The debate on the White Paper on Education will be taken next Wednesday. I will have discussions with the other Whips and Leaders afterwards to see if we can have an extended debate next Wednesday to allow as many people as possible to take part. Today's Order of Business is item 1 and if, as is probable, the Second Stage completes this morning before lunchtime, we will begin Committee Stage at 1.30 p.m. with the agreement of the other groups.
Order of Business.
My party is pleased to be accommodating in regard to the Order of Business. This legislation is important and we would like to see it passed into law as soon as possible. The Leader has mentioned the White Paper on Education. He might arrange for a discussion between the Whips in regard to various issues that have been mentioned on the Order of Business so as to settle a strategy for dealing with them between now and the summer recess. These issues include discussion on the White Paper on Education, the one I mentioned yesterday, the Green Paper on Broadcasting, a debate on Northern Ireland, the social housing programme announced during the week, the cross-Border funding that has been mentioned on many occasions, the banks, the construction of a debate in relation to banks and many issues in relation to health. I ask the Leader to arrange a discussion to formulate the timetable so that all those who have an interest in these issues will be able to prepare in advance of the debates.
I am not happy with the Order of Business because the Arterial Drainage Bill has not yet been published. I brought this up yesterday out of a sense of concern. I am outraged at what has happened in regard to the Arterial Drainage Bill. I will repeat some of what I said yesterday. On 1 March we had a promise from the Minister that the Arterial Drainage Bill would be published before 30 April and introduced in the Seanad before 31 May.
I agreed to vote down Senator Daly's Bill on the grounds that the Minister had given us a commitment to which he would adhere. I and other Senators voted down the Arterial Drainage Bill proposed by Senator Daly and accepted the word of the Minister. We heard nothing about this until I asked the Leader of the House on 27 April what was happening in regard to the publication of the Arterial Drainage Bill. The Leader of the House explained that it would be published this week. We did not hear any more until yesterday when I again asked about the Bill. I am told it is to be published next week.
We are setting an unacceptable standard here. When I came into this House I was told that one cannot always accept promises that are given and I said that I did not believe this. I have seen promises in regard to the Suicide Bill not kept. I have seen promises in relation to another Bill about landlords and tenants not kept. This is the first time I have been involved in a promise that has not been kept. We are setting an example to the nation. We as a country depend on exports. It would be unacceptable to say when we make a contract that we will deliver by 30 April and then tell our customer nothing until early May when we say that we hope to have it next week and when we are asked a second time say again that we hope to have it the following week.
We are setting a standard that is not liveable with. It used to be said in Dublin Opinion many years ago “Ah sure it'll do”. We should not sit here and accept this lack of respect for this House. A promise made to us on 1 March is not being kept. I do not blame the Leader of the House, but the Leader has to do what he has been told. He has been asked to say that this promise will not be kept. We were not told ahead of time that it is not being kept. When we asked again yesterday we were told that hopefully it will be published next week. I know the Leader of the House has given us a promise that it will be introduced in this House. The second part of his promise is still on line, but we are getting closer to the date when he said it would be introduced.
I move amendment No. 1:
"That item 9, motion 16, be taken before item 1."
I readily accept that only 15 minutes should be allocated to motion 16. This will mean a 15 minute delay before item 1 is taken. This protest must be made in the House if we are to set an example, not just to exporters but to the nation, and that if one makes a promise, it is kept, or one does one's best to explain why one cannot keep it. One does not let down those to whom one has made the promise. I ask the Leader to accept the amendment to take item 9, motion 16, with a time limit of 15 minutes in total if necessary, before moving to item 1.
I second Senator Quinn's proposal to amend the Order of Business. If a commitment is made in the House, irrespective of the Government in office, a serious obligation is imposed on the Government to fulfil it. An even more serious obligation is imposed when it has a direct bearing on the outcome of a vote. Senator Quinn and others voted in a particular way on the basis of a clear understanding they had in relation to a commitment which was given to them. I exclude the Leader from criticism, but I ask him to bring the view to Government that it makes a solemn commitment when it gives a promise of this serious nature.
Without prejudging the outcome of a vote which might take place on the amendment, Members were circulated with the business of the House for the week, which indicated that Second Stage of the Road Traffic Bill would be taken yesterday and today. I am prepared to accept that Second Stage is likely to conclude early and it would be logical to proceed to Committee Stage. However, I envisaged putting down a large number of amendments to this piece of legislation and this situation puts one on a wrong footing. I am sure there will not be many amendments as the legislation has widespread support. On that basis I prepared to accept that the House proceeds to Committee Stage.
The House should express its disquiet regarding the events in Derry yesterday and the hope that they will not stop the talks taking place next week or have any destabilising effect on the peace process. I ask the Leader to bring this view to Government. It underlines once again the call made yesterday for an early debate on Northern Ireland. It is now timely to hold that discussion.
I and my party intend to support Senator Quinn's amendment. It is regrettable that the Senator has to resort to this mechanism in an effort to get the urgently required Bill before the House. I remind the Leader that Fianna Fáil will continue to press him on the commitment he gave yesterday. We are not satisfied that the Government views this legislation with the same urgency as Members on all sides.
My Arterial Drainage Bill received widespread support, but some Members voted it down on the basis of commitments which were given during the debate. It is a poor show on the part of the Minister and the Government to treat the House in this manner, but particularly to treat in this way those whose homes have been flooded since Christmas. Many of these people have not yet been able to go back to their houses and no action has been taken to deal with their problems, as Senator Fahey said yesterday. It is an appalling state of affairs and we intend to support the amendment.
