down with the aim of trying to help the House arising from the debate on Second Stage this morning. It is merely to put into the Bill the purpose of the agreement entered into between the two Governments.
I did not answer Deputy Fitzpatrick's question. The accounting officer's role is not in any way affected and the expenditure will be controlled and accounted for in the ordinary way. There is no change in the position of the accounting officer.
The accounting officer is excluded and whatever discretion he has is taken away and given to the political head of the Department.
The correct procedure now is that the Fine Gael amendment should be moved. I understood from Deputy Kelly that Deputy FitzGerald would move his amendment.
I move amendment 1 to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Kelly.
In the last line, after "determine" to insert ", and as the Dáil may approve".
This amendment is designed to complete the wording of the amendment which the Minister put down in response to the points raised on the earlier Stage of the debate. With the addition of the words "and as the Dáil may approve", the control of the Dáil would be reasserted, which seems appropriate. I should like to hear the grounds on which the Minister thinks the treatment of these funds should be different from the similar funds in the Fund of Suitors Act which come from outside and which are put to specific purposes beyond the normal framework of Exchequer expenditure. In that case, as I pointed out earlier — apparently in a disorderly manner although I did not realise it — the Dáil specified how much of this money could be spent on particular objects and limited by laying down specific sums for each of the items of expenditure. Why does the Minister feel it necessary in this instance not to have that constraint but to give complete freedom of action to the Taoiseach in the disbursement of these funds? What are the characteristics of these funds that differentiate them from the Funds of Suitors to such a degree that this open-ended approach is required rather than the Dáil approving specific expenditure of the maximum amount of expenditure on specific items? I would be interested to hear the Minister's reply. I am a bit disturbed that I cannot reply on Report Stage to his remarks but I am sure other Members will do so.
If these two amendments are accepted and if the three or four words which Deputy Kelly suggested are added to the Minister's amendment the whole thing is satisfactory. We had a long day and the Minister may have got a little upset from time to time——
Never.
I am glad to hear that the Minister was not upset but he certainly gave the impression of it——
He is a good actor.
Even if we did get upset, our day will not have been in vain and we will have achieved something worthwhile. The Bill as it stands, even though it is about an innocuous matter, is highly unsatisfactory and is clearly open to abuse in the same way as the national lottery has been, not just open to abuse but flagrantly and continuously abused over the past 12 months.
The words proposed by Deputy Kelly to be added to the Minister's amendment will cover it and will mean that it will not be open to any possible abuse in any of the manners indicated by different people earlier. We can all be reasonably happy in regard to it and that the objectives which were agreed, apparently, some years ago with the British Government can be met in that way. There will not be any problem about it. As I said this morning, the Bill differes from the British Bill in a very marked way inasmuch as the British Bill sets out precisely where the money will go and for what purpose, whereas the Irish Bill leaves it entirely to the personal discretion of the holder of the office of Taoiseach for the time being. I understand that Deputy FitzGerald wants to substitute "Minister for Foreign Affairs" for "Taoiseach" but that will not make a material difference. It is the principle——
It makes more sense.
The principle which is objectionable is the same whether it is the Taoiseach of the day or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It may make more administrative sense but it does not remove the underlying and fundamental objection which, clearly, there is.
It is worth repeating what Deputy McDowell and others sought to point out in relation to the Supplementary Estimate before us. There is no accountability. We are told that even though we are voting £750,000, the purposes for which it is being voted have not yet being decided upon and we are, therefore, being asked to vote as if we are in a vacuum. We are told that the destination of the money has not yet been decided but that it will be decided by the Taoiseach when the Bill is passed and that it will then be disbursed. That is not accountability.
