IND
2023-12-06 · Dail
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Second Stage (Resumed)
That is not the case at all.
On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 58 of 393 decisive votes (7 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| IND | Independent | 1,426 | 2020-02-20 – 2024-07-11 |
| ?? | Not recorded | 5 | 2026-02-18 – 2026-02-18 |
Membership spells on record: LAB 2011-02-25–2015-05-29 · IND 2015-05-29–2015-09-16 · LAB 2015-09-16–2016-03-09 · IND 2020-02-08–2024-07-15
That is not the case at all.
I am not looking to suspend Standing Orders. It is open to the Minister of State to suspend Standing Orders if he wants to. I am seeking to vindicate Standing Orders and ensure they are applied. The Cathaoirleach is factually incorrect in stating that the Ceann Comhairle in any way ruled on this issue. My clear recollection of it is that the Taoiseach undertook to refer the matter to the Member in charge of the Bill, who is the Minister, Deputy O'Brien. I do not know what-----
He did not pronounce on the objection.
He made no order on the matter and now I am calling that an order and a determination need to be made on this because it is very clearly in breach of Standing Orders. As I say, it is open to the Government to suspend Standing Orders. It can do just about anything within the confines of the Constitution but it has not suspended Standing Orders and this is clearly in breach of Standing Orders. Moreover, it is bad legislative practice, bad administration and all of the rest. It would be useful if Members understood cl…
The Cathaoirleach needs to determine that this debate is in order or it is not in order. If it is in order, he has to explain. There is a general duty to give reasons - it applies here as well as everywhere else - why this explanatory memorandum, which does not outline the modifications and merely states that there are some modifications, complies with Standing Order 175 of the Standing Orders relative to public business.
On what basis does the Cathaoirleach say that this explanatory memorandum complies with the Standing Orders?
I respectfully suggest that the Cathaoirleach gives the microphone to Ms Banim, who is an excellent public servant.
That is what is happening. That is clearly what is happening.
It is what is happening.
What is the ruling?
On what basis?
On what basis does the Cathaoirleach say that these Standing Orders comply with section 159? Again I invite him to give the microphone to Ms Banim.
It is always necessary to explain decisions. There is a duty to give reasons-----
-----right across the board.
Ms Higgins may wish to come to the Cathaoirleach's assistance but I want to know how this complies with Standing Orders.
What is the recommendation?
I respectfully reject the Cathaoirleach's recommendation.
I am asking for reasons as to how this complies with Standing Orders.
I am asking the Cathaoirleach to explain how this complies with Standing Orders.
I am asking the Cathaoirleach how this complies with Standing Orders.