Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, proposed by Deputy Pearse Doherty, are in conflict with the principle of the Bill and must be ruled out of order, in accordance with Standing Order 131. Amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2012: Report Stage
Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(a) prioritise the generation of economic growth, job creation and delivery of high quality public services, ".
Ba mhaith liom mo mhí-shástacht a chur in iúl nach bhfuil leasuithe a 1 to dtí a 4, go huile agus go hiomlán, ábalta a bheith glactha.
Téann an Bille go dtí croílár na gcinntí a bheas an Rialtas, nó Rialtas ar bith sa todhchaí, ag déanamh. Ceann des na fadhbanna móra atá ag Sinn Féin leis an mBille ná go gceanglaíonn sé, ní hamhain lámha an Rialtais ach lámha polaiteoirí sa todhchaí a bheas tofa ag muintir na hÉireann le cinntí a dhéanamh a rachaidh chun sochar do ghnáth dhaoine na hÉireann.
Leagann an Bille síos rialacha iontach dian. Níl fadhb mhór ag Sinn Féin le cuid mhór des na rialacha, a fhad is go bhfuilimid ag baint amach na rialacha sin agus ag glacadh ar bord na himpleachtaí atá á baint amach ag na rialacha sin ar shochaí na tíre, go háirithe ar fhostaíocht, ar ioncaim leasa shoisialta, ar an tseirbhís phoiblí agus ar ghnáth dhaoine na tíre. Ba chóir dúinn a bheith ábalta imeacht ón mbealach sin, na rialacha a chur i bhfeidhm, má tá siad ag déanamh dochair do gheilleagar nó do ghnáth dhaoine na tíre.
Is é atá i leasú Uimh. a 5, ná go gcuireann sé isteach san mBille go gcaithfimid an geilleagar a fhás agus go gcaithfimid tús áite a thabhairt do fhostaíocht a ghnothú agus seirbhís phoiblí den ard scoth a chur ar fáil nuair atá an Rialtas ag tarraingt plean chun na spriocanna atá leagtha síos san mBille a bhaint amach.
The essence of amendment No. 5, which is taken together with amendments Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, is that when the Government is required to draft a plan aimed at meeting the deficit targets contained in the Bill it would take into account issues such as generating growth, promoting job creation and delivering high quality public services. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
The Bill ties the hands of the Government, and of future Governments, to a set of strict rules of budgetary discipline, structural balances and so on. It does not, however, take cognisance of the impact that chasing these rules and implementing them at all costs would have on the wider society. The amendment seeks to place an onus of the Government, when it recognises that there may be a difficulty in reaching the targets set down in the Bill, to develop a plan that will outline how the targets will be met. It obliges the Government, along with other factors, to take on board the issues of stimulating economic growth, promoting job creation and delivering high quality public services.
This issue was discussed on Committee Stage. It beggars belief that the Minister for Finance will not accept a proposal to set this down as a condition. Why is the Minister for Finance afraid to say that when a future Government develops a plan to reduce our deficit to be in line with the criteria contained in the austerity treaty, such a plan should take cognisance of the effect it will have on unemployment or on the economy? If such a legislative requirement had been in place in 2008, when we got into this crisis, we would not have seen the disastrous consequences for the economy. Every economic growth target laid down by the previous Government has been missed. If former Ministers were to be believed, we should have been out of the mess a long time ago and at a fraction of the cost we now face. How many corners did we turn during that period? We have lost track of them. In reality, unemployment increased from 4% to almost 15%, even with the emigration valve opened fully and 87,000 people, particularly young people, leaving the country last year. If, when the previous Government was developing the troika programme, there had been a legislative requirement to measures its impact on economic growth, employment and delivery of high quality public services, we might have had a very different programme which could have assisted us in reaching the targets in a fairer and, in some cases, speedier way. Instead of trying to cut our way to recovery we might have grown towards recovery.
Cuireann leasú a 6 coinníoll ar an Rialtas impleachtaí sóisialta a ghlacadh ar bord nuair atá sé ag déileáil leis an bplean. Amendment No. 6 seeks to strengthen the requirement on Government to include these important social and economic indicators in any plan. It is a follow-on from amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 7 seeks to broaden the scope of the plan to include an impact assessment of any proposed measures on key social indicators, such as income equality, social inclusion and poverty reduction. These areas have been allowed to go amiss by successive Governments and levels of poverty have been increasing.