This Supplementary Estimate is unique in my experience in that it is the only Estimate I have ever seen which does not set out the purpose of the expenditure which, under Article 11 of the Constitution, it is bound to do. Rather it sets out the source of the receipt of the money concerned. As if there was any doubt about that the Minister has offered to clarify it by adding the words "proceeds of Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust". The purpose of an Estimate and of a subhead in an Estimate is to specify the service, activity, organisation or whatever else on which the money will be spent and to give approval to that. The Dáil cannot do that, even if it goes through the motions of voting it through, when what is specified is the donor organisation rather than the recipient. The one body that cannot be the receipent is the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust because it is being wound up. What the point of persisting with that Supplementary Estimate is I do not know. The Minister gets very annoyed when these points are made and he does not reply to them. I am sorry that he gets annoyed but I feel I have a duty to make the point. It has not been replied to, nor has the point that I have made in relation to Article 11 of the Constitution which is that the purpose for which moneys are appropriated must be stated. They must be determined and imposed by law and that is not being done in this case. No bluster can get us away from the situation that that is a simple matter of fact. The purpose of the appropriation is not being stated. This is not just some sort of academic point; it is a basic point of some importance.
In order that the problems that have arisen in relation to this Bill be rectified, I urge the Minister, as well as moving this amendment which he has already done, to accept with it the words "and as the Dáil may approve". The necessity for those words is proven by the debate we are having now because we are not in a position to approve of the proposed expenditure. We have not been told what it is and we have not been told who the recipients for all the expenditure are. Therefore, in spite of the Minister's assertions, there cannot be accountability because there is nothing to be accountable for. That is why it is very important that the latter few words are added and accepted. If the Minister does that he would be doing a good day's work.
I would like to ask the Minister, in relation to the amendment in the name of the Taoiseach which he has moved, whether this amendment has the implication that only projects of a North-South or an Anglo-Irish dimension can be supported from these funds. Am I right in understanding that it excludes from support projects which are exclusively within the Republic? If so, I wonder if the amendment should be so exclusive.
For instance, I would like to raise the question of the plight of the former employees of Irish Shipping. I would like to ask the Minister if any consideration was given to the proceeds of this fund being used for the alleviation of hardship in that case. The previous Government and this Government have made clear repeatedly that they had explored all sorts of avenues to alleviate that hardship but because of legal and other constraints were prohibited from doing so. Surely, because these funds are not Exchequer funds, this is one opportunity of living up to the promise which the present Government so definitely made when in Opposition. I would like the Minister to be clear on whether consideration was given to that point and, if so, why provision has not been made in the Bill for it. I would also like to know whether, in the Bill as it is proposed to be amended, it would be possible to alleviate the hardship of some of those Irish Shipping employees who, the House has unanimously agreed, served this country very well for many years but were the unfortunate victims of very bad decisions made without the authority of the board or the Government.
A second question I would like to raise arising from the Minister's amendment is whether the Irish Lights Commission could be a beneficiary under this heading, whether it has been considered that the Irish Lights Commission should benefit. As the Irish Lights Commission is a 32county body which acts in unison with Trinity House and the Northern Lights in Scotland and which is a partner in the General Lighthouse Fund based in London, I would like to know whether discussions have taken place as to possible assistance to Irish Lights from the proceeds of this fund?
Like Deputy O'Malley, I believe the Bill has been substantially changed by the Minister's amendment and would be further changed if Deputy Kelly's amendment was included. The Bill we started out with this morning was totally inadequate. It merely states that this money is available, is going to the Exchequer and that the Taoiseach can do what he likes with it. That was the basis of the Bill we were presented with but it has been changed substantially in its intent. It now gives a general specification of the types of projects and undertakings involved. It is very broad in scope, relating to the island of Ireland as a whole, but nevertheless it differs substantially from the Bill we started out with this morning. I am pleased that some changes have been made.
I do not agree with Deputy O'Malley when he says that the British Government set out clearly what they are going to do with all the money. They did not. They said clearly what they are going to do with 40 per cent of the money but the other 60 per cent is just going to the Exchequer and nobody knows what will be done with it. All I know about it is what I see in the Minister's speech. The Minister said that British legislation states that 40 per cent of the money will go in support of ex-servicemen's charities, North and South, and that the remaining 60 per cent will go to the Exchequer. The British Government did not tell us what they are going to do with the money. It is precisely that point of 60 per cent going to the Exchequer that I would disagree with. If the Minister had proposed in the Bill that 40 per cent would go to the RNLI and 60 per cent to the Exchequer I think we would all still be opposing the Bill. Ths Bill has been substantially changed but nevertheless I am still not happy with it.
