It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1 and 2 in that order, to adjourn for lunch between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. and to complete the business of the House by 4 p.m. or earlier if the business I am now ordering is completed by then. If Item No. 1 is not completed by 1 p.m., it is proposed to adjourn the debate on it. The Minister concerned has to attend an important agricultural function today and I hope the House will facilitate him. I am proposing that if Item No. 1 is not completed by 1 p.m., we adjourn the debate until this day week. That would mean we would start Item No. 2 at 2 p.m. and continue until 4 p.m. I am endeavouring to have the Minister for Foreign Affairs available for Item No. 2 but he is not available today, so I also suggest to the House that we adjourn the debate on Item No. 2 at 4 p.m. and continue with it next week. I shall continue with my efforts to have the Minister available to reply to the debate. Today if we start the debate on Item No. 2, Deputy J. O'Keeffe, Minister of State, will be taking the report. The House will recognise his expertise in this area having served in the Department of Foreign Affairs for a number of years. I hope that will meet the wishes of the House today.
Order of Business.
It is with reluctance that I agree to adjourn Item No. 1 if it is not finished by 1 p.m. We are hearing too much every other day of Ministers not being available. In the Department of Agriculture there are three Ministers and surely one could be available. We hear frequently that a Minister has another engagement but this House is more important than any other engagement. Far too much of this has been happening in recent times — Ministers cannot be here, Ministers have to go to some other function and so on. The same applies with regard to Item No. 2. The Minister concerned cannot be here and someone else has to stand in his place. On this occasion I agree to the adjournment at lunch-time having made my protest.
I support totally what Senator Ryan has said. It is rather sad that the Seanad is not regarded as being equal to the Dáil because it is so regarded in the Constitution. It is a pity some people did not serve their apprenticeship in this House. If they did, they might have the respect we have for this House. That is not what I rose to speak about.
I understand there is a report about this Chamber which I now stand in and of which I do not approve. People who are interested and who want to come in to hear the very good debates in this House cannot be accommodated as there are only two or three chairs available for visitors. I say that here because it may not be noted in another place where I could say it. I want to put it on the record. Yesterday and last week I saw visitors who were interested in listening to excellent contributions in this House but there was no space for them. I understand this will be before the House in the form of a report in the first week of December. I do not know where we will put extra chairs.
I have a horrible feeling, as indeed most of my colleagues have, that we will be in this Chamber for quite some time. It is sad that, while there is marvellous accommodation in the Dáil for visitors, we have only two or three chairs for visitors here. Yesterday I watched two senior Deputies — one from our side and one from the Government side — leaving with visitors when very good contributions were being made on very important legislation which probably will get much more detailed, indepth study in this House than it will get in the Dáil. I say that now, because if I say it in another forum, I will not be listened to. I am quite sure most of my colleagues who intend to stay in this Chamber, with God's help and with the good sense of our electorate leaving us here, would wish that people who want to hear our contributions, with a lot of work put into them, would at least have a chair to sit on.
I am at a loss to understand the Opposition's rather sharp criticism of our colleagues, the Ministers, over the last few days. All the work here is extremely flexible and the Order Paper is prepared by agreement with the Opposition. It is my experience that Ministers have been more than co-operative in being available and accommodating individual Members of the House who, for one reason or another, may not find it convenient to have the debate on a particular item on the Agenda continued after lunch, or before lunch, or whatever. I regret the fact that Ministers have been criticised unfairly, I would suggest.
On the question of temporary accommodation which Senator Honan raised, the Office of Public Works have done a relatively good job in providing as much accommodation as they could with the limited facilities here. I do not say it is as good as the accommodation we have enjoyed since the Seanad was established. Work is progressing satisfactorily and I do not think much more can be done. The facilities here are as good as we can expect. Perhaps if we had a monitor in the ante-room, it might be of some help.
