Before I announce the Order of Business, I want to address the motion that was not moved last night. With regard to Private Members' time last night, the Whip was issued in the normal way. From my inquiries, I am satisfied there was a breakdown in communications along the way, almost certainly caused by human error. Neither the Tánaiste nor the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs was aware of the motion. I offer my apologies to the Fine Gael Group in the House for this error. It is the first time this has happened. It goes without saying that the Government Whips and I have agreed to reschedule the debate next Wednesday in Government time. To err is human, to forgive, divine.
Order of Business.
We are not divine over here.
Senator Wright is being modest again.
Today's Order of Business is Item 1, the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, 1993, Second Stage. The Adjournment Matter will be taken at the conclusion of business.
To err is human, Senator Manning.
There are quotes I could use to reply to the Leader of the House.
Senator Manning is a gentleman.
I accept the Leader's statement. There was no deliberate attempt by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to snub the House. The blame resides in the Department of Foreign Affairs rather than with anyone on the Government side. There is no point in me pretending to be outraged at what was not a deliberate snub but a cock up, there has been a considerable number of them recently. This type of occurrence must not be repeated. It has never happened before in my time in this House. The Leader of the House would not tolerate such behaviour. I am happy to accept the offer of Government time next week for this important motion, which the Whips can work out.
I am concerned that Item 2 is not being discussed today, as we were led to understand. I was told the reason for this is that no Minister is available. Perhaps the Leader of the House could comment on that. I am worried at our present amount of work. We had a light day's work yesterday and only a few hours work will be done today. I am concerned at the low volume of business coming to the House. It should have been possible to have discussed Item 2 today. A number of Members on my side wanted to contribute.
Members spoke yesterday in the House about the chance to make the House relevant on European matters. Unless the House takes hold of matters and orders its business more fully it will be seen as irrelevant.
I must warn the Leader of the House that Members do not want a situation where two weeks from today the House will be sitting four days a week late into the night with a raft of Bills being introduced with a request that they be processed within a day or two. In this respect I am deeply concerned about the way in which business is being ordered and the way in which the House is treated by some Government Departments. I ask the Leader of the House to address this issue and to advise the House on the Bills he intends to introduce between now and the recess.
I accept the explanation by the Leader of the House regarding the mess up last night. Once may be carelessness, although I do not wish to quote Wilde or Shaw on a matter like this. It is regrettable that, because of the unavailability of the Minister, there is no provision today for a debate on the proposed regional education councils. However, when the Structural Funds issue indicates that there will be a 5 per cent reduction in spending on education and, in the same week, when the OECD report on unemployment has called for more investment in pre school and basic education, it is regrettable that the House is unable to address these issues. I ask for an early agreed date to deal with them as they affect us all, both inside and outside the House.
I must have a more diabolical nature than my colleagues because I believe what happened in the House yesterday evening is serious. I am prepared to accept the explanation given to us by the Leader of the House and I do not attach blame to him or the Whip or the Clerk's Office. However, if there was an error within the Department, ultimate responsibility lies with the Minister, in this instance the Tánaiste.
It is a widely held view that what happens in the House takes precedence over any parliamentary party meeting, however important, as the business of the House is of prime importance. It was not good enough that the House waited for 25 minutes last night for somebody who did not appear, following which the business of the House had to be abandoned. It is a serious matter and should be regarded as such.
In the nature of things, something can happen or there can be human error, but I ask the Leader of the House to effect the necessary procedure to ensure that an incident of this kind does not happen and can never happen again.
There appears to be a growing contempt for democracy within the country. Given the size of the Government's majority, it had better be careful to ensure that this contempt for democracy does not develop. It is the Oireachtas which protects and safeguards democracy, and this gets back to the nature of the problem raised by the events yesterday. I do not attach blame to the Leader of the House, but he is not the person who should be making the explanation. It is the Tánaiste, who, as Minister responsible, should be explaining and apologising to the House.
There should be a debate on the Structural Funds and the response of the EU Commission to the Government's proposals because, given the rate at which billions of pounds are being lost, it is a cause of concern that if this goes on for much longer there will not be very much money left. It is an issue which requires debate. There are flagship projects which are at risk and there appears to be total confusion as to how the cut backs will fall. A document was submitted to Brussels which proposed a figure, when it was known that this figure would not be available. The matter has been treated badly and time should be made available for the House to discuss it.
