The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 10 – Motion re. Leave to introduce Supplementary Estimates [Votes 2, 20, 25, 30, 33 and 34]; No. 11 – Motion re: Referral of Supplementary Estimates [Votes 20, 25, 30, 33 and 34] to Select Committees; No. 12 – Technical motion re: Stamp Duties Consolidation Bill, 1999; and No. 38 – Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance [1999] (resumed). It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: No. 10 and, subject to the agreement of No. 10, No. 11 and No. 12 shall be decided without debate and any divisions demanded on Nos. 10 and 11 shall be taken forthwith. Private Members' business shall be No. 65 – Private Security Services Bill, 1999 – Second Stage and the proceedings on the Second Stage thereof, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 December.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to put to the House. Are the arrangements for dealing with Nos. 10, 11 and 12 agreed?
No.
No, Sir.
The House has had before it for the past few days the most unjust and ill-prepared budget in the nation's history and the Government proposes to allow only an hour and a half debate on that this week. We will debate it this evening during which I understand the Taoiseach will speak, but we will not debate it tomorrow or the day after. That is completely inadequate. Given that the whole country is debating the budget, the Dáil should debate it for the entire week. There are backbenchers in Fianna Fáil and in other parties who want to express their anger in this House. We should be allowed to debate this and nothing else for the entire week and, therefore, we will not agree this business.
On the same theme, I express my concern at the Order of Business indicated for this week and for the last week of this millennium. The most controversial budget this country has had and the most extraordinary level of political incompetence we have witnessed in recent times has triggered a mutiny among the Taoiseach's parliamentary party.
That proposal does not arise under Nos. 10, 11 or 12.
It does. We are being asked to give our assent to an Order of Business—
To Nos. 10, 11 and 12.
They are part of the Order of Business. We will not give our assent. While this country is still a democracy, I am entitled to explain why this House is being denied an opportunity to vote on this measure. I formally give notice to the Chair that during my contribution when we come to debate this matter in the measly less than two hours allowed for it, under Standing Order 64 I will table a motion that the vote be taken on the budget and then we will see where the brave warriors of Fianna Fáil are then, all 20 of the mutineers who went to the plinth to talk about their concerns.
A Curragh mutiny.
Another Curragh mutiny.
A Deputy
They will talk the talk, but will they walk the walk?
I give notice to the Chair and to the Fianna Fáil Party that if we cannot have an extensive debate on this matter and it is to be guillotined, we should have a decision on it and see the colour of the money of the so-called Independents and the mutineers on the Fianna Fáil side.
Are the arrangements for dealing with items Nos. 10, 11 and 12 agreed to?
On a point of order, the proposal before the House is that we agree to take No. 10 without debate and, subject to it being agreed, Nos. 11 and 12 should be taken without debate. There is no reason to believe the House will agree to take No. 10 without debate because the Government no longer has a majority. What is being put before us is a hypothetical question and it is inappropriate. Each of the items – as to whether they should be taken without debate – should be put separately. There is no basis for an assumption of the kind—
There is not a majority in the House.
—being made by the Government which does not have a majority.
I must put the question. Are Nos.—
I object to the form in which the question is being put.
The Chair has no control over that.
The form in which this question is being put is hypothetical and the Government has not a procedural basis for putting a question like this, when it does not have a majority or even the support of the parties for an injustice two or three Ministers intend to perpetrate on the people without consulting the Cabinet.
It is in accordance with longstanding practice that I now put the question.
This is Michael McDowell's budget, not that of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy. Michael McDowell was the only Deputy who would activate what the Government is doing.
This is a disgraceful bulldozing of these matters through the House.
The question is: "Are the arrangements for dealing with Nos. 10, 11 and 12 agreed to?
Votáil.
Tá
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris. |
Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel. Tá–continued |
O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin. |
Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. |
Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
On a point of order, I wish to raise a procedural issue in regard to the vote which has just been taken. The Government has lumped together proposals to take Supplementary Estimates without debate and Report Stage of a Bill without debate. My understanding of parliamentary procedure is that diverse proposals should not be lumped together in one proposition. It is a fundamental tenet of parliamentary procedure that each issue should be decided separately. I ask the Chair to ensure these proposals are not lumped together. There may be precedents for this but they are bad ones.
I suggest that the Deputy comes to the Ceann Comhairle's office to discuss the matter. My understanding is that it is a matter for the Taoiseach to decide on the Order of Business.