I support Senator Honan in her remarks about the lack of access to this Chamber. I have been worried during the past year when people have commented on their own rather arrogant proposals for the use of this Chamber. I have been a Member of both Houses and I have always been impressed by the quality of debate in this Chamber. We will be remembered for the quality of the debates which took place in recent weeks on great reforming legislation such as the Status of Children Bill, 1986, and other important legislation. I recall that groups who made submissions to the Attorney General's office, Government Departments and specialist committees of both Houses have had to wait in the ante-Chamber when the very legislation to which they had made a contribution was being debated in this Chamber. I know it is not your fault, a Chathaoirligh because you have worked so hard with the technical people in the Office of Public Works to try to provide us with proper accommodation. But Senator Honan is correct in saying that to have three chairs available to the public to listen to debates on matters that have been neglected for decades is entirely inadequate, and I wholeheartedly support her. We must think seriously about some way of allowing better access. This is something all Senators should support.
I wish to reply to Senator McDonald who said the Order of Business is agreed between the parties. I discuss this every week with the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the House. We agree on the business for the following week and if there is a change I am usually told about it. I understand fully the difficulty about the availability of Ministers. I had that job for four years as Whip and I know the problems one has with Ministers. Ministers and the Government should pay more attention to this House. It is one thing to agree with the Order of Business a week in advance but when you are told on the morning of the sitting or just before sitting that something is changed, that is another matter. I have had to deal with my own people I have told to be here to speak on the subject. Then that item is not taken, something else is taken, and I have to find someone else to speak. Those are the things I am objecting to. I am not objecting to the Order of Business if we are told about changes in time.
I support my colleague Senator McDonald. I have been in and out of this House since 1973. I have enjoyed being in this House both in Opposition and in Government. When we were in Opposition we did not have the attendance in this House of Ministers which we have had since this Government took office. Never in its history has the Seanad sat for so many days. We have established records. We have had a record number of sittings this year. We have had Ministers for every sitting. I have been in Opposition in this House, when we had only 30 sitting days in the year. On those 30 days there were occasions when we could not have a junior Minister here, never mind a Minister, I do not know what all the talk is about. The performance and the attendance of Ministers in this House with the record number of sittings will go down in history.
I support my colleague Senator Honan who said there are not sufficient facilities for visitors here. I saw a very embarrassing situation yesterday where a TD had visitors from his constituency and he had to lead them in one by one. One of those visitors did not know where to sit. She sat in a Senator's chair and was very embarrassed when she had to move. Accommodation for visitors is not adequate. Senator McDonald's suggestion to have a monitor in the ante-Chamber would not solve the problem. They prefer to see Senators speaking rather than just listen to them. They can listen to them on the radio. As regards Senator Daly's defence of Ministers I was here for four years when Fianna Fáil were in Government and I not think Senator Daly was here. Senator Daly was here for a brief period only while Fianna Fáil were in Government. In 1973 there was a Coalition Government. I cannot see why he should complain about lack of ministerial attendance on an occasion when he was not here. Ministers were very attentive during the 1977-81 Seanad period. His criticism of Fianna Fáil Ministers is unjustified.
I have to correct Senator Kiely. The Senator has made a statement which is not true. I was a member of this House in 1973, 1977 and 1981. We were in Opposition——
Senator Daly, resume your seat.
On the point raised by Senator Honan which has been commented on by Senator McDonald, Senator Higgins and Senator Kiely, we are only fiddling with the problem when we complain about the lack of chairs or the lack of seating accommodation.
Hear, hear.
I have raised this question on a number of occasions. It is 18 months since that adjoining room was made available for repairs. What has happened in that period? Six weeks ago when I raised this issue with you, a Chathaoirligh, the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party told me never again to raise it. I want to know now what has happened in the past six weeks since I raised that matter. I want to say to my colleagues who have raised this point that we are only codding ourselves, but worse still, we are only codding the public when we tolerate what is happening in relation to the work next door. It is nonsense to be talking about the unavailability of seats. We made that building available 18 months ago for a job which should have been completed long ago. What progress has been made and what, a Chathaoirligh, are you prepared to do to expedite the matter?
Before I call on Senator Ferris to reply to the debate I might mention the situation here in the Chamber. We are due to get a report in the first week of December. I told this House that some months ago. I will not know what the situation is until then. Everybody got a map of this place. Everybody looked at it before we agreed to it. We had alternatives. We could have gone out outside. Nobody wanted to go outside. We tried to get the library. We tried to get accommodation. We tried to get the restaurant and failed. Everybody knew in their heart what the situation was going to be here. There is nothing I can do. If anybody can give me any idea or tell me what to do, I will do it.
