Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 1.
The Minister is not present. He, I and a number of other members of this committee were at the commemoration ceremonies in Arbour Hill this morning. As a result of those ceremonies, the Dáil, which was supposed to meet at 10.30 a.m. is not meeting until 1 o'clock. Why is this committee meeting this morning?
Arrangements for meetings are agreed by the convenors and consultation took place about appropriate times and dates. That the Dáil is not sitting, does not prohibit the committee from meeting as it was already agreed in advance and notice was circulated. The first notification went out on 2 May 1994, therefore people had adequate notice. If they had reservations about the time of the meeting, they could have conveyed that message to the committee. The time for this meeting was agreed well in advance. If members had reservations, they had the opportunity to express them.
Some members voiced reservations. I did so yesterday. If the Arbour Hill commemoration takes precedence over a meeting of the Dáil, it should also take precedence over a meeting of this committee. I, and other members, rushed back from the commemoration ceremony in Arbour Hill and the Minister, who was at Arbour Hill, is not here. This is unsatisfactory. We now find we have many amendments to deal with. I understood the purpose of this and other committees was to facilitate the passage of legislation with proper discussion. Apparently that is not the case in this committee.
I refute what Deputy Currie said. I welcome all members, particularly party spokespersons. It is the first time we have had an opportunity to meet. I assure members that this committee has functioned well since it was set up last year and I hope we can continue to co-operate. I intend to ensure there is consideration and co-operation for all members. Procedures for this meeting were outlined well in advance and convenors were notified. If members had problems, there was adequate time to voice objections. It is unacceptable for members to say yesterday that today did not suit. This committee followed proper procedures. I regret that the procedures followed were not adequate for Deputy Currie.
They were not just inadequate for me, they were also obviously inadequate for the Minister, who is not present. The argument the Chairman put forward could have been used for the meeting of the Dáil. Did the Chairman receive a request to postpone this committee meeting this morning?
I received a request yesterday.
On what basis did you decide to reject that request?
I adopted correct procedures. Where meetings are agreed with eight days notice given, I cannot accept a member coming along at the eleventh hour saying it does not suit. I will not run the business of the committee that way.
The Chairman is a greater stickler for procedure than the Ceann Comhairle who adopted a different attitude.
Deputy Currie has been facilitated by me on this committee in the past. I hope we can continue with that in the future. We are not here to argue about a decision taken more than a week ago. If Deputy Currie, or other members, had problems, there was adequate time to deal with them. A previous request made on the timing of a meeting was acceded to, but I am not in a position to change the time of a meeting at short notice, nor am I prepared to do so. I am willing to facilitate members, but there are procedures to be followed and convenors are reponsible for deciding on meetings. That procedure was followed on this occasion.
The Chairman must accept this is unsatisfactory. If I had known the Minister would not be here, I would have made my views clear. I presumed, in good faith, that the Minister responsible for this Bill would be in attendance, rather than a Minister from a different Department. That must be a factor in the Chairman's decision. I am in favour of procedure and Protocol and if a decision is made it should be adhered to. However given that the Dáil did not sit this morning and the Minister, who should be here to answer questions and, who is the only person who can do so, has decided not to be here. I do not see why we should embark on a committee meeting which has been vaunted by this Government as an extension of the democratic process. That is not what is happening this morning. We are being fobbed off and it is not good enough.
Without disrespect to the Chairman, who has been courteous and helpful, I am unhappy with proceedings this morning. I contacted the Chairman about the date of this meeting. I was informed the Minister would be present and, therefore, I believed it would be unrealistic and, perhaps, discourteous to ask that the meeting be postponed because of the ceremony this morning. Without disrespect to Deputy Burton, who has an interest in this area, it is unsatisfactory that we are here to discuss an important Bill and to be briefed by officials only to find the Minister, who has tabled 64 amendments, is not present. It is a bad start to this Bill. We are anxious to be as co-operative as possible, but the Minister's absence is very unsatisfactory.
The points made by members are legitimate. With respect to the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, I propose that we defer this business because the spirit of co-operation which has marked meetings in the past may suffer. The meeting should be postponed given that this legislation does not have to be passed by a particular date.
I appreciate the concern expressed by members. I do not want to say anything which might upset the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, who is here, because she has made a positve contribution to the debate in an area related to marriage breakdown in a way some of her colleagues in Government have not done. She has not kept her head down and, in that context, she is welcome. The Government in dealing with marriage breakdown and divorce seems to be endemically accident prone. I do not doubt the goodwill and the intent of the Government in dealing with these issues. It is usual from the Opposition benches to suggest that a Government lacks goodwill and is not serious about what it is doing, but in this case I do not doubt that it is serious. However, whenever it deals with marriage breakdown, it is accident prone, incapable of doing things efficiently and is laying politial mines which will explode when it comes to the divorce referendum.
While I am not concerned about the presence of the Minister of State, who is welcome, I am concerned about the absence of the Minister for a reason which has not yet been articulated. Many aspects of this Bill are welcome and desirable. However, there is within this Bill a major constitutional problem which will explode in the face of the Government and will further confuse the divorce debate on an issue which is not directly related to it. I would like the Minister of State to hear what has to be said about this.
We already had one disaster with the Matrimonial Home Bill. It is the height of folly to seek to enact at this time some of the measures in this Bill because they will add to the difficulty of a successful divorce referendum and to the difficulty of persuading the public, many of whom are already confused and who will be further confused by those who deliberately set out to cause confusion. It is bad enough for people to deliberately cause confusion, without having someone in the Government who constantly, by accident, causes confusion.