I commend the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on its survey and statistical analysis of the disposable income people have left at the end of the month. In the last seven days, there has been much talk about some of the culprits who got us into the current economic mess and the fact that they are sitting at home with their feet up and enjoying pensions of half a million euro. Former taoisigh have massive pensions. A number of taoisigh who were involved in the heart of the crisis are sitting back and lecturing the rest of the world on how to run economies and getting huge dividends from the taxpayer in the form of massive gold-plated pensions. At the same time, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul tells us that 1.8 million people have less than €100 of disposable income at the end of the month. That is a figure we should repeat time and time again. Real people live in a different reality from the types of pensions that were discussed in the Chamber earlier today and which former Members of the House enjoy upon retirement. Real people face hardships and are vulnerable and scared as they look to the first week in December to see what other forms of misery will be visited upon them by the Government. This amendment places an obligation to carry out equality and anti-poverty impact assessments.
All political parties profess to be supporters of equality and to tackling issues such as poverty. They profess to support policies that will have the least adverse impact on the least well off. The best way to implement such policies is to have these types of impact assessments so that measures can be independently scrutinised. A Minister for Finance should be prepared to say what his proposals are and what he plans to do to reach the targets we will have signed up to if the Bill is passed. He should also be prepared to say what impact his proposals will have on the least well-off section of society.
This amendment does not compel the Government to take a different path.
It simply states that if the Government introduces a plan to reduce the deficit to comply with the rules within the legislation, there is an onus and responsibility to set out in clear terms how the plan will impact on different sections of society and how it will be equality-proofed. It does not place any onus on the Government not to follow the plan but it is important at least when it is devising the plan that it is fully aware of its impact on vulnerable sections of society.
Cuireann leasú Uimh. 9 dualgas ar an Rialtas an plean a chur os comhair an Oireachtais go bpléifear é agus go mbeidh vóta sna Tithe chun an plean a chur i bhfeidhm. Mar atá ráite go minic, go háirithe roimh thoghcháin ghinearálta, tá ról níos láidre de dhíth ar an Oireachtas, tá níos mó dualgas de dhíth air agus ba chóir go mbeadh páirtithe san Fhreasúra go háirithe ag imirt ról níos lárnaí ó thaobh polasaí agus mar sin de. Sa Bhille seo, tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh go mbeadh plean á chur le chéile mura mbeimis ábalta na spriocanna sa reachtaíocht seo a chomhlíonadh, agus go mbeadh an plean sin bunaithe ar an phlean atá againn ón triúracht, agus go mbeadh an Rialtas féin in ann an phlean sin a cheadú agus a thabhairt i gcrích. Ba chóir, áfach, go ndéanfaí an cinneadh deireanach i dTithe an Oireachtais. Mar atá a fhios againn agus an daonlathas mar atá sa Stát seo, bíonn móramh i gcónaí ag an Rialtas agus mar sin an rud a bheadh i gceist anseo ná ar a laghad an plean a chur os comhair na Dála agus an tSeanaid, dá mbeadh Seanad go fóill ann, go bpléifí é agus go gcaithfí vóta, ar a laghad go ndéanfaí an scrúdú ceart ar an phlean.
The key aspect to this amendment is that the Houses of the Oireachtas will have the power to scrutinise and approve or reject any plan brought forward by Government to reach the targets set out in the legislation. We have heard a lot about Oireachtas reform and the important role the Opposition parties must play in legislation, and the Government has taken some good initiatives in this area, but there is much more that must be done. This is a fundamental issue. If the Commission addresses a warning to the State to say there is a failure to comply with the budgetary rule which constitutes a significant deviation, the Government must within two months prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a plan specifying what must be done to secure compliance with the budgetary rule. The budgetary rule will be binding on the State if the legislation is passed. If the Commission says we are not likely to meet the rule and issues a warning to the State, the Government must devise a plan. What will that plan entail? The legislation spells it out, stating the plan shall specify the period over which compliance with the budgetary rule can be achieved. That is very like the troika agreement, where we have a three year plan, a four year plan or a two year plan.
