This is merely a request of us on the part of the Cathaoirleach. It has no basis in Standing Orders, proper procedure or anything of that nature.

On which Standing Order is the Cathaoirleach relying?

The Cathaoirleach is telling us that it is the advice of the Clerk that the regulations provide that where there is a special sitting, the Order of Business debate must be confined to the items that are ordered for that day, regardless of whether the items ordered are unanimously agreed.

If I have a problem with the actual business that is ordered, it is open to me during that business to raise a point of order about that business.

The only possible logical reason for having an Order of Business debate prior to the taking of the proposed business of that day is to allow for the possibility that there might be disagreement about what business is being taken on that day or how.

The Cathaoirleach is telling us, without citing any particular authority, that the Order of Business on this particular occasion, namely, arising on foot of a special sitting, precludes us from discussing whether this is the business to be taken today or whether any other business ought to be considered today. To my mind, this is an absurdity. You must do more than merely speak about the conventions of this House allowing us on other occasions to raise what you appear to regard as extraneous matters when the only b…

By proposing to preclude, for example, what Senator Norris and others raised about developments in the British Parliament and with the British Government, you are making a mockery of the notion of an Order of Business. You would therefore be preventing us, where there is something of tremendous and urgent public importance arising, from adverting to it with the very flimsy excuse that this is a special sitting and somehow the Order of Business debate cannot have its ordinary meaning.

That does not fetter us.

Will the Cathaoirleach read the rules for us so we can discover together-----

You are referring to this in round terms but have not exercised your right - at this point I would say your duty - to point out to us why the rules specifically preclude us from raising important other matters on the Order of Business.

What is the basis for the distinction? It is like saying, as my mother said to me many times over the years, "That is the why". You are not outlining a basis.

Have you the reference?

That is an authoritarian perspective.

It is because it is self-evident that it is a convention. It is self-evident to the elected Members of this House that it can decide to debate-----

Am I right in stating that there are no provisions relating to the Order of Business in the Standing Orders?

Does Standing Order 16 state that on certain occasions only certain issues may be discussed?

The Cathaoirleach drew my attention, very helpfully, to Standing Order 16 when I asked. It refers to the Leader of the House as opposed to the Order of Business. It refers to normal circumstance but it is clear from that that the Leader shall propose the purpose of the business of the day and it is silent on anything else. Quite clearly, when something is proposed it is obvious that it may be discussed. The Cathaoirleach continues to insist on this being a special sitting and therefore the Order of Business has som…

Where does it follow from that that the Order of Business has a different scope?

The Cathaoirleach is here to propose an Order of Business that is confined, but by definition we must be allowed to comment on that.

I want to support Senator Higgins's amendment. Like others, I am not opposing the passage of this Bill. I certainly hope that one effect of the Bill is to help make it virtually impossible for the Government to defer the opening of pubs beyond 21 September, if it is to retain credibility, that is. Senator Higgins rightly pointed out the context in which all of this is taking place. We have had a lot of necessary conversation already today about the rush with this legislation. Given that the pubs will not be reopeni…