I wish the Tipperary ladies the very best on Sunday in the all-Ireland match.

Today's business shall be: No. 8, motion re special meeting of joint committees for engagement with Mr. Guy Verhofstadt, MEP, European Parliament Brexit Coordinator; No. 9, motion re Broadcasting Act 2009 (Designation of Major Events) Order 2017 - referral to committee; and No. 18, Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017 - Second Stage (resumed). Private Members' business shall be Second Stage of No. 35, Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Right to Housing) Bill 2017, selected by Solidarity-People Before Profit.

Thursday's business shall be No. 9a, motion re Europol Regulation - referral to committee; No. 18, Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017 - Second Stage (resumed, if not previously concluded); and No. 36, Wind Turbine Regulation Bill 2016 - Second Stage, will be debated in the evening slot.

In relation to Wednesday's business, it is proposed that (1) the motion re the special meeting of joint committees for engagement with Mr. Guy Verhofstadt MEP and the motion re Broadcasting Act 2009 (Designation of Major Events) Order 2017 - referral to committee, will be taken without debate and any division demanded on the motion re special meeting of joint committees shall be taken immediately; (2) there shall be no suspension of sitting within the meaning of Standing Order 25(1); Private Members' business will take place at 8 p.m.; and (4) the proceedings on Second Stage of the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Right to Housing) Bill 2017 shall conclude within two hours if not already concluded.

In relation to Thursday's business, it is proposed that the motion re Europol Regulation - referral to committee shall be taken without debate.

There are two proposals to put to the House today. First, is the proposal for dealing with today's business agreed to? Agreed. The second proposal is in respect of the business set out for Thursday. Is that agreed?

No. We have raised this with the Offices of the Ceann Comhairle and the Chief Whip. It has to do with what is described on the Order Paper as "an exchange of views with Mr. Guy Verhofstadt" from the European Parliament. I understand that the MPs and MEPs on these committees will be denied their right to speak even though they normally have the right to speak in the committees they are part of. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, Chairman of the Committee on European Union Affairs, Deputy Brendan Smith, Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Deputy Kathleen Funchion have all indicated support for the members of their committees who are MPs or MEPs being able to speak at this engagement with the Member of the European Parliament.

I know we may have got ourselves caught up in a technical anomaly here but good sense should prevail. Here is a very clear indication of the all-Ireland aspect of this and the man has come here to see and hear what folks who represent citizens across the island want to say on the very important issue of Brexit.

It would be ridiculous if we prevented these committee members from exercising their right to speak merely because it is sitting in this Chamber. This does not only affect Sinn Féin but also Fine Gael MEPs and others.

I was contacted about this important matter by Deputy Martin Ferris and indicated my support for it. I raised it today at the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs where there were dissenting voices but we knew that it would be raised on the floor of this House this evening and decided we would wait and see what would happen on the matter then.

The Rural Technical Group's opinion is that what Sinn Féin seeks is acceptable and should be allowed and in this important matter it has the support of this group.

I will clarify the situation for Members as I understand it. Standing Order 95 sets out how the orders of reference for the committees in question operate. The joint sittings of committees are regulated by Standing Order 87. Were the circumstances different, we could possibly amend and set aside orders to allow the Members to attend the meeting on Thursday. However, prior to the summer recess, the Seanad agreed a resolution which is at variance with what Deputy Adams wants to do, so that even if we were to set aside the Standing Orders to allow for the Members of the United Kingdom Parliament to attend, we could not do so because the meeting is one of a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad and the Seanad already made its decision on this prior to the summer recess and we are bound by that. The Seanad will not return before the joint sitting takes place on Thursday and no matter how much we might want to comply with the Deputy's request, it is not technically possible to do so while adhering to our own Standing Orders. Whether we like it or not, we must adhere to our own Standing Orders.

We will be faced with a situation where the three committees will meet together and MEPs who are entitled to sit on these committees and who speak at the meetings which they attend will sit here and not be allowed to speak. Is this not ridiculous? How will that look or seem to anyone? The purpose of this meeting is given as an exchange of views. This has nothing to do with the fact that Sinn Féin is raising this issue. These people are on these committees by dint of their mandates and of the Good Friday Agreement which we are entitled and obliged to uphold. We might move a motion later, but I ask Teachtaí support the right of the members of these committees to speak, rather than the comic nonsense and undermining of democracy which may happen tomorrow if this is denied them.

I very much appreciate the point being made by the Deputy and that it does not apply to Sinn Féin alone but the reality is that the rules are made by all of us here. We set out these rules. If they are idiotic rules they are idiotic rules that we have set out for ourselves and as long as they are in place we must adhere to them. If we had sufficient foresight before the summer recess, the Seanad might have made a different decision.

Are MLAs included in the wording which the Seanad has agreed or may they take part in proceedings tomorrow?

No they cannot.

On a point of explanation.

I am only entitled to call on one Member from each group but I will allow Deputy Ó Caoláin.

I was not aware of the Seanad decision referred to by the Ceann Comhairle. Can he explain to the House how a decision of another House impacts on this House making a decision to facilitate other parliamentary voices?

It is not just from North of the Border. These are MPs from all parts of this island who are entitled, we would argue, to have their voices heard, if they so choose to participate.

The explanation is quite simple. The committees that will meet tomorrow are joint committees, requiring decisions of the two Houses. The other House already made its decision, prior to the summer recess and, with respect, members of the Deputy's party are Members of the other House, where the decision was made.

What was the decision?

The decision made did not provide for the amendment the Deputy has tabled today. Had that amendment been made in the Seanad it would not be impossible for us today to make a similar amendment. In other words, if the amendment was made by the Seanad before the break we could make a similar amendment today, were the Members amenable, but it was not, so therefore we cannot.

None of us knew these MPs and MEPs would be barred until we received notice a few days ago. We did not know.

We cannot do the business of the Seanad for it. The 60 Senators are well capable-----

We can do the business of the Dáil.

Yes, but we are impacted by the decision they made and it is as simple as that. We might not like it, but that is how it is. Can I take it that the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business is agreed to?

Not agreed.

I call Deputy Martin on the Order of Business. We have one minute for each Member as 23 Members are offering.