The second point in the plan states that if the period is longer than a year, annual targets must be met to move towards such compliance, again like the troika plan where there is a certain target to meet each year until the overall target is met. The third aspect of the plan is that the size and nature of revenue and expenditure measures that are to be taken to secure such compliance must be specified. Again, that is similar to the troika plan, which lays down the amount of tax revenue that must be raised, the cuts that must be made and savings sought in a particular year.
The fourth point that must be outlined in the plan if this legislation is passed is how any revenue and expenditure measures that are to be taken will relate to different subsectors of the general government. It goes further than outlining the savings that must be made, or the taxes that must be raised - it must outline the subsectors, another aspect that also exists in the troika plan, including carbon taxes, property taxes and cuts to social welfare and health. It is similar in nature and design to the sort of troika plan the Government is implementing. The plan also, however, must take on any recommendations made to the State under the stability and growth pact in the period over which compliance with the budgetary rule is to be achieved and the size of measures to be taken to secure such compliance under the current stability programme. It must encompass any direction given to us by the Commission on matters it has raised.
This plan, therefore, is very like the troika plan. No one can say for certain if we will ever have to develop such a plan, please God this Government will change direction and we will see economic growth when we would be able to reach the budgetary rules and debt rules within the prescribed time frame. There is, however, a likelihood, and we must be conscious of what we are agreeing in this House, that if the targets are not met, the Government must develop this sort of plan within two months and then lay it before these Houses. The amendment does not say the Government should not draw up the plan, it states very simply that when developing that plan, when it has been agreed in Cabinet and meets the conditions laid down in this Bill and is in compliance with the austerity treaty, it must be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas, debated, improved and voted upon. It is unacceptable that such a plan would be devised in a Cabinet office without Dáil scrutiny. Laying a plan before the Dáil is very different from the plan being debated and voted upon. This amendment seeks that provision for a debate, it does not restrict the Government in any way bar having a democratic debate while scrutinising these measures.
If we have learned anything from the economic crisis it is that there was a lack of scrutiny and debate and those in power failed to listen to alternative voices. The Government almost always has a majority so, de facto, unless some backbenchers jump ship, the plan will be carried but this amendment would allow the elected representatives of the citizens in the State to have the opportunity to discuss, debate and vote on such a plan.
Amendment No. 10 allows the Government to derogate from the debt and deficit rules if it believes it is doing so for the best social and economic interests of the State. In doing so, it also places a requirement on the State to explain why this is the case. This goes back to my earlier comments. The structural deficit and budgetary rules are not the issue, the key issue is that we are laying down rules when we do not know what the Irish economy will look like in future. We are being forced to put in place rules that we know could have a negative social and economic impact on the State but because they are legally binding, if we do not do so the legislation contains penalties and punishments that can be imposed.
It would be folly for us not to have an opt-out clause that would allow the Government to derogate from the debt and deficit rules in such circumstances. While the legislation makes provision for special circumstances, they are not clear. It is my interpretation of the Bill that those are not the types of exceptional circumstances we are discussing. The exceptional circumstances are more likely to relate to natural disasters and such issues. However, this is where the Government can prove to the House and the Commission that the debt and deficit rules would have a negative social and economic impact on the State and therefore can seek a derogation from them. I commend the amendments to the House.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to Report Stage of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill. I did not have much success with the amendments I tabled on Committee Stage and so did not repeat them again on Report Stage. However, I wish to make some comments on the amendments tabled by Deputy Pearse Doherty, many of which relate to the plan the Government is required to introduce under the correction mechanism to comply with the budgetary rule. Amendment No. 5 would provide that such a plan would "prioritise the generation of economic growth, job creation and delivery of high quality public services". In many respects it is a statement of the obvious because those should be objectives that any democratically elected Government in this State would pursue and I would expect that to be the case. I have no objection to providing specifically for such a plan to include recognition of that. Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 7 proposes that such a plan would "outline how revenue and expenditure measures will contribute to the objectives of greater income equality, social inclusion and poverty reduction". My philosophy and the philosophy of my party on income equality is that the objective of Government should be to give individuals and families the means by which they can advance themselves and can over a period improve their income-earning capacity while at the same time having a floor or a backstop through the social protection system to ensure at least a minimum standard of living is provided for every individual and family in the country should they require it. There is much talk about the objective of income equality - I have a different philosophy. We should give everyone the opportunity to improve their own prospects and improve their income earning capabilities while at the same time having a necessary safety valve through the social protection system, which is essential. I do not believe anybody in this House would disagree with the references to social inclusion and poverty reduction.