I ask the Leader of the House to shortly arrange a debate regarding an issue of concern to employers throughout the country. There were headlines in the papers yesterday referring to damages awarded against a cinema in Dublin in favour of a man who fell in the cinema but who was not telling the truth. How can anybody set up a business in the country if a judge can deal with somebody who was telling lies in court?
The courts are separate and independent and I ask Senator Lanigan not to address that area.
I ask that the House debate the issue that employers throughout the country have to face punitive damages when somebody is not telling the truth in court, with judges allowing it to happen. How can anybody go into business if that is allowed to continue? Insurance policy premiums are increasing.
Does the Senator wish for a debate on the insurance industry?
I ask that the relevant Minister appear before the House to enable the House consider how judges give decisions like this in court.
The Agriculture Ministers of the EU meet on 20 June 1994 to discuss the regulations regarding the transport of live animals within the EU. There can be few countries for whom this issue is more important than Ireland, not merely from the point of view of animal welfare but also from the point of view of economics. May I ask the Leader of the House to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and to ensure that the Minister will ask, not for the enforcement of minimalist regulations, but adequate regulations in this important area?
Sometimes the House loses its sense of reason. The sun is shining, Ireland is going to win the soccer match on Saturday, the ESRI report forecasts thousands of new jobs and an economic growth rate of 5 per cent and——
And Cork are out of the Munster championships.
And the Fine Gael Party has won a by-election, so why are people not happy?
Peace has broken out in the Labour Party.
The Labour Party won a seat in Dublin.
Senator Dardis must be wrapped in some kind of time frame. I must remind the Senator that the elections are over. It is impossible to fulfil his demand that we guard against human error, even from the perspective of the high moral ground of the Progressive Democrats. We are not yet at the stage where the House is occupied by robots, and to refer to the Government's contempt for democracy is laughable given that there is not a Member of this House, elected, nominated or otherwise, who is not committed, day in and day out, to the defence and progress of democracy in this country. The House should therefore keep a sense of proportion and be happy.
It was to be expected that the Leader of the Opposition would accept the statement by the Leader of the House regarding the events of yesterday evening.
I did accept the statement.
Senator Manning accepted the remarks by the Leader of the House in a most gracious manner.
I appreciate that; it is what the House has come to expect of Senator Manning. However, I am somewhat taken aback with the approach of the Progressive Democrats in the House today. If there was any cock up in recent weeks it was that party's cock up in Munster.
What about the west?
I would not go down that road if I were Senator Belton.
Bring in the Castlebar jury.
I must remind you, Senator Finneran, that this is not part of the Order of Business and I ask you to address a question to the Leader of the House.
May I ask the Leader of the House to send best wishes to Senator Norris on Bloomsday. I hope the Senator is enjoying his activities.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business either. I call on Senator Sherlock.
That members of the Government parties are so frivolous on this major issue is an indication of how the extraordinary situation arose in Seanad Éireann yesterday evening. At a time when there is world-wide criticism of the role of the UN, this Parliament arranged for a debate on this issue. It was an arrangement which did not filter through to the Tánaiste or his party colleagues in the Seanad, such as Senator Magner, and no line was prepared by them for the debate.
The former Worker's Party was used to taking lines.
It is a clear indication that because there were extraordinary circumstances in the Labour Party the Tánaiste could not attend the debate. I put that on the record because that is precisely what happened.
Senator, the Leader of the House gave a good explanation for the events of yesterday evening in the House, which Senator Manning and his party accepted, and I ask you to take note of this.
There has been no explanation provided. The House has merely been advised that, following normal procedures, notice of the debate was given. However, the question which must be addressed is why this notice was not responded to? Why did somebody not tell the Tánaiste it was vitally important that this debate had commenced and that at least he would have had sufficient knowledge of the subject to come over here at some time during that two hour period and respond to the debate? The failure to do so——
In fairness, Senator Manning agreed to a rescheduling last night when it was obvious that no Minister was coming. In fact, a junior Minister was on his way when it was called off. I have to make that point.
That is right but I am making my point and I want to make it very forcibly. I regard the circumstances as extraordinary and think it was an insult to this House that it should have happened.
You have made your point.
Whether the Government parties like it or not, there is a lot of criticism of the proposal for regional education councils. We should be given an opportunity to debate this issue as quickly as possible.