I accept that, but it is a matter for the House to decide if it will debate a matter. To lump together the Stamp Duty Consolidation Bill—
The House does not intend debating this at this time.
For the purpose of clarification, did we vote on item No. 10?
We have dealt with items Nos. 10, 11 and 12.
On what basis?
We will not debate this on the floor of the House. If the Deputy wishes to call to the Ceann Comhairle's office, it can be discussed there.
This is a fundamental point of parliamentary procedure. These cannot be lumped together in this manner.
That is precisely my point. How was item No. 10 agreed? We had not debated it when a vote was called. That was all we voted on, not items Nos. 11 and 12. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is abusing his position.
Items Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were put to the House.
On a procedural point, I have no control over these matters, but item No. 12 is a time motion, it is not a Bill.
Yes, but each time motion should be taken separately according to the subject. The Stamp Duty Consolidation Bill and Supplementary Estimates should not be taken together.
We will not debate this here. There is a long standing tradition that questions are put to the House in the same manner.
In the vote which was just taken, it was agreed that we take the Supplementary Estimate on health and children. That Supplementary Estimate has not been published. I have tried to get a copy of it but all I have is a draft copy. How can the House make a decision on something which has not been published?
We are not going to debate the matter.
I am not seeking a debate, I want information.
We voted on leave to introduce the Estimate.
It has not been published. How can we vote on something which has not been published?
On the same point of order, to facilitate the Minister it has been arranged that the Select Committee on Health and Children sits at 5.30 p.m. to take this Estimate. This vote was to allow that to happen. The difficulty members of the committee have is that we have a draft of the Supplementary Estimate but the formal Estimate has not been circulated to any of the committee members.
It cannot be circulated until it is agreed by the House.
Who said that?
It has now been agreed by the House and will be circulated.
As a matter of procedure we are entitled to see the final version of the Supplementary Estimate the Minister is proposing.
For the benefit of Members, and I ask them to resume their seats while the Chair is speaking, item No. 10, leave to introduce Supplementary Estimates Nos. 2, 20, 25, 30, 33 and 34, was voted on.
They have not been published.
That has now been agreed and they will be published now that leave has been given to publish them.
We have it straight from the mouth of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that is what we have voted on. We have not voted on the motion re referral of Supplementary Estimates nor have we voted on item No. 12. I am quoting the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
We voted on the question of leave to take them and we are taking them without debate. That will arise under item No. 10.
If we are going to take Supplementary Estimates, and it is proposed that we take them without debate, the House is entitled to decide on that. It must be taken separately.
The House has decided to take them.
The House has decided only that leave be introduced to take them.
It is the Taoiseach's prerogative to make proposals on the Order of Business.
It is not the Taoiseach's prerogative.
The proposal is in accordance with long standing procedure.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has pointed out that the House has agreed to give leave to introduce the Supplementary Estimates. That is all we have agreed.
No. 10.
The House has not made any disposition about how we deal with those. If the Government has an idea about how to deal with them it should be put to the House.
That will come before the House as No. 10.
No. 10 simply gives the Government leave to introduce the Supplementary Estimates.
We have decided to take them without debate. Deputy Quinn and Deputy McManus should resume their seats when the Chair is speaking. No. 10 is Leave to Introduce Supplementary Estimates, Votes Nos. 2, 20, 25, 30, 33 and 34. That has not been taken yet. It comes up as the first item after we have concluded the Order of Business. We voted on proposal No. 1. No. 10 and, subject to the agreement of No. 10, Nos. 11 and 12 shall be decided without debate and any divisions demanded on Nos. 10 and 11 shall be taken forthwith. That is what we voted on.
No. I beg to differ.
No. 12 has nothing to do with Nos. 10 and 11. We must deal with the Government's proposals on No. 12 separately.
No. 10 has been voted on and No. 11, motion of referral of the Supplementary Estimates to select committee, and No. 12 will also be taken—
On a point of order—
Deputy Bruton, it is not necessary to explain. No. 12 is a technical motion on the Stamp Duties Consolidation Bill, 1999. The House has agreed to take it without debate and there will be an opportunity for the House to vote on it if it so wishes when we get to No. 12.
On a point of order—
You are abusing your position.
Deputy Quinn, I am not abusing my position and I ask you to withdraw that remark.
We were specifically asked if No. 10 was agreed, not if the entire Order of Business was agreed.
We ask that the Ceann Comhairle be sent for.
I asked if the arrangements for dealing with Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were agreed to. That was the question that was put.