Regarding amendment No. 8, much depends on the level of detail in the plan that would be introduced in the event of the correction mechanism being triggered. Deputy Pearse Doherty read out sections 6(2)(c) and 6(2)(d), which will require an extensive level of detail in terms of the revenue-raising elements and the expenditure reductions that would be provided for in such a plan. I note the Minister's comments on Committee Stage about the need to provide equality and anti-poverty impact assessments in respect of every element of that. However, in a broad sense it is an objective that we should aspire to achieve and I support the amendment in that respect.
The Minister should seriously consider accepting amendment No. 9. While the Bill as drafted requires the Government to prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann such a plan under the corrective mechanism to achieve the budgetary rule, the legitimacy of any such plan would be enhanced if it were put to a vote of Dáil Éireann. As a backbench Deputy in the previous Government when the programme was negotiated with the troika, I was one of the Deputies who pushed the issue quite strongly in our parliamentary party that the deal and the programme agreed should be put to a vote of the House, as it ultimately was. Others called for a vote by referendum but I felt at the time that the particular deal required the consent of the elected Members of this House. That was ultimately forthcoming and it was the right thing to do. I believe amendment No. 9 should be accepted.
Amendment No. 10 appears to presume that the Government considers non-compliance with the budgetary rule to be in the best social and economic interests of the citizens and the State, which presumably will not be the case at all times. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments in that regard.
In general terms, my party will support the Bill when the final vote on it is taken. As a country we have no option, whether it be under a troika agreement or under the fiscal stability rules, to get to a point where we are only spending what we take in by way of revenue. Even the most recent Exchequer returns up to the end of October indicate that the cost of servicing the national debt stood at just over €6 billion, which meant more than €1 in €5 that we received by way of revenue went to service the debt alone. Ultimately, if we do not get on top of the deficit situation, an ever-increasing proportion of our tax take will go towards servicing the national debt, which means less money available for the provision of essential public services and less money available by way of social welfare support for families who need it. Ultimately, we need to reach that point and the Bill essentially implements the will of the people by way of their consent to the fiscal stability treaty and putting the Fiscal Advisory Council on a statutory basis.
As the Minister knows, both People Before Profit and the United Left Alliance are utterly opposed to this Bill and the commitments into which it locks this country essentially to pay off the gambling debts of banks and bondholders across Europe for years to come in a way that we believe will amount to a near death sentence for the economy in the medium term and really choke off any possibility of serious economic recovery. We believe that is even more the case given the admission now by bodies such as the IMF that the narrow focus of austerity and meeting debt and deficit targets has had a far worse effect on the economy in this country and in Europe generally than they projected and anticipated previously. Crucially, the IMF has admitted it has had a far worse impact than the Government was willing to admit during the course of the referendum campaign.
It is folly in the extreme to plough ahead with this given those admissions and given the obviously devastating effect this approach to dealing with the crisis is having, particularly in the absence of the Government getting anything concrete in terms of write-down of Irish debt. We are being put into a straitjacket which guarantees devastation of our economy and further pain for the people. However, we have made all those points clear and that argument has been had elsewhere and will continue to be had elsewhere. Obviously, the Government intends to press ahead with this commitment to these rules. Given that it has done that, it seems Deputy Pearse Doherty's amendments are eminently sensible fail-safes to insert into the Bill. While we may have committed to targets that some of us believe are absolutely crazy, we should at least put in some sort of fail-safe mechanism where if it is absolutely obvious that the demands of the European Commission to meet these targets are going to mean that we have no growth, damage to the employment situation in this country or other adverse effects on the economy, then those issues will be considered as part of any plan the Government is required to serve up to our masters in the European Commission.
This, to me, appears to be an eminently sensible fail safe.
Equally, we should have a fail-safe which ensures that criteria such as poverty, income inequality and social inclusion rather than only narrow accountancy targets of debts and deficits, expenditure ceilings and so on are taken into account in any plan which the Irish Government would be required to draw up for the Commission. This is about the Government admitting that the troika might be wrong and that it is possible that those of us on this side of the House who opposed the fiscal treaty may be right. The Government will probably not admit so now - it obviously it will not - but this would at least acknowledge that we may be right that these two measures of meeting these targets while promoting growth, employment, economic and social justice in the country may be at odds. This should at least be a consideration in any plan that we may have to come up with if we find we are unable to meet these debt and deficit targets. I do not understand how the Minister cannot see the wisdom of including this type of fail safe so as to ensure we are not tied completely to a policy that may do extreme damage to our economy and society.
