Bríd Smith Objects to Bill's Second Reading in Dáil Debate
Bríd Smith objected to a bill being read a second time, challenging the procedure and asserting a right to put the question to a vote. The exchange focused on Standing Order 176, prior votes on the sitting and business motion and the chair's ruling that further debate on the objection would not be permitted.
Immediate objection
She said she objected to the bill being read a second time and to the manner in which it was being pushed through. She argued she had a right to put the question to a vote to see how other deputies felt.
Chair's ruling and standing orders
The chair replied that motions on the sitting and business had been put and carried the previous night and referred to Standing Order 176 governing second readings. The chair ruled that further debate on the procedural objection would not be allowed at that point but said there would be opportunities to vote at later stages.
Previous night's motions and votes
The transcript records two votes taken the night before on the sitting and business motion, which the chair said determined how the day's proceedings would be conducted. The chair emphasised that the motion determining how the second stage is read had already been decided.
Next steps and voting
The chair noted there will be chances to vote on the second stage and on amendments at subsequent stages of the bill's progress. Bríd Smith maintained she believed an immediate vote was warranted, while the chair allowed further contributions but upheld the ruling against debate on the objection.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
The Minister has moved the second stage, and Deputy Smith objected to that, and I took a few minutes just to reflect on that and to check. I'm afraid you raise an interesting point, Deputy Smith, but there was no provision for that. There were two votes last night. I was in the chair myself when we took the votes, and the motion was on the sitting and business motion. There were two votes on that, and that was when the business was set out and how we would take it today. And I'm afraid that's all I can do, and that's my understanding of it now, having something checked. Lasky-Anne, with respect, I understand this is very unusual. Deputies who were here far longer than I said they've never seen it before. However, you did say that we agree that the bill would be moved to a second stage or be read a second time, and I didn't agree. I object to it being read a second time. I object to the whole way in which it's been pushed through. And when I don't agree with something, and I want to find out how other deputies feel, I believe I have a right to put it to a vote. Now, if I don't, if procedures stand in order to say I don't, then I'll have to accept that from you, but I believe I do. Okay. I hear what you're saying, and I think you're making a good argument. However, the motion was put last night, and it was passed by the majority of the House in relation to how we would proceed today. Under Standing Order 176, the second reading of any bill, Standing Order 1761, the debate on the motion that the bill be now read a second time, shall be confined to the general principle of the bill, and it goes on to say what can be said. But that motion determines how the second stage is read, and we co-professed that last night with two motions. So, I'm not going to allow further debate on it, Deputy. I'll allow you to make another contribution. But that's my understanding, and I've taken the time to look at it and reflect on it. There will be, of course, a chance to vote later on in relation to the second stage, as there is with all second stage bills. So, at various stages, there will be votes, presumably, if they're called. Well, absolutely, Lass, I understand that. You know, I'm not here that long, but I'm here long enough to know that we can vote on whether it moves past second stage, and we can vote on the amendments tomorrow, etc, etc. But the question was put that the bill be read a second time, is that agreed? And I said no, I'm objecting to that. Now, I believe that that has some standing in the machinations of democracy in this House. And if standing orders are telling me it doesn't, then I have no choice but to accept that at the moment, because I'm not going to kick up a big fuss and start throwing furniture around the place. But not much now, as I'd like to. But the point being that I have to accept it. You may be wrong, and the people who advised you may be wrong. We'll find out afterwards. But it's an interesting one that when you're asked, is that agreed, and you say no, that you're not allowed to bring that to the next point, which is, if it's not agreed, do other people agree with me that it's not agreed? That's what I'm trying to do here. I understand, absolutely understand where you're coming from. I'm not going to allow a debate on it. I'm sorry. At this point, I've got to make a rule on it. I perfectly understand what you're saying. It's part of the system that I'm reading out that the bill be now read a second time, and nobody can object to that at this point. So, at this point, just my limited experience and my understanding of the system, it's not possible at this point to call a vote. Now, I may be wrong, but that's the ruling I'm making at this point. Thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
