Richard Boyd Barrett Questions Removal of Dáil Speaking Slot
Richard Boyd Barrett raised procedural questions in the Dáil about the removal of a speaking slot allocated to People Before Profit and Solidarity and pressed for clarity on how the arrangements were changed. He asked whether late correspondence received at nine o'clock on Monday left adequate time to submit an alternative motion and said he would not disrupt the order of the Dáil.
Immediate concern
Richard Boyd Barrett asked why a slot for People Before Profit and Solidarity that appeared on the business schedule this morning later disappeared. He sought a clear account of who decided to remove the slot and how that decision unfolded.
Timeline and committee discussion
He noted that the arrangements had been voted on yesterday and that the vote had included a slot for People Before Profit and Solidarity. The speaker responded that no valid business was subsequently submitted by the group and pointed to a Doyle Reform Committee discussion where, the speaker said, all members save the group's solidarity representative considered the process appropriate.
Alternative motion offered
The speaker told the deputy that an alternative motion had been suggested which would have allowed debate on the generality and some specific aspects of the issue. According to the speaker, the group chose not to avail of that option and therefore no business could be placed on the agenda.
Procedural stance and tone
Richard Boyd Barrett emphasised he did not intend to disrupt Dáil business but repeatedly pushed for clarity about the late correspondence and the removal of the slot. The exchange ended with visible frustration on procedural grounds as participants declined to pursue the matter further.
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.
I don't intend to and won't disrupt the order of the Dáil, we had a long discussion yesterday and you know proceedings are ongoing about that and there will be more discussion about the whole issue of the money messages but I do want to get some clarity on precisely what happened to the arrangements for today because the communications that we got leave very big questions in my mind as exactly how the arrangements for today unfolded or were revised earlier this morning well first of all in the first instance notwithstanding the issue of the motion and your ruling on the motion there was a slot for People Before Profit and Solidarity due to start now that was still on the arrangements for today this morning when the business schedule was sent out and then at some point later in the day that slot disappeared Now how did that decision happen that the slot just disappeared that's very simple Deputy And just one last question and was it your expectation that given the correspondence we only received at nine o'clock on Monday was it your expectation that we could then in that short period submit another motion for that slot notwithstanding debate about the motion I just want clarity about how all that unfolded Well I'm very conscious that this matter is now subdued I'm not going to discuss the substantial issue or ask you It was my understanding insofar as my understanding is of any benefit in these circumstances that an alternative motion was suggested to your group which would allow would have allowed you to debate the generality of issues and indeed some of the specific aspects of the issues that you would have been debating had your motion itself entabled but you chose not to avail of that so therefore we have no choice we have no valid business from you we had a vote on the order of business yesterday and we must proceed in accordance with that vote We further had a discussion as you are aware at the Doyle Reform Committee where all of the members save your own solidarity representative were of the view that we were proceeding in a correct and appropriate manner The vote that we took yesterday still included a slot did it not a slot for people before profit solidarity and that that that that slot remained on the arrangements for today this morning We voted yesterday on the arrangements the arrangements were agreed there was subsequently no business submitted by yourselves that could go on the agenda and therefore we are where we are now Because the business we submitted was disallowed? Yes yes yes yes and you chose not to submit that which would have been allowed and would have allowed you to have the same debate Somebody else's motion Well yes but I mean the debate was worth it Not our motion Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's not get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it Let's get into it
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.