I agree with Deputy Pearse Doherty that the plan we will be required to serve up, if issued with a warning by the Commission, is the outlines of another troika programme. It will require us to give detailed commitments to it on different sectors of public spending, including specific targets for cuts, Department by Department, in order to meet these debt and deficit rules. Surely, if we find ourselves in the desperate situation of being forced to do this, such a plan should at the very least be put before the elected representatives of the people of this country so that we can debate whether continuing to sign up to such a programme is in the best interests of the people, the economy and our society.
I believe these are reasonable amendments which should be included in a Bill which we believe is foolish in terms of its being a form of economic madness. The inclusion of these safeguards would be a reasonable move on the part of Government. I support Deputy Pearse Doherty's amendments and hope the Government will consider doing likewise.
The policy issues which are raised in these amendments are of a wider scope and scheme than the substance of the Bill and the stability treaty. Deputy Pearse Doherty has identified some of the issues that any Government would have to consider in preparing a correction or budgetary plan. However, it should be noted that we are talking about a plan and not the actual detailed legislative budgetary proposals that will have to be brought before the Oireachtas in the normal manner.
A key requirement of the stability treaty is the automatic triggering of a mechanism to correct budget deviations from our medium term budgetary objective or the adjustment path towards it. Section 6, which was drafted on the basis of the common principles as required by the treaty, meets this requirement. While the Government and, I am sure, future governments, will always seek to promote economic growth, job creation and the delivery of high-quality public services, it is highly likely that deployment of a correction plan could result in unpalatable choices that may not be in compliance with the suggested amendments, at least in the short term. Sustainable public finances are a key element of sustainable economic growth. Giving priority to economic growth, job creation and delivery could prove to be an obstacle or a limitation on a government's choice of actions, which are needed to ensure sustainable public finances. In working to ensure the sustainability of public finances any government should have all possible policy levers available to it.
Deputy Pearse Doherty also seeks to introduce assessment requirements in relation to equality, social inclusion and anti-poverty impacts into the preparation of a correction plan. Such social and economic assessments are subjective and there is a huge difficulty in putting subjective matters into a legislative framework. Additionally, each budget day the Government publishes illustrative cases showing the affect of major changes in revenue and certain social welfare payments on different categories of married-civil partners and single income earners.
With regard to the requirement for Oireachtas approval before adoption of the plan, amendments that would result in the contravention of our treaty obligations cannot be accepted. The stability treaty requires the triggering of a correction mechanism if there is a significant deviation from the medium term objective or adjustment path towards it.
I do not accept the Minister's reply, which is similar to the reply which he gave on Committee Stage which did not deter me from trying to convince him of the merits of these proposals. There is nothing in the treaty that precludes us from taking into account the impact of the plan on economic growth, unemployment or public services. The treaty requires us to include in the plan the items to which I have already referred and those contained in this legislation but does not preclude us from taking into account the other areas. In my view, it is wrong of the Minister not to include them. It is an acknowledgement that the plan, if we have to develop one, could potentially and likely have a negative impact in the three areas mentioned.
The Minister stated, in regard to my amendment that the plan be discussed, debated and voted on in this Chamber, that this would be in conflict with our treaty obligations. As I have stated previously on Committee Stage, that is not true. The amendment requires the a plan be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas within two months. There is nothing in the austerity treaty which precludes a democratically elected parliament from taking a vote on a plan. The Minister knows as well as I do that there have been many votes in this Chamber on measures which have not been implemented. There is no reason the plan could not be debated and voted on in this Chamber. There is nothing in the austerity treaty that precludes us from doing this. The idea that a European treaty would preclude a democratically elected Parliament from voting on a plan of economic recovery is ridiculous.
I intend to press this amendment. This issue goes to the heart of our not being afraid of having this type of scrutiny.
The Wright report, in dealing with Department of Finance advice to the Government at the time, was critical of that Department. It was also critical of the Government in terms of its not heeding some of the advice given to it by the Department.
