Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I wish to make two brief points. As a number of amendments are grouped, I will focus on two and ask the Minister how they cause violence to the article. First, my amendment on equality and anti-poverty impact assessments reads: "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." The Minister's view of this is that, if an impact assessment's result was negative in terms of poverty or equality, namely, something would create more inequality or lead to more people being in poverty, he would be constrained with carrying on with the adjustment plan. The amendment does not state that. Rather, it requires that an assessment be done. If the assessment proves that a measure will lead to greater inequality, so be it. It will not stop the Government from meeting the four rules, (a) to (d). Nothing in the treaty states that the Government cannot have an equality assessment of the plan. Indeed, given Europe's long-standing work on equality, it would be bizarre if it told the Government that the latter could not have an equality impact assessment on a number of rules. Further equality and poverty proofing could be included in specific budget measures, but it is important to have an overall equality and anti-poverty impact assessment of the general plan to which we will all bow and from which everything will flow.

Second, my amendment No. 9 reads: "The plan shall only be adopted following approval of the Oireachtas." Nothing in the treaty's subsection to which the Minister referred denies the Oireachtas the right to vote on the plan. Is he afraid that some of his backbenchers would reject the plan? A Government will present a plan to the Houses on how to get back into line within two months of a warning from the Commission. Usually, if not always, a Government has a majority and should be able to carry the plan through. The requirement for approval by the Houses is to ensure the plan will at least be thoroughly discussed and that the Government and the Opposition will have a chance to tease out its merits. The idea that the plan would be rejected would require Government Deputies or Senators to jump ship. This is a question of the fundamentals of democracy.

I am sure that the promissory note issue has taken up much of the Minister's time. He knows there was no discussion in the Houses when that note was agreed, nor was there a discussion when the note's value was increased. Perhaps if there had been, we would not be in this position. My amendment requires approval by the Houses following a debate and a vote. Despite the Minister's comments, nothing in the treaty prevents us from doing so.