Sinn Féin voting against first-stage Bill banning fox hunting ‘deeply troubling', Social Democrats say
Sinn Féin
vote against an
Opposition Bill
seeking to ban fox hunting was 'deeply troubling' and potentially undemocratic, the acting
Social Democrats
leader has said.
A Private Members' Bill to ban hunting was introduced to the Dáil on Wednesday by People Before Profit TD Ruth Coppinger.
Bills are not normally voted on at that early stage and are given leave to pass to the second stage for a full Dáil debate.
However, in an unusual development, a vote was called on the Bill by Kerry TD Danny Healy-Rae. Sinn Féin, Independent Ireland and a handful of rural Independent TDs all voted against it at first stage.
READ MORE
However, the two Government parties, and the other Opposition parties and TDs, voted to give the Bill leave and it passed to second stage.
Acting Social Democrats leader Cian O'Callaghan wrote to Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald on Thursday to express his deep concern at her party's decision to block the Bill.
'While the Social Democrats believe strongly that blood sports are barbaric and cruel, we recognise the democratic right of Sinn Féin to take an opposing view,' he wrote. 'However, the decision by Sinn Féin to vote to prevent a Bill going to the second stage was unprecedented and deeply troubling.'
Mr O'Callaghan said allowing the Bill through would not have denoted opposition or assent.
'As far as I am aware a political party has never attempted to block an Opposition TD tabling a piece of legislation. What is really extraordinary about what happened last night is that it was Sinn Féin – an Opposition party – which attempted to block a Bill from another Opposition grouping – People Before Profit/Solidarity – proceeding to the second stage.'
He added that if the practice was continued it would be undemocratic and completely undermine the role of the Opposition.
A spokesman for Sinn Féin said its vote was 'no big deal'. He said the party voted against the legislation in the knowledge that it was going to the second stage in any instance.
'We have a different position and took the opportunity to set out our opposition to the legislation,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Ireland's camino walks: St Finbarr's Way
The Curran family from Ballyfermot, whose home was destroyed by a firebomb, have moved back in following the help of a local builder. Video: Sarah Burns
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Depicting the Metro as primarily an airport service is an example of Michael O'Leary's myopic thinking
To understand why Michael O'Leary 's arguments against the Dublin MetroLink are so flawed, you need to go back 25 years, when the project was first proposed in the Platform for Change transport plan for Dublin . That plan was based on the most detailed modelling of how our city should grow. It showed that a meshed network of public transport, safe cycling and walking routes was the only way of building a city that would work into the future. O'Leary's argument that we should give up on rail-based solutions and rely on the car and bus instead makes no sense. We will need a huge expansion in our bus service, but on its own it will not be able to carry the numbers needed to avoid inevitable gridlock. It is not a sustainable solution – even if every vehicle is guided by artificial intelligence and powered by clean electricity. The Metro will help us manage one specific capacity problem that we already knew about all those years ago, around the approach roads to Dublin Airport . Because these roads link so closely to the M1 and M50, which are the busiest roads in the country, they risk creating tailbacks that would clog up the entire road system. O'Leary wants the Government to just ignore the issue and undermine the independence of our planning system by scrapping the conditions that were put in place to manage this real capacity problem. He argues that the Metro will not be used by many airport passengers, but every vehicle diverted from that approach road matters. His proposal to ditch the Metro and abandon the rule of law by subverting the planning authority would do incredible damage to our country and do nothing to improve Dublin Airport. READ MORE Depicting the Metro as primarily an airport service is in any case an example of O'Leary's myopic thinking. It will first and foremost be a facility for the people of Swords and Ballymun, for students in Dublin City University and patients attending the Mater hospital . It can deliver the meshed network promised in the Platform for Change plan, by connecting to the mainline rail network at Glasnevin and Tara Street and to the Luas at Charlemont, St Stephens Green and O'Connell Street. [ Dublin's MetroLink: How much will it really cost? Opens in new window ] In the intervening years, we have also modelled where the second phase of the Metro will go. It is not designed to stop at Charlemont, but will continue from there to Terenure, Rathfarnham, Knocklyon, Firhouse and Tallaght, which are poorly served by public transport. The project was split because it was too big as a single line, but once we have delivered the first phase it should be a lot easier and cheaper to complete the second phase. What we will have then is a rail artery connecting the north and south sides of the city, joining up with all the other lines and making the city work in a cleaner, more efficient and social way. The final argument from O'Leary is that the Metro is now too expensive, citing the €23 billion price tag that has been put out there by some as the likely cost. Again, you need to know the history of the project to understand where that incredibly inflated price tag is coming from. Michael O'Leary's proposal 'to ditch the MetroLink and abandon the rule of law by subverting