I would be happy with this wording if it had been there from scratch because it would mean that funds would be made available for one of the purposes which I have in mind and which I referred to repeatedly — since everyone else has repeated themselves all day long I might as well repeat myself — a project that is very important and very relevant to the needs for which the fund was established, that is housing for soldiers. Some of the funds should be made available for housing our ex-servicemen and to assist in the housing of some of our servicemen who have to pay for accommodation, some of which is very bad. The money should be made available particularly for our ex-servicemen. I will also repeat again that I believe that would be covered. Any Minister who would pick up this Bill and ask himself what would he give the funds to would say a project or an undertaking involving co-operation between this State, the State's Army and Northern Ireland or co-operation between this State, the State's Army and Great Britain. This State's Army and its ex-servicemen are certainly covered under the terms of the Bill. The Minister would be quite entitled to hand out whatever funds are required to the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen for the purposes for which they have already appealed to the Minister for Defence for funds. No doubt following this debate, they will be applying to the Minister for support from this fund.
On the basis of the wording before me we would be quite happy that that would be covered and that any Minister would be legally entitled to do that under the Bill. However, all that worries me are the comments made by both the Minister and the former Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, which appear on the face of it, if somebody was to read the debates rather than the Bill, to exclude assisting ONE. If there was some comment from the Minister to indicate that that is a matter for the Minister or the Taoiseach to decide, that there is no particular exclusion or whatever, if the Minister would give some indication that at least they can apply and so would satisfy me that they are eligible to apply as are many other people, such comment would be helpful.
As was said when the Bill was given a Second Reading here this morning, section 2 simply gave a blank cheque to the Taoiseach with the consent of the Minister for Finance and imposed no restraints of any description on how the money would be spent. It established no guidelines or criteria as to how the money should be spent. That was absolutely and entirely unsatisfactory. I do not believe at all that today's debate has been wasted or a waste of time. It is probably one of the most valuable day's work that has been done in this Dáil for a long time. In my opinion we have established a principle that bank cheques like that are not acceptable, that this House will not nod them through and that in each Bill which provides for expenditure there should be machinery for accountability in respect of that money. I do not think we will have a "try on" like this again. I do not use the words "try on" in any offensive way. I use them in the meaning that we will not have an effort made to get a Bill like this through the Dáil which will enable money to be expended in very large sums at the whim or discretion of a political head of a Department. I believe this will go up as a marker that this is not acceptable in the House and that it will not happen. The Bill has been improved somewhat, but the attempt to improve it in the form of the Minister's amendment is entirely unsatisfactory. The last two and a half lines of the Minister's amendment which read: "or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine". That is far too vague. It couples it in some way with the whole island of Ireland, but if one had time one could draw up an endless list of projects which would be applicable. Some of them might be very worthy, some of them might be completely and utterly unworthy and unsuitable, but that spoils the effort the Minister made to amend the Bill. I would invite him, even at this late stage, to cut out those words I have just read and the amendment will be far more meaningful. Maybe he will do it between now and when the Bill goes to the Seanad if he does not do it here or does not feel that as of today he has the authority to say "yes". He might have the authority before very long to amend a Bill like this. He should give serious consideration to it.
Deputy Mac Giolla stated that if it was provided that 40 per cent of this £2.5 million was to be paid for the INLA and the remainder was to be paid into the National Exchequer he would still object to it. He would be very foolish if he did. As a matter of fact, in the prevailing economic climate and conditions here where there is an acute shortage of money for such things as health, education, roads, housing, you name it, there is a big argument for paying the entire amount of this money into the Exchequer and for paying the entire amount of the lottery fund into the Exchequer and seeing it was distributed to all those essential services. We hear people in here every day of the week complaining about hospital treatment for children, adults, old people, the lot, and appealing in God's name to do something for them. The same applies to education and roads.
They got £500 million.
That should be applied for capital purposes because it is probably capital too. There is much to be said in prevailing conditions for applying moneys like this to all essential services before we start considering that we have so much of it to give the Taoiseach discretion to do what he likes with it. That is what we are doing in the prevailing economic conditions.