The only way we can establish exactly what you said before the vote, Sir, would be to play back the tape recording. We do not have that facility. With the utmost respect, Sir, I submit the Taoiseach was wrong to put forward a time motion about Estimates and a Bill together.
Deputy Bruton, it is in accordance with long-standing practice in the House—
We cannot be asked to accept a motion on Estimates and a Bill together.
We cannot debate this. We must move on and deal with the second question.
On a point of order—
I hope it is a point of order because the last one was not.
On a point of order, do you agree, Sir, that one of the requirements for order in the House is that separate propositions should be put separately to the House? If it is necessary for order that separate proposals be put separately, do you not agree, Sir, that you should tell the Taoiseach that it is not in order for him to seek to impose a guillotine on a Bill in a motion that also imposes a guillotine on an Estimate because the two are separate procedural issues and separate matters? The Taoiseach has no right to put this proposal, you, Sir, have no right to entertain it and the House has no right to vote on it because it is not—
The Taoiseach had every right. It is in accordance with long-standing procedures.
People fought for parliamentary democracy to ensure that such matters would not be dealt with in this way.
The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
Deputy Bruton, what was put to the House—
I know what I am talking about. When Adolf Hitler wanted to abolish the Reichstag—
Deputy Bruton, resume your seat.
—he rolled all proposals into one. This is a rubber stamp to steamroll the budget debate through the House.
Deputy Bruton, resume your seat when the Chair is on its feet. There must be respect for the Chair.
You have no right to rewrite the rules, Sir.
It is not possible to amalgamate oranges and apples and put the same price on them.
Deputy Bruton, do you want the House suspended?
We want a debate on the budget until it is withdrawn.
So much for democracy.
Deputy Bruton, I ask you to resume your seat when the Chair is on its feet.
We have less than two hours to debate the budget.
Deputy Quinn, resume you seat when the Chair is on its feet. Let me explain to Deputy Bruton and other Members that what has been agreed in the vote is that three motions will be taken without debate. Each of the motions in turn will be put to the House after the Order of Business.
That is not acceptable.
All that has been agreed is that the motions will be taken without debate. The issue will arise again on motions Nos. 10, 11 and 12. We must put the second proposal to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed to?
We want a debate on the budget, and nothing but a debate on the budget, until it is withdrawn. We do not agree to any other business until this—
Deputy Bruton, the budget debate is due to commence immediately after the Order of Business and will so do. I am putting item No. 2. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed to?
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew. |
Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard. Burke, Ulick. |
|
Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek. |
McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
On a point of information, the Fine Gael Party asked the Government to allow the Private Security Services Bill to be discussed in one week rather than two and the Government facilitated that request. During the vote that just took place, the Government voted for the request from Fine Gael and Fine Gael voted against it.
What are the Taoiseach's plans in regard to items 38, 46 and 49? Does he propose that item 38, which relates to the budget and is being debated today for a paltry hour or two, will be debated tomorrow and, if not, why not? Will it be debated the following day and, if not, why not? Does the Taoiseach not think it strange that the budget is not being debated in the House this week when there is an organised procession of Fianna Fáil Deputies going to the plinth to give their views outside the House? It seems to be organised by somebody for some purpose, it is not spontaneous.
Is it correct that Members who wish to speak on the budget will not get the opportunity to do so before Christmas if the Government continues on this course?
The Deputy need not worry, there will be another budget shortly.
Next year.
The Whips met last week and agreed the arrangements for this week which were to be reviewed tomorrow night. I am sure they will do that anyway. There is no difficulty with the Whips agreeing whatever time they wish. I am delighted there is such interest in debating the budget—
Especially in Fianna Fáil.
The Taoiseach will not have to make any more phone calls.
Deputy Quinn was worried earlier that we might close down the budget debate. Item 46 relates to financial motions by the Minister for Finance for 1998 and item 49 relates to financial motions by the Minister for Finance for 1997. Both items are still on the Order Paper and they could be discussed as well. As far as I am concerned, we can continue to discuss the budget.
Will the Taoiseach be willing to put item 38 to a vote or will he follow the precedent of not having a vote as occurred in regard to items 46 and 49?
That matter does not arise.
The budget resolutions were passed last week and most of the other motions will have to be passed in the Social Welfare Bill and the Finance Bill next March.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that this budget has provoked an unprecedented level of concern and anger across the social spectrum?
This is repetition.
It is not, Sir. The only people who have repeated themselves are the Members who are interrupting. I am trying to get to the point.