The Leader of the House is blameless in this matter and I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister, Deputy Jim Higgins. However, during the debate on Senator Daly's Bill, I appealed for a pragmatic approach to this piece of legislation. My point has been proved correct because it appears, once again, that civil servants have taken it over and that it will be a most disappointing Bill when it comes before the House. It is unfortunate that a problem which could have been solved through a practical commonsense approach will probably not be solved at all.
An unprecedented event took place in recent weeks. An effective piece of drainage work was carried out in Galway, which was initiated by a Fine Gael TD and which proved most successful. However, this work was treated by civil servants in a manner that I had never before encountered. The Secretary of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht took it upon himself to write a public letter to a local newspaper in which he indicated that the Department had not given approval to the project and would not have anything to do with it. In this case a pragmatic approach was taken to a problem and a solution was found. The reason for the delay with this legislation is that once again miles of red tape are being rolled out.
I support Senator Quinn's amendment and I urge the House to accept that it is important to put down a marker. We cannot continue to destroy progress in this country where the Government, in the context of the public service, decides to stop it by rolling out the red tape. I appeal to Members to show that we will not accept this type of bureaucracy and delay. As Senator Quinn said, if the private sector——
A Chathaoirligh, speeches are being made on the Order of Business.
I accept that speeches have been made. However, I regard them as appropriate since they deal with promised legislation. Nevertheless, we have gone a little overboard.
The amendment is a benchmark.
An amendment to the Order of Business is before the House, on which a decision will be made. The Senator is going on at length.
It is a benchmark amendment. If the business sector operated in the same way as the public service, the country would be banjaxed.
The Senator has made his point.
I appeal to the House to make its point and to deal with the legislation in the manner with which it should be dealt when it is introduced.
The Department of Finance should not be confused with the public service. The Department spends much of its time undermining the best proposals which come from the public service, whether these are in the context of education, health or the Civil Service in general. Nevertheless, I accept the Senator's point.
We indicated yesterday that we would be prepared to take Committee Stage of the Road Traffic Bill today. We are still prepared to do so and that is why Senator Quinn has put a time limit on his proposal. This will allow both matters to be taken. In terms of the dignity and good reputation of the House, it has no option but to support the amendment. I look forward to doing so, because that promise was the basis for changing the course of legislation. The original Bill would otherwise have been passed.
Regarding the White Paper on Education, the Leader said there will be a major debate on this issue next Wednesday. Is it intended to resume the debate on Thursday or in another week?
We have been waiting a long time for the Arterial Drainage Bill. In the meantime Carlow has been flooded on a number of occasions. Since we have already waited so long, I would prefer to wait until a proper Bill was introduced rather than rushing through a piece of legislation which would not be effective.
I support Senator Quinn and my colleagues regarding the lack of action on the Arterial Drainage Bill. The problem is enormous and a time limit was given. Can the Leader indicate a possible date for the introduction of the Bill? I have a serious problem in Kerry where one family has been cut off from the mainland by flooding and people cannot get to their places of work.
A number of issues were raised on the Order of Business and I will deal with the non-contentious ones first. I thank Senator Wright for his observations on making some arrangement with the Whips for the many issues which have been arranged. One of my reasons for wanting a very lengthy session next week, if possible, on the White Paper and to conclude it soon afterwards, is that I do not want to leave too many issues hanging around. We should try to tackle them in a fairly orderly way. I will speak to the Opposition afterwards about an extended debate on education next week.
Senator Dardis raised the question of the incidents in Derry yesterday, which were obviously regrettable. It is the first real mistake which has been made since the process began. Perhaps we should have anticipated that incidents such as his will happen. However, the resolve is such on all sides that the process will continue, which I am sure is the wish of all Members of the House.
On the question of the Arterial Drainage Bill, the factual position is that, yes, the House was told that the Bill would be here by the end of April. That was the intention and there is no question of bad faith on anyone's part or of any delay being deliberate. Certain hitches arose which have been sorted out and the Bill is now completed. It has been to the Attorney General's Office and has had observations from other Departments. It is ready for clearance at next Tuesday's Cabinet meeting and will be published straightaway. That is the factual position.
We may talk about exports and businesses and so on, but with a large bureaucracy one person can hold matters up, which I presume is inadvertent. However, the speed has been quite remarkable and the Bill will be published next week. I have guaranteed to this House that on the substantial question, time will be made available immediately and that this Bill will be out of this House well before the end of May. That is the net issue. We can play games here this morning and I am quite prepared to accept the Opposition's reprimand that this Bill was not in on time. However, on the substantial issue the Bill will be here on time and cleared on time.
Of course, if Senator Quinn wishes to press his motion this morning I will accept it. I am not going to waste the time of the House this morning on two votes when we have urgent business to conduct. If it was a question of the Bill being held up, of bad faith or of the Government having changed its mind, then I would certainly see a reason for what he is doing. However, there has been a hitch and a mistake, for which we admit responsibility. The Bill will be published next week and we will keep our commitments to have the Bill through the House by the end of May. On that basis. I ask the House to accept my good faith on this matter. However, I am not going to oppose the change to the Order of Business if that is pressed by Senator Quinn.
Senator Quinn has moved an amendment to the Order of Business "That item 9, motion 16, be inserted before item 1". Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
The question is: "That the amendment be made."
Question put and declared carried.
Order of Business, as amended, agreed to.