There are major deficiencies in this Bill across a broad range of issues. It appears the extent of some of these deficiencies have been recognised by the Minister given the extensive number of amendments tabled to deal with pensions; some will need to be further teased out. There is, however, a greater difficulty with this Bill about which the Minister of State should hear. It is the height of folly to proceed in the Minister's absence and to attempt to put some aspects of the Bill into law in advance of a divorce referendum, because they will confuse matters even further. I am deeply concerned that if we proceed along the lines the Government is following, we will ensure that a divorce referendum will fail; not because people do not recognise a need for divorce but they will become so utterly confused when they come to vote.
I agree with Deputy Briscoe. We have time to deal with this Bill and we could take it next Wednesday in the presence of the Minister. It is unfair to throw issues arising from the Bill at the Minister of State. I and others will raise difficult issues on which I hope and assume the Minister for Equality and Law Reform will be fully briefed. It is unfair to put a Minister from a different Department in this position. It is also unfair to this committee.
Before I call the next speaker I remind members that the Minister attending the committee represents the Government and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. Any Minister can take legislation — we see this regularly in the Dáil. Deputy Shatter can make his points no matter which Minister is present. That is the purpose of the committee. I cannot accept that we are not in a position to proceed because the Minister, Deputy Taylor, is not present. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton, is present, with a brief and her officials. I am confident we can have a constructive debate on this matter.
I fully accept that it is usual for other Ministers to substitute for a Minister who is not available. However, the primary responsibility of the Minister, Deputy Taylor, is to lay the ground work for the success of a divorce referendum. It is crucial that he be here for a debate on a legislative measure that he has said is one of the prerequisites to that referendum, especially because inherent in the Bill is a major difficulty which could blast out of sight the possibility of a successful referendum. We have already had one major political cock-up in this area and we do not need a second.
It is quite reasonable for us to ask the Minister with primary responsibility for this area be present to deal with this. He may have commitments other than Arbour Hill and I will not make personalised remarks of any nature about his inability to be here. There are fundamental difficulties about this legislation, which deals with an issue of fundamental concern to many of us, including the Minister of State, Deputy Burton. I am not trying to score political points; I want the Minister to be here with us to engage in the discussion.
I do not condescend to the Minister present; there are no questions I will ask that she will be unable to answer. It is not because of her presence as distinct from that of the Minister that I propose the following, but because the debate has gone off the rails. I intend no disrespect to the chairman. Apart from the multiple sound bites and other opportunistic remarks made here, it is in the interest of the good working of the committee that I second Deputy Briscoe's proposal that we adjourn.
Deputy Fitzgerald has done the job which should be done in these circumstances. It is clear that for one reason or another the members of this committee feel they are being taken for granted and treated with contempt. This is an important Bill and the Minister has failed to appear. He may have a satisfactory explanation and we will await it in due course. As of now the chairman has a proposal made and seconded by members from the Government parties that the matter not proceed at this stage.
It does not matter who makes the proposal, Government members or otherwise. I will make the decision I think right.
With respect, we are pleased to have you as chairman of our committee but there are certain rules of democratic procedure under which we operate.
I am aware of those, Deputy.
I am glad that is so. It is rare that there would be cross-party support at a committee for a proposal which would be rejected by a Chairman. A proposal has come from the Fianna Fáil members and I will insist on that proposal being put to a vote.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy O’Keeffe’s last statement sums up what I intend to say. We have had a good relationship within this committee; we spent all day yesterday discussing another Bill without acrimony. However, it is obvious that members from all parties are dissatisfied today. There is not much point in proceeding in an acrimonious environment.
I thank Deputies who have made such flattering comments about me; their confidence is overwhemling. I am here on behalf of the Minister, who is delayed partly because of the ceremonies in Arbour Hill. He will return to the building within a short time.
I attend on behalf of the Government and I can assure Deputies that because of the many elements of the Bill which deal with issues relating to pensions and maintenance I had a full briefing and engagement during the preparation of the Bill. I represent the Government and I am fully au fait with all provisions of the Bill.
There are important issues to be debated, as Deputy Shatter said. There is not much to be gained by the point scoring which has occurred. The Minister, Deputy Taylor, is unfortunately delayed. As a number of members have suggested, I am perfectly competent to deal with the Bill on behalf of the Government.
I am happy to abide by the ruling of the Chairman. I look forward to any comments or contributions Deputies wish to make to the Bill. Amendments have been tabled by members. As Deputy Shatter said, I have taken a close interest in the question of marriage breakdown and the preparation for the divorce referendum. It would be better to allow the debate to proceed as, in due course, the Minister will be present. I apologise that the Minister is not available. Unfortunately because of the ceremonies at Arbour Hill, which take precedence, he has been delayed. I am sorry my constituency colleague is so upset.
Does the Labour Party have any problems with the Minister? Is he in the Shelbourne Hotel?
He was at Arbour Hill. I cannot say where he is but he will be here shortly.
Those ceremonies were given priority over this committee. I hope we an agree as a committee to adjourn, but it is outrageous that the Minister is now at an election launch in the Shelbourne Hotel instead of coming here. It is an indication of where his priorities lie. I propose that we put the motion to adjourn.
The Minister of State has informed us that the Minister will be here shortly. There is only an hour and ten minutes remaining. Is it still the feeling of the meeting that we should not proceed?
There is a proposal before the committee.
It is terrible that the Minister is at a Labour Party launch instead of being here.
That is not an issue for me. Are the members not in favour of proceeding because the Minister is not present?
Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 May 1994.