We have had a very long day but there is a moral in the story. The next time a Bill like this comes into this Chamber, whatever the instructions to the parliamentary draftsman will be, they will be far more specific as far as accountability is concerned. We have been six or seven hours debating what started out as essentially a small matter. In fact it is a bench mark that will be referred to on many an occasion in this House in the years to come. For the years I have been here I have not heard another debate of such intensity.
We have a better Bill now than we had when we started — that is my personal opinion. We have gone some way. I am very disappointed that the Minister cannot go the other little step to give the Dáil the watchdog capability it should have. The Minister's amendment goes quite a long way. I got the impression this morning that he was unlikely to listen to that type of language, but at least we have come so far. All I can say at this stage is that the matter has been teased out well and many Members of this House will refer to it in the years to come because we have stated fairly categorically that there are certain things that this House will not stand for.
To take Deputy Connaughton's point in relation to the Bill and things this House will not stand for, this Bill is as it started out this morning, with the amendment which merely puts into the Bill the intention that was there in the agreement between the two Governments. All it does is write it in. There has been no change. It was never intended that, in the words of Deputy Fitzpatrick, it be a blank cheque. It never was and never will be. There is accountability and the accounting practices are exactly the same in this measure as they are on every other subhead that comes in under every other ministry in this Government. Deputy Connaughton and others said that we should give the Dáil watchdog capability. The Dáil has that capability and duty. It will no doubt do its duty and has done so in all the years that I have been here, and I have been here since 1973. The Dáil does examine Estimates and votes on the Estimates every year. That is the duty of the Dáil and the Dáil meets that responsibility and I have no doubt they will do so in relation to this subhead within the Taoiseach's Department.
In regard to the points made by Deputy Mac Giolla, there is no change. Exactly the same interests are involved in this amendment as were specified in my opening remarks on Second Stage. All this amendment does it put into the legislation what was there anyway.
Under the terms of the agreement that was entered into between the two Governments, any group has the right to apply. This Government recognise their very special responsibility in relation to Army accommodation and that is why, even in the difficult times we live in, with finances controlled to the extent that they are, we have given this year a very substantial increase in the amount of money for Army accommodation.
To one place.
In regard to Deputy Mitchell's point about Irish Lights, consideration could, in principle, be given to this. The whole question of the financing of Irish Lights has been the subject of separate negotiations between the Irish and British Governments which are ongoing. It would appear to me to come within it.
I agree.
I see no difficulty on that. Deputy Fitzpatrick said it would be better if this went into the overall Exchequer funds. I do not accept that. It is £2.56 million in relation to £6.25 billion of expenditure at national level in 1989. I do not believe that that would be the proper way to spend this money. That is why it is specifically identified in the subhead as being money coming from this particular source and it will be subject to the normal accountability rules of this House, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the accounting officer in the Department of the Taoiseach. If it went into the Exchequer funds, it would just be swallowed up. It is better that it go for purposes such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. For example, that institution intends to use this money to purchase a new lifeboat to improve the lifesaving facilities on the north and north-west coasts. That is very important. There has been a demand for this and this is the right and proper way to spend the money.
Deputy O'Malley referred to the British Bill in which it was specified that 40 per cent would be spent in a certain way and that the balance of the money would go into the Exchequer. I think that is the wrong way to do it, as do the Government.
Deputy O'Malley referred also to the question of accountability. There is total accountability under this legislation just as under any other legislation that is passed through this House. The Dáil has a right and a duty to examine it when the Estimates are being debated under the various subheads. Deputy O'Malley also mentioned the source of the funding in the subhead. It is merely to identify it as a sum of money to be separately spent but with total accountability.
I believe the amendment of Deputy John Kelly is unnecessary as the Dáil approves at all times the Estimates of the various Ministers. I will not be in a position to accept it. I recommend my own amendment.
Could I ask the Minister if he would respond to the points I made at the outset about the reasons for having a different procedure in relation to these funds from the procedure in relation to the Funds of Suitors Act? There may be some reason for that and perhaps if we knew what the reason was it might help us.
