What I said explicitly was that the delay in the entry by a Member could be facilitative of this. I said explicitly that I do not state that that is the intention of the actor but it is the effect of the interpretation of the Standing Orders in this way.

Yes.

Yes.

So in all those cases the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach had the discretion to extend the period of time but chose not to, on all those instances when we have been locked out in the past. Is that the case?

It is either standard or discretionary. It cannot be both or it cannot be one in one case and not in the other case.

Good.

Rather than even calling a new vote, for example, the Leas-Chathaoirleach is proceeding with the vote whereby the time of two and one, which has always been applied previously, is now not being applied because she is telling us it is a discretionary matter. In other words, that there is a minimum of two and one and there is no maximum. In effect, on such a vote, it can be any period of time before people-----

Eight Members entered.

We are familiar with the Standing Orders.

It is important to note that in the context of the Standing Order that was read into the record, we have been told there is a minimum of two minutes and a minimum of one minute-----

Yes. It has never been the case that this was treated as a discretionary three minutes.

Now it is being treated as discretionary. It should be at least three minutes, but it could effectively be any number of minutes. Will people be able to leisurely stroll up from the Members' restaurant?

What is the result if we disallow a precedent in how that Standing Order has been interpreted and allow it to be interpreted in a way in which it has not been interpreted before, certainly in the nine years I have been in the House?

It is what has been made necessary. During the previous suspension, there was no engagement of any kind and no attempt to clarify matters. In fact, it seemed that the vote was being called directly. Then we were told it might be a recall bell and then we were told it might be a case of four and four. There is an extreme lack of clarity as to how the rules are being applied right now.

With respect to the Chair, the argument being made by the Leader right now relates to the issue of the Cathaoirleach or Leas-Chathaoirleach being in the Chair. The argument in relation to seats does stand up because there is an additional door through which only the Cathaoirleach or Leas-Chathaoirleach can pass and which an be kept open even if the doors for voting Members were to be closed. Crucially, however, that is not the argument that was read into the record. What was read into the record was that the two an…

The amendment has been pressed. The key question is whether there was an appropriate application of the rules relating to time. Very many minutes ago, the vote should have been taken and it was not taken at that time.

With respect, it is not a matter of how we proceed better in the future. The point is that we are proceeding today in a different way from how we have always proceeded in the past-----

-----so either we are standing over a new form of interpretation of Standing Orders-----

I have never had an instance in which the times were not applied that I have seen in my time, so the clear point is-----

We can engage with the CPPO for the future, but either there is a question or-----