The Fianna Fáil backbenchers are repeating themselves.
As of now, less than two hours are scheduled for debate in plenary session. No other time is scheduled for debate on the budget. The Whips might discuss this tomorrow, but will the Taoiseach order extra time to debate the budget before the House adjourns? He rightly drew Members' attention to the fact that there will be no debate on it on the House's return and no definitive vote on it. The Chair properly ruled on 1 December that the House could not deviate from the strict terms of the resolutions which had to be voted on that day. For that reason Members want a definitive, inclusive vote on the content of the budget and more time than the less than two hours scheduled for debate.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach say now, as he has the power to, that tomorrow and the following day will be devoted to discussion of the budget? It would be unthinkable that the outrage expressed by ordinary people, low paid workers, single income families and others outside the House should not be expressed within it. The Taoiseach has the power to order a proper debate in the House.
If I had been asked a relevant question an hour and five minutes ago, I could have suggested that, subject to the Whips' agreement on taking certain Bills such as the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill and the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, which must be dealt with, we could work out some additional time. Unfortunately, I was asked if the Stamp Duties Consolidation Bill would be debated tomorrow and the discussion went off on tangents in the intervening hour and seven minutes.
Just like the backbenchers are going off on tangents on the plinth.
They are being sent off on tangents.
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
We have lost 50% of the time this evening because the Opposition did not read the Order Paper correctly.
Machiavellian.
Of course, there can be additional time if it can be worked out by agreement with the Whips. They can arrange sittings for whenever they wish, but we should not ignore the other Bills. The House can sit late and it can sit on Friday or Monday.
Deputies John Bruton and Rabbitte rose.
We are an hour on the Order of Business. I call Deputy John Bruton on a different issue.
The Opposition was told No. 40 on the Order Paper, the ICC Bank Bill, 1999, would be taken tomorrow. Will it still be taken tomorrow in light of what has happened? The Opposition was also told that No. 41, the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1999, would be taken tomorrow. I understand what the Government has in mind to propose is entirely different from what is already before the House. Does the Government seriously intend taking that tomorrow?
The Whips agreed this last week and Deputy Bruton knows that both Bills will be taken tomorrow. It is the subject of agreement between the Whips and I do not want to break that agreement. However, if additional time is required, the Whips are extremely competent at finding it.
The ICC is not being bought. The Bill was put forward to facilitate a sale which is not now proceeding thanks to the efficiency of the Minister for Finance. Perhaps the Taoiseach would like to amend the order for this week in light of the fact that there is no buyer for the ICC.
The Government would rather do the correct thing, which is, now that we are not selling the ICC, to amend the ICC Bill and take that matter tomorrow as scheduled.
The Government cannot amend a Bill on Report Stage unless it has given notice of amendments.
Is it true the Fianna Fáil press office is organising backbenchers to dissent from the budget? What are the implications of that for the House, the Government and the budget being agreed? It is happening on the plinth outside the House every half hour and the Taoiseach should say who is organising this.
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): Given that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, together with the Minister for Finance, seem to have cooked up the tax provisions in the budget for low-paid workers along with the steaks in the intense heat of the south of France and perhaps under the influence of copious amounts of red wine—
The Deputy should ask a question on legislation which would be appropriate to the Order of Business.
Red wine is good for the heart.
(Dublin West): In light of the insult given in the budget to low-paid workers by the Minister for Finance, will the Government bring forward the national minimum wage Bill as a matter of urgency?
We hope to have that Bill as soon as possible.
When will the trade union recognition Bill be brought before the House? Is the Taoiseach aware the Minister for Finance has single-handedly threatened the future of social partnership?
That last issue does not arise now.
There is agreement with the trade union movement on the handling of that. I do not have a date for the legislation, but there is agreement on it.
Twenty seven years ago today, Jean McConville, a widowed mother of ten, was dragged from her home in west Belfast and brutally murdered by the IRA. She became the first of the disappeared. Will the Taoiseach, on the first occasion he has to speak with representatives of the republican movement, say that their action ought to go down in the annals of infamy?
The Deputy should submit a question.
That matter should be allowed. It is a sufficiently important anniversary for it to be responded to by the Taoiseach.
The Deputy knows I have continually raised that case and others and will continue to do so.
Will the Taoiseach state that they cannot blame this on the British Government or on unionism and that they were responsible for the original murders and should be responsible now for returning the bodies of the disappeared?
Is it intended to take the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill in the new session?
It is already published.