The reason is that a specific agreement was entered into between the Government of which Deputy FitzGerald was a member and the British Government under the headings set out by me this morning on Second Stage, as set out in his own amendment and as clarified in the amendment in the Taoiseach's name.
I am putting the question on what we will call the Deputy John Kelly amendment, that is, an amendment to amendment No. 1.
Amendment 1 to amendment No. 1 lost.
I am now obliged to put the amendment in the name of the Taoiseach.
What about my other amendment? It was ruled out once already. Can I have it this time?
Deputy FitzGerald will have to bear with me. While I might advise him that what I may be telling him presently might not be to his satisfaction, I must put the question now on amendment No. 1.
On a point of order, I had asked at the outset which amendment would be taken first and was told Deputy Kelly's would be taken first. It was never suggested that you would not take the amendment I put in.
Deputy Kelly's amendment is an amendment to an amendment in the name of the Minister.
So is mine.
Deputy FitzGerald's amendment refers to line 21.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I could not amend something which was not before the House, which had not been passed. All I could do was seek to amend the section of the Bill. To rule me out on two occasions, on Committee and Report Stage, on a perfectly reasonable amendment is a little hard.
If the Deputy will bear with the Chair while he now puts the amendment in the name of the Taoiseach I will be able to demonstrate to him why his amendment, the second amendment, is out of order.
I do not want that demonstrated. I want to have my amendment put. I tried on Committee Stage and it was ruled out. I tried on Report Stage. There must be some way I can put the amendment.
Deputy FitzGerald will appreciate that he cannot always get what he wants in this House if it is not in order.
Normally when one puts down an amendment it is debated. I have not come across this procedure before where the amendment is ruled out at both Stages.
The Deputy will allow me to put the question on amendment No. 1 in the name of the Taoiseach.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Now Deputy FitzGerald will see the new position.
It is catch 22.
Deputy FitzGerald will accept now that in respect of the new position, if he looks at his amendment which refers to page 2, line 21, there is no such line now.
When I put it down there was such a line. Where is it gone?
Tempora mutantu. Things have changed because of the acceptance by the House of the new amendment. Therefore, the amendment in the names of Deputies Paul Connaughton and Garret FitzGerald are not in order, however disappointing that may be. That is the factual, technical position.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you never had a better hour.
On a question of procedure, was it not desirable that Deputy FitzGerald's amendment should have dealt with as an amendment to the amendment and that he should have been warned about the consequences rather than suddenly, rabbit out of a hat, be given a ruling by the Chair?
I do not know how the Deputy was advised but the House will appreciate that the Chair did not know what amendment was going to appear until this amendment arrived at a late moment. I am referring to the amendment in the names of Deputies Connaughton and FitzGerald.
I submitted that amendment during Committee Stage. In the House if there is some technical defect of an obscure kind in an amendment it has been my experience that the officials of the House would draw that to the attention of the Member so that the necessary change can be made. It is without precedent to allow the debate to proceed to a point where there is a catch-22 situation and the amendment can be taken neither before nor after another amendment. I should like to protest against that. It is a discourtesy not to handle the amendment in the way which has been traditional when there is some technical defect in an amendment which is a perfectly proper and suitable amendment in itself. The technical defect could hardly be foreseeable, as was implicit in the Chair's approach to this.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Clerk's office is there to advise and respond to requests made but on the other hand it is incumbent on every Deputy to have the foresight to anticipate how the acceptance of one amendment may react on another.
When I submitted my amendment the Chair had not accepted the other one. On Committee Stage I tabled an amendment to the Bill as it was then. I was not told that that amendment was unacceptable or out of order until the end of Report Stage. I must protest. That is not the way the business of the House normally operates. My amendment was in order when it was tabled and at that Stage what was before us was the Bill as introduced. I could not have put down my amendment in any other way. My amendment had to be to the Bill before the House at the time. I cannot put down some hypothetical amendment that might, or might not be passed. In my view it is wrong to say that I must presume that the Minister's amendment will be passed and put down an amendment to it anticipating that decision. Had I done that I could quite properly have been faulted for anticipating something happening that might not necessarily happen. There must be some way that one can table an amendment but it seems to me that no matter how I put down an amendment I was going to be caught one way or another. The amendment put down during the debate on Committee Stage related to Report Stage and was left over and nothing said about it but was ruled out at the end of the proceedings. That is unsatisfactory and I must protest against a method of procedure which has deprived me of my rights in this matter.