It was very critical of the Department of Finance for not amplifying or increasing the tempo at which it gave advice and issued warning signals that the Government was heading in the wrong direction. One of the recommendations contained in the report on strengthening the Department of Finance was to establish the Fiscal Advisory Council and another was with regard to the need for those in power to listen to alternative voices. One can see in the report and in other information we have on the banking sector that time and again lone voices in the Department of Finance issued warnings to the Government at the time on the policies it was pursuing. In fairness it was the previous Government and not the present one but those voices were ignored, sometimes by more senior officials in the Department of Finance.
It was not only in the Department of Finance that warnings were issued. People on the outside also issued warnings. We all know of the economists such as David McWilliams and others who issued warnings in the past. We know the type of response we had from the Taoiseach at the time, that they would be better going away and committing suicide. It was the dismissive attitude summed up in such statements as "We know better", "Let us be", "Things are going grand" and "The economy is fine".
The Wright report identifies the need to listen to alternative voices. We have had discussions in the House about the herd mentality which existed in the past. The herd mentality did not come into existence in the lead up to the banking crisis. It can exist at any time when a group of individuals think they know better. As I said on Committee Stage, the amendments I propose today may not be the right solution but they are an attempt to try to strengthen the legislation and offer a constructive critique of it. This legislation could be potentially damaging for the Irish economy and Irish society.
This is about listening to alternative voices. If the Minister is unwilling to allow the plan to be debated in the House how can he genuinely say he has learned any lessons from the previous Administration's mishandling of the economy and the arrogance it showed when it followed the path which led us to destruction? He is not willing to have a simple debate in the House and offer it the democratic right it has. People shed blood for this country so we could make decisions and define our own destiny, and if the Minister denies the House the right to cast a vote on a future troika plan it is deplorable. The Minister knows well that when he sat on this side of the House he condemned the previous Government for not allowing a vote on the troika bailout programme. This vote was subsequently allowed and I acknowledge the role of Deputy Michael McGrath and others in allowing that debate to eventually be held.
That is a very exaggerated presentation of the facts. Let us suppose in the years to come the national finances are out of kilter with the provisions of the treaty. There are only two ways to correct fiscal imbalances, either by increasing taxes or cutting expenditure. For tax increases the Minister of the day must introduce a budget followed by a finance Bill and there will be votes in the House. If the Minister must adjust the Votes downwards for particular Departments it will also present an occasion in the Dáil where eventually a Supplementary Estimate will be taken or the Opposition will demand a vote or a debate. It is not a question of not having a debate if correction must be made. It is not a question of the Dáil not having its say. It is a question of not writing it into the text of the treaty because it is inevitable anyway.
That is codswallop. The Minister knows well that when a troika programme is agreed the measures to which he referred, namely, taxation and spending cuts, have to be voted upon in a social welfare or finance Bill. He knew this well when he was in opposition and it did not stop him and the Taoiseach demanding a vote on the troika bailout programme. The reason was that we know well once the programme is agreed the Minister will say he or she cannot do anything about it because it is in the plan which has been agreed and our hands are tied. The point is to have a debate on the programme. The Minister takes it upon himself to state he and the Government will know what is best to put in the plan. If they are so confident in themselves there is no reason not to allow the plan to be scrutinised, debated and voted upon in the House.
Normal Dáil procedures will operate. One does not have to write into everything one does that a debate will be held in the Dáil. That is a job for the Dáil. If a plan is brought forward by a future Government I am sure the Opposition will not be totally witless and will demand a debate. The Taoiseach of the day will have the Whips discuss it and a debate will be held. This is what happens here.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, line 6, after “achieved” to insert “in a manner consistent with paragraph (a)”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(e) outline how revenue and expenditure measures will contribute to the objectives of greater income equality, social inclusion and poverty reduction.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Did the Minister vote in favour of the amendment?
Did they teach any Irish in St. Michael's? I said "Níl".
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(3) All revenue and expenditure measures contained in the plan must be subject to equality and anti-poverty impact assessments the details of which will be published as appendices to the plan.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(3) The plan shall only be adopted following approval of the Oireachtas.".
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Adams, Gerry.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- O'Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Collins, Áine.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mathews, Peter.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Pearse Doherty; Níl, Deputies Joe Carey and Robert Dowds.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.