Would Members stick to the Order of Business please and not rehash this matter because we want to get on?
I want to register my disappointment that Item 2 is not being taken this afternoon. The education debate is important particularly as the Minister will be producing a White Paper later on, hopefully in the autumn. Our views would have been useful in producing the White Paper. I wonder why the debate is not taking place. Where is the Minister? Nobody told me where she was. Has she gone on a trip to America to see one of the football matches?
No, she is at the inquest.
Is the Labour inquest going on all day?
I would ask you not to go down that road. Would you please put a question to the Leader?
We are entitled to know why item 2 is not being taken this afternoon. If the Minister is not available, why did the Minister of State not take responsibility for the debate? One can only assume that there is such a great ideological gulf between the two parties in Government — the Dunboyne case illustrates this beautifully — that the Minister of State could not in conscience come in here today.
You are making a speech. You have put your question and I am sure the Leader will reply.
I want to know why the Minister is not available. I think we are entitled to know where she is and why the Minister of State did not come in here today to take that debate.
On a point of clarification, and on a lighter note, is it permissible for a Member of this House to career through the streets of Dublin in the morning rush hour on a push bike over which he had very little control and, in so doing, to frighten the driver of a bus on which I and 30 other people were passengers?
Just like North Cork. Do not worry about them.
Today is Bloomsday. That Senator is not yet in the House and I hope he survives the day.
I hope he does not turn up here on a bicycle.
Summer madness.
Unfortunately, this is not relevant to the Order of Business.
On a lighter note——
It could not be much lighter than that.
Could the Leader arrange a debate on the administration of the county enterprise boards and the Leader Programme? I understand advertisements in the newspapers next week will invite business plans from communities to be submitted for the new Leader 2 Programme. I seek this debate because a number of major organisations are trying to cash in on what was intended to be a bottom-up community approach to the Leader Programme. These include major co-operatives and Teagasc which are anxious to piggy-back on funding that was intended for rural development. I hope that does not happen and that we will have an opportunity to debate the structures that will administer the Leader Programme in rural communities. At the same time, we should examine the structures and success of the county enterprise boards because both cover the same ground and in many cases duplicate each other. A debate would serve a useful purpose now.
Unfortunately, the junior Minister responsible has resigned.
Can the Leader say when Item 3 will be debated? The Adoptive Leave Bill, 1993, was introduced in the Seanad last November and we understood that Committee Stage would be taken within weeks but seven months later that has not happened. Is there a problem with regard to this Bill? Can the Leader say why the Bill has not been completed in this House?
Mr. Naughten
Can the Leader allow time for a debate on the export of live cattle? I believe it is important that the export of live cattle should be retained at present levels. If that does not happen the whole beef industry could collapse. I would ask the Leader to give time to debate that issue.
Recently details of the rural environment protection scheme were announced. That scheme will have far-reaching consequences for rural areas and is one of the best schemes to have come from the European Union. We should be given time to discuss it here.
I support Senator Naughten's appeal for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to support the exports of live cattle. Such exports have done a lot for the cattle industry in the last few years and should be supported.
I thank the Opposition leaders for accepting my explanation. As the political parties spent all day yesterday learning from their mistakes, this House will learn from what happened last night. As regards Senator Manning's request for a statement on forthcoming legislation, motions, etc., I will bring forward next week a list of what matters are intended to be dealt with between now and the summer recess. With regard to the legislative programme and statements and motions, there have been many requests covering various issues. With the help of the Whip's Office I will endeavour to obtain commitments from the various Departments and Ministers to deal with these matters over the next four or five weeks.
As to Senator Manning's concern about how we will deal with the end of session, I understand that the Dáil will be sitting late next week. I cannot help that trend which is one that occurs each year, though I understand Senator Manning's concern. One or two others issues were mentioned which would be more suited to Private Members' time. I will pass on the question of the export of live cattle and it may well be that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry will be in the House within the next two weeks. The issue of county enterprise boards and the Leader 2 Programme may well be incorporated in various statements and debates we will have between now and the summer recess.
Is the Order of Business agreed to?
Why does the Leader of the House not give us an explanation——
I am sorry, I have no control over the Leader's reply.
I asked the Leader clear questions about that and he evaded the issue. That is unfair. I am asking for an explanation and I will continue to raise it until it is answered.
Order of Business agreed to.