Clear out the Office of Public Works and give it to a competent private contractor.
I cannot do that.
But somebody somewhere must have the authority to do that.
Senator Ferris to reply.
A Chathaoirligh, there is a procedure laid down on how to deal with the Office of Public Works and what they are doing, and you have outlined it. The Committee on Procedures and Privileges have agreed to it on behalf of the House. You are carrying out the decisions faithfully. Apart from that, because of a sense of frustration the Senators feel constrained.
I can see that.
If raising it in this way stimulates more speed in the activities of the Office of Public Works it is a useful exercise. I share the frustrations of Senators because I have tried to bring in visitors and I was told I could not have visitors in here.
Going back to the Order of Business the difficulty is that the first priority of the House is Government business. The second priority is to try to facilitate those implementing Government business and trying to bring it forward. Then we have to try to accommodate all other Members of the House. The Leader of this House and I always try to achieve those ideals. There must be a certain amount of flexibility to facilitate everybody. I have cancelled Ministers attendance in this House to suit the Opposition or their spokespersons.
In fairness, we are discussing today reports from Oireachtas Joint Committees which are already with the Minister. They would be dealt with and responded to by the Minister if they were never debated here. The importance of debating them here is that it gives Members of the House who are not privileged to be on the Oireachtas Joint Committees an opportunity to have an input into the reports. This House should be proud of how it deals with Oireachtas Joint Committee reports which are not dealt with in this way in another place where they should be. We should be proud of our record in dealing with committee reports.
There is no question of slighting the debate on Item No. 1 by suggesting that, if it is not completed by 1 p.m., we adjourn it to another day. It is quite possible that we will have completed it and that the Minister will have responded to it. If that is the case so be it. I want to do justice to this matter involved in Item No. 1. If it is not completed we can continue the debate another day. Of course, if the Opposition want to continue discussing Item No. 1 until we complete it, I am quite willing to do so, but they will not have had an opportunity to hear the Minister's reply. It is the right of the House to hear the Minister's reply. If it is a question of continuing without the Minister responsible being present, I will have discussions with Senator Ryan immediately after we agree the Order of Business.
There is flexibility. Yesterday the Acting Leader of the Fine Gael group criticised me for being flexible on important legislation. I tried to have instant discussions with the spokespersons involved in the legislation to try to improve the input by sitting longer. I was criticised for doing that. I do not blame him. It is difficult to reach agreement with four different sections within, perhaps, five minutes of decisions being arrived at. It is difficult at times to get an opportunity to discuss it. My first commitment is to try to facilitate the Opposition because, in fairness, they are entitled to make the first contribution after somebody on the Government side speaks.
I like to be flexible and I hope the flexibility I am showing on Items Nos. 1 and 2 today will not be taken by anybody as a slight by the Minister. The attendance of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State in this House has been par excellence since they took office. More legislation has been initiated in this House then ever before. The number of sittings this year has been greater than ever before. We have always had a Minister present except when they were involved in the Order of Business or responding to questions in the other House. They have always shown respect for this House. Therefore I want to defend them.
There are problems when we are flexible. If we want to do it in another way, I will sit down with the Committee on Procedures and Privileges and suggest we should proceed as they do in the Dáil and know what day, what time and how long we will spend on any measure. Then we can sit for three or four days a week, if Senators wish to proceed in that way.
It is hardly worth while now having regard to time left.
On a point of order, Senator Honan asked if extra seats would be provided for visitors. Nobody answered her question.
Tell me where to put them and I will provide them. Shall I put them at the back? I am in the hands of the House.
Nobody said whether they could be provided. The possibility of providing extra seats should be explored. I think it can be.
Tell us where to put them. Does the Senator think it has not been looked at? I have spoken with the architects for hours about it. They talked about putting a row of seats at the back. I did not agree with it. If Senators wish to put them in at the back we will put them there.
There should be extra seats.
We can raise the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to see if we can accommodate the frustration of Members. The Cathaoirleach should not be attacked in the process. He does not have an instant reply as these matters have to be planned.