the planning authority would do incredible damage to our country and do nothing to improve Dublin Airport'. Photograph: Sam Boal/Collins Photos The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has always opposed the Metro, for what seemed to me to be ideological rather than rational reasons. It succeeded in killing off the project in 2011 despite it having planning permission, being included in the national recovery plan and having funding support from the European Development Bank. The line also ran alongside large housing land banks the State then controlled through Nama , which were ready to be built upon once the Metro got the go-ahead. It was one of the worst investment decisions ever made in the history of the State not to go ahead at that time. Unfortunately, the department does not seem to have learned the right lessons from that experience. It is now more traumatised by the cost overruns from the building of the new National Children's Hospital and as a result is applying a new standard on the estimates for the Metro, which requires a 95 per cent certainty that no such cost overruns could ever occur. [ MetroLink delivery should be prioritised, US multinationals tell Government Opens in new window ] International experts confirmed to me it would be far more appropriate at this stage to apply a 50 per cent probability cost indicator, which brings the construction cost estimate down to less than €12 billion. It is hard to believe the department seems willing to talk up the odds of an expensive auction process, just to save face should there be future cost overruns. O'Leary does not help with his demeaning comments about the inability of the Irish State to deliver anything. In fact, we built out the motorways and Luas lines on budget and on time, just as we did with complex projects such as the National Broadband Plan and electricity interconnectors. Our biggest problem is a lack of confidence and conviction to deliver at speed. That is not helped by hurlers on the ditch such as O'Leary. Sowing doubt, derision and misinformation only delays projects and adds to the cost to the Irish public in the end.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Taoiseach cracks down on last-minute, ‘under the arm' Cabinet memos from Ministers
Government Ministers have been warned to bring issues to Cabinet at the last minute only in exceptional and urgent cases, as Taoiseach Micheál Martin cracks down on memos going 'under the arm' to meetings. At a Cabinet meeting on June 10th, it is understood Mr Martin told colleagues the practice was happening far too often and needed to stop. The assistant secretary general to the Government has twice reminded senior officials across departments of the requirement for consultation under the constitutional principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. 'Under the arm' refers to a minister bringing a memo to a Cabinet meeting at the last minute, without the details being shared with other departments and ministers in advance. READ MORE Sometimes an urgent issue will need to be raised without notice, but ministers may also choose not to share details of a memo in advance if they do not want it leaked to the media. Officials at the Department of Public Expenditure (DPER) have complained about the practice, arguing they are not given enough time to consider issues that carry a significant cost to the exchequer. Notable examples in the lifetime of this Government include Minister for Housing James Browne's landmark reforms of Rent Pressure Zones and Minister for Culture Patrick O'Donovan 's bombshell memo on the Arts Council's failed IT project. According to documents released under Freedom of Information, Dermot Woods, assistant secretary general to the Government, wrote to senior officials across every department in April to stress that memos had to be submitted the week before a Cabinet meeting. He said that after specific deadlines, they would 'not be accepted' and would have to go to a later meeting. Mr Woods said 'prior consultation' was required when the Government had to make a decision on a memo. 'This formal consultation should, therefore, only be abridged where there is a genuine urgency ... and, even then, only to the minimum necessary to achieve the objective.' Mr Woods said an explanation for why there had not been prior consultation should be included in memos in such cases. In another Government-wide email issued in May, Mr Woods was forced to warn officials again. 'The Taoiseach has reiterated that the late submission of Memorandums to the Government is to be avoided and that deadlines for submission are to be observed,' he said. This was followed by an email from the private secretary to Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers stressing that the Taoiseach would consider adding late memos to the agenda only in 'exceptional cases where matters are urgent.' On Thursday, May 1st officials in DPER became aware that Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Simon Harris was planning to bring a memo to Cabinet the following Tuesday, possibly 'under the arm.' Mr Harris was expected to update colleagues on the latest developments in trade between the US and Ireland, possible counter measures being considered by the European Union, and a 'new list' of goods and services with some 'sensitive areas' for Ireland. An official in DPER said that the department had previously told the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFA) that 'we wished for sight on these kinds of memos in good time ahead of the Government meetings, even informally if the memo wasn't ready for e‐cabinet.' At a meeting between DPER and DFA the next day, Mr Harris's department was again reminded that DPER needed to see memos in advance and 'and specifically that this memo needs to be provided ASAP.'
