home » media centre » press releases

Govt accused of unprecedented sleight of parliamentary hand

Issued : Wednesday 10 March, 2010

The Labour Party Whip, Deputy Emmet Stagg, has accused the Government of an unprecedented parliamentary sleight of hand in order to overturn a decision of the Dail yesterday to accept a Labour Party amendment to the Finance Bill.

The Official Record of the House shows quite clearly that Amendment No 3 in the name of Deputy Joan Burton was agreed by the House (see transcript below). The Labour Party was very pleased that the government had accepted our amendment which was of a relatively non-controversial nature, and which simply provided for a cost benefit analysis to be carried out of tax changes provided for in the Bill.

However, in an unprecedented move the government is now trying to have the House to go back and vote again on the issue. The Minister for Finance agreed to today that the amendment was approved last night but now claims that it was a mistake on his part.

What is even worse is that in an unprecedented parliamentary sleight of hand the government is claiming that the Order of Business read out by the Taoiseach this morning differed from the written Order of Business circulated in advance to the members. The government claims that what the Taoiseach read out provides for a resumption of discussion of the Bill at Amendment 3, despite this having been carried. The written Order of Business makes no mention of this

Deputies who have been here for 30 years say that is unprecedented for the Order of Business as read out in the House to differ from that circulated in advance.

The Dail can only operate on the basis of a degree of cooperation between government and opposition parties and this must be based on trust. This is an unprecedented trust on the part of the government and can only have the most serious consequences for the way in which the House operates.

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON AMENDMENT NO 3, COMING UP TO 7.00PM March 9, 2010

Deputy Brian Lenihan: First, that is a completely inaccurate characterisation of the process. As I understand the position, we are talking about regulatory capital, which, in the first instance, is a matter for the Financial Regulator, not for Professor Honohan. However, the regulator works closely with the Governor of the Central Bank and also consults with me and discusses these matters.
Ultimately, if our regulatory system is not to belong to the world of crony capitalism, the regulator must be manifestly seen to make an independent and objective call on these issues and cannot be subject to the kind of political pressures that Deputy Burton was deploying a few moments ago. That is the purpose of having an independent regulatory system.
One of the functions of an independent regulatory system is to prescribe an appropriate level of regulatory capital for the institutions. The implications of prescribing such a level are a matter for the Government, and for this House to which the Government is accountable, but the issue of what is an appropriate level of regulatory capital is a matter for the regulatory system.
Deputy Burton cannot have it both ways. If she wants us to have a robust, good international reputation, then we must have a regulator who can act in a good, robust independent way. The regulator must not be seen to be subject to endless political pressures. That is the one thing one cannot have the regulator doing, and that is essential in the context of any announcement we will make in this area. That should not be a matter of bipartisanship or tripartisanship. That is surely a lesson we should have learned already at this stage of the banking crisis. That is the position on that particular issue.
Deputy Burton also raised the question of the review the Government is conducting. I would be quite happy to provide the data, but the arguments made by particular Departments are part of the Government process and should be treated as such as part of the preliminary process for the making of Cabinet decisions on these matters. It is important that the necessary frankness and candour of discussion, which one wants to see in memoranda on this subject, should be present in any documentation. I appreciate the Deputy is anxious to see what figures and estimates are available in this context. I will examine what can be produced in that regard.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.