Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party is now seeking to have them revised. We pointed this out in the first place. We cannot spend capital because of the fiscal rules which the Deputy argued and campaigned for and which the people voted for. That is democracy.

My question follows on from the valid question Deputy Burton raised. I previously asked the Minister about the fact the budget does not provide for the continued suspension or abolition of water charges after the first quarter of 2017. The Minister's answer was that the €53 million that would be required is not a huge amount of money in the context of the overall budget. That sum of €53 million will have to be found as, without pre-empting the decision of the House, that is likely to be its decision. Now we are told there is another €40 million on top of that. That is close to €100 million. As the Minister with responsibility to ensure we are complying with the fiscal rules, regardless of whether we like them, is it the Minister's view that this money will come from the expenditure side as opposed to looking at other sources of revenue which could accommodate the increased demands that have been agreed by the Cabinet for Garda pay and to provide for the abolition of water charges, in the event that the Dáil decides to abolish them after 31 March 2017? That question must be answered. Obviously, if some of that should be absorbed on the taxation side, we must have an understanding on that. If the Minister and his Cabinet colleague have another source for that money, we also have to know that. The debate we are taking part in today must be genuine and we must know that the figures will add up in the end.

That brings me to my second point, although I am eager to get to the meat of the amendments. I have sent an e-mail to the Clerk of the Dáil and copied it to you, Chairman, and the clerk to the committee. I am not happy with the rulings that have been made on the amendments. They are made under your signature, Chairman, under advisement. I can see that there is a basis for some of the rulings, but other rulings that amendments are out of order make no sense. I am asking the committee to seek proper advice on this, even if that requires us consulting the Office of Parliamentary Legal Adviser, OPLA, to give legal advice as to why some amendments tabled by Deputies are ruled out of order. I have seen amendments from Deputies Burton and Donnelly that have been ruled out of order and I have seen other amendments that have been allowed and there is no logic to why this has happened. It is frustrating Committee Stage.

One example is my amendment No. 105, which seeks to delete five lines relating to funds that would be exempt from paying capital gains tax, CGT. We are told that we cannot introduce that amendment or delete those lines because it would be a burden on the Exchequer. This law or measure does not exist at this point in time. It is not as if we are changing an existing measure. This is an idea that is being put forward to the committee, so there is no change to existing law as a result of the amendment. Another amendment tabled by Deputy Michael McGrath would extend the fishers tax credit indefinitely. Some could argue that this would have a potential cost to the Exchequer. The ruling is that it does not, yet Deputy Burton's amendment, which would restrict a timeframe relating to another scheme, has been ruled out of order. There is no logic to the rulings that have been made. It is crucial that the committee gets the opinion from those who made these decisions. With regard to amendment No. 105, in particular, I am requesting that the OPLA provide legal advice to Deputies as to whether that amendment should have been ruled out of order.