Nobody said that but the House was informed that, on consultation - through the Leader, I think - it was emphasised that the Bill had to go through this week and that, as a result, it had to be guillotined. That is what we were told.

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether the Minister is available or not. The problem is that-----

The Minister will not get away with weasel words here.

The simple fact is that this House was led to believe that the Government-----

That is shameful stuff. I was here this morning. We sought extra time but were denied it. It was represented to us that the Deputy Leader had, through whatever channel, sought extra time but it could not be given.

All I am saying is that this is important legislation. Senator Malcolm Byrne pointed out that it has been 50 years since there was last a Bill on this matter. That is all the more reason that, in dealing with an important Bill of this kind, we should not confine the Committee Stage, with so many amendments having been tabled, to four hours. By the way, what happened this morning on the Order of Business has not in the slightest bit trespassed on those four hours. The four hours started at 3 p.m. and will expire whe…

If the Minister is suggesting the guillotine has been self-imposed by the Seanad-----

-----but we were given the opposite impression on the Order of Business today. I have to protest what has happened here.

I resent people coming in with milk and watery explanations as to what happened, who did speak and who did not. Senator Chambers was clear that she had sought extra time and it had been denied to her.

Who decided not to take the Minister up on that?

Somebody is.

I want to note what was actually said. The Deputy Leader said: "In relation to the HEA Bill, Minister Harris was asked for more time on this. We were told it had to be passed by the recess."

The Deputy Leader of this House said-----

-----that time was sought and the Minister indicated that the legislation had to be dealt with before the recess. The Minister must take responsibility for the fact the legislation is not going to be debated.

I support Senator Norris's amendment.

The Minister is correct in saying the significance of this amendment must be seen in the context of proposals to amend section 16. At the moment, section 16 says: The Board shall consist of the following members: (a) a chairperson; (b) 11 ordinary members. It goes on to say: ...the chairperson and the ordinary members of the Board shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have sufficient experience and expertise relating to— (i) matters connected with the functions o…

I was glad of the support I got in that debate from Senator Ó Donnghaile and others but I make the point-----

I am sharing it out. For many of these very important institutions of State we are putting in place now, other legislation guarantees a balance within the composition of those bodies. It might stipulate not less than one person who shall have this experience, or one person who has that experience or, in the case of the judicial appointments legislation brought before this House the last time, people who had actually been vetted by the Public Appointments Service as to their suitability. That was on an openness basi…

That is about 50 years old.

The Senator's point is academic.