Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"if and when adequate notice is given of such a proposal, and provided that adequate time is provided in order to debate the matter, Dáil Éireann will consider whether to approve, pursuant to section 5(4) of the National Surplus (Reserve Fund for Exceptional Contingencies) Act 2019 (No. 18 of 2019), the making of payments in respect of the years 2022 and 2023 into the National Surplus (Exceptional Contingencies) Reserve Fund.".

We in the Labour Party are very concerned about the manner in which this proposal has come before the House this evening. As Deputy Cullinane stated, all of us in the Opposition expressed our concern. This is a motion that deals with a substantial proposed payment this year of €5 billion into the rainy day fund, but it was made without notice. It was originally proposed that it would be voted upon without debate. Now we have this very minimal debate and yet this motion is not a financial resolution and there is no need for it to be bundled together with the financial resolutions, nor indeed is there any need for it to be taken today at all. Budget day financial resolutions relate to changes in tax law that need immediate implementation, whereas the National Surplus (Reserve Fund) Act 2019 is entirely separate from this special process, which relates only to increase, reduction and variation or abolition of taxes. There is no reason this proposal should be bundled together with the financial resolutions and dealt with this evening. The effect of it being bundled together is to remove the obligation to have notice, and the normal notice rules under Standing Order 40. It has meant, therefore, that we are faced with voting on a motion on which we have had insufficient notice that deals with very substantial amounts of money. The sums proposed are of a magnitude that would have an impact on budget day arithmetic but which could be debated at a different time.

Indeed, they could be debated, as Deputy Howlin suggested, tomorrow or later in the week; they do not need to be debated tonight. More time could be allocated were they given another day. We have put forward our amendment to express our objection to the process by which this motion was put before the House. It provides that if and when adequate notice is given of a proposal and provided adequate time is allocated to debate the matter, the Dáil would then consider this same resolution. There is certainly a strong case to be made for putting money into a rainy day fund, but we have not had the opportunity to debate the case and to hear sufficient argument from the Minister, and this is not the correct procedure for this motion to be put before the House.

See this speech in context