The Deputy will accept that the occupant of the Chair does not have the power of bilocation. The Chair is advised as amendments arrive. I am not at the point where they are handed in, or assessed. The Chair must adjudicate on matters that come before it. The Deputy can rest assured that I have given a lot of thought to this. It has happened that a decision on an amendment affects whether subsequent amendments are in order. That occurred this afternoon. It often happens that such amendments fall.
My amendment was not subsequent; it was tabled during Committee Stage. I should like to ask the Chair to clarify the position and give a ruling for the future. Is it the case that when a Member tables an amendment on Committee Stage that Member must form the amendment in relation to any amendments then existing on Report Stage rather than making amendments to what exists on Committee Stage? I have not heard of that procedure before and it seems extraordinary.
The Deputy must accept that other amendments, apart from his, may have been tabled and as a result of the outcome on those amendments his amendment may suffer or enjoy a new position.
I tabled my amendment on Committee Stage. At the outset of the debate on Report Stage I asked about my amendment and the Chair told me that the House was taking Deputy Kelly's amendment. That led me to believe that my amendment could be taken but after we went through Report Stage I was told that my amendment could not be taken because it related to the only thing I considered to be properly before the House, the Bill as introduced.
The Chair is endeavouring to explain the position to the Deputy. Before I took the Chair there was an amendment, and an amendment to that amendment, before the House. The amendment to the amendment was in the name of Deputy Kelly who had advised the Chair that Deputy FitzGerald had agreed to move it for him. Deputy FitzGerald's amendment did not appear at all. I can only be guided by what I see, not by what may be floating around.
My amendment was tabled during the Committee Stage debate and it did not reach the Chair until after the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had taken the Chair. The question I want settled for the future is whether when putting down an amendment for Report Stage such an amendment will be ruled out of order, as the Chair has done, if it refers to the text of the Bill at Committee Stage. Must all amendments for Report Stage be put down in the form of amendments already submitted for that Stage? If that is the case it is a totally new procedure. It is a very dangerous and unworkable one. Is the Chair ruling that that is how Report Stage amendments must be tabled in future?
I am not ruling on the articulation of the case as made by Deputy FitzGerald because that is not how this occurred. That is his treatment of the history but it is not how this occurred. Therefore, it would be foolish of me to treat it accordingly. I advised the Deputy that when I took the Chair there was one document before me, an amendment in the name of the Taoiseach and an amendment to that amendment in the name of Deputy Kelly. Deputy Kelly had advised me that Deputy FitzGerald would be moving the amendment in his name. Anything that followed after that is in accordance with the advice given.
Is the Chair ruling that my amendment reached the Chair too late to be taken on Report Stage and, if so, why is it that I was not made aware of that at the outset of the debate on Report Stage?
No, I am not making that ruling. I am advising the Deputy that his amendment arrived subsequently but, because of the decision of the House since then, his amendment fell. The Deputy must accept that his amendment refers to something that does not exist and, therefore, could not be in order.
This is an extraordinary proposal, that if one puts down an amendment one must guess as to what Stage the debate will be at when the amendment is typed and reaches the Chair. That is putting Members in an impossible position. When I tabled the amendment the House was on Committee Stage.
If the business of the House was being managed strictly in accordance with Standing Orders the Deputy's amendment would not have been accepted because there is a specified time within which amendments must be submitted so as to avoid the difficulties that have arisen. In future the Standing Order in respect of amendments, the time and notice that must be given, should be applied more rigidly than it has been. If that is done we will avoid the problem that has arisen.
On a point of order, this discussion has been allowed go on for more than ten minutes and in view of the fact that Deputy FitzGerald would not have been pushing his amendment I suggest that that discussion continue in the Ceann Comhairle's office or before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. What is at issue at the moment is a question of procedure for future occasions.
I thought the Deputy would be concerned about the future.
It is not my intention to continue to debate this issue.
Question "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.