Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Oct 2000

Vol. 164 No. 6

Business of Seanad.

I wish to explain that we had sought to have a Minister from the Department of Foreign Affairs to come before the House to take statements on the Middle East. Neither the Minister nor the Minister of State from that Department was able to be present but I was told that a Minister of State from another Department would attend. It appears that the Minister of State who was due to attend has been delayed in the Dáil due to a disruption of business which occurred there this morning.

I have been trying to resolve this problem for the past 90 minutes and the most recent telephone call I received indicated that there is no Minister of State available at present. I can only be guided by the House in either postponing the taking of statements until another day or proceeding without a Minister of State and sending the transcript of the debate to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The position is unsatisfactory and I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

The Government Chief Whip has my complete sympathy and anything I have to say is no reflection on him. This is absolutely outrageous and intolerable. The Leader of the House should be here personally to answer for what has happened because it is his job to organise business and ensure that Government Ministers are present. The Minister from the relevant Department should be present. There have been occasions in the past when Ministers of State from other Departments attended but the fact that not one Minister of State is available is a terrible reflection on the way in which business is organised. It is also a reflection on the House.

I do not believe we should proceed with the debate. Members did not come to the House to speak and have a transcript sent to the relevant Minister, they came here to put their concerns to the Minister and have him listen to them and provide answers. While I know that my colleagues have gone to some trouble to prepare their contributions, I do not believe that we should take this debate without a Minister being present. We should also be provided with an explanation by the people responsible for this debacle.

I sympathise with what Senator Manning said. No one wishes to endorse an insult to the House and I sympathise with my friends and colleagues on the other side of the House. I was witness in the ante room to their desperate attempts to produce a Minister. On the other hand, this arose quickly. I was not aware of it yesterday. I missed it when the Leader said, almost as an aside, that we would have a debate today, and it was on the Order of Business this morning that it registered with me that we were to have this debate.

I would be prepared to proceed because there is a situation in the Middle East. Having been alerted this morning to the fact that there was to be a debate on the situation, I have spent the past few hours thinking about it and talking to people to obtain briefings of various types. The absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or someone from that Department is regrettable. It is a charade to have a Minister of State from a different Department take the debate because he or she will sit there like a stuffed pheasant, bored as blazes and not involved in a key way. All that will happen is that the transcript will be transmitted through him or her.

That is an unfair reflection on Ministers of State who have been present for various debates.

From a technical point of view, it is not his or her area of concern. He or she is not an expert on the matter. I do not mean to insult a Minister or group of Ministers. It is just that one must ask how he or she can be interested given the way business is organised. How can a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government be reasonably expected to be engaged? That is not a slur on him or her and I do not mean any. The position is unfair to him or her and all that will happen is that the debate will be transferred through him or her. He or she will be the messenger boy or girl of the Seanad.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs was present last night for a debate on Tibet. However, in the absence of that Minister or the Minister of State, it is just as efficient, although regrettable, to hold the debate. After all, they are statements. We are capable of making statements in the absence of a Minister. I understand what Senator Manning said. It is not the best position. I am prepared to proceed but, if the House feels it does not want it, we can leave it for another day.

I feel strongly about this. As Senator Manning said, it is no reflection on the Chief Whip and I regret that I must be angry about this in his presence. It is untenable to have a debate in the House without the presence of a Minister. We could all adjourn to the bar and have a chat among ourselves and send a letter to the Minister for all the notice that will be taken of what is said. I regret to say that but it is true. It is an insult to the House that no Minister, not even a Minister of State, is present. It would be better were either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister of State at that Department present. I would even accept another Minister of State. We should schedule this debate for another day when we can be reassured that a Minister will be present.

I am in the hands of the House. The statements should not proceed without the presence of a Minister. I did everything possible when I became aware that the debate would be taken.

We know that. I said that.

It is not my job to ring a half dozen Ministers of State to see if one of them will turn up.

Absolutely not.

It is up to the Department of Foreign Affairs to make the arrangements for someone to turn up. As to the debate, that is up to the House. I believe it should be postponed because it is an important debate. However, if we do postpone it, it will not be taken for another two weeks. Our next sitting is on 7 November.

If I say I am disappointed, it would be the least of the expressions I could use. It is unacceptable given that we have ordered a two hour debate on a very important item of interest to a huge number of people worldwide. We must address the situation in the Middle East. It was addressed in the other House last week and it should have been addressed properly here today. I am more than disappointed. I bow to what the Whip has said and I accept what has been said on the other side. It would not be acceptable that we talk to ourselves. We have done that too often before. We should have a meaningful debate. If the debate is to be postponed until the next sitting, it should take precedence over all business except for urgent Government business. Only on that basis do I go along with the Whip.

I wonder when the Departments were informed. Were they informed yesterday and, therefore, would have had some time to find a Minister? I seem to be the only person here prepared to go ahead, but I wish to go ahead because this is an immediate problem. We should respond directly and for that reason I spent the whole morning working on this. I had some serious and, I hope, balanced things to say though this is a difficult debate for me to take part in as there are people I care about deeply on both sides of the equation. I have just returned from the Middle East and now 7 November has been suggested, which puts me in difficulty.

I suggest we adjourn until 3 p.m. and, surely, that would give us time to get a Minister. I sympathise with those who—

It will be Question Time shortly in the Dáil.

The Opposition has our support.

—and whatever Minister of State is involved will be free at 2.30 p.m. almost certainly.

I support that.

That is ten minutes away. This is a House of the Oireachtas. As Senator Norris said, this is a very important debate.

Let us say 2.45 p.m.

The time to find a Minister is very short.

Sitting suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 2.45 p.m.
Barr
Roinn