The business this week shall be as set out in the first revised report of the Business Committee, dated 5 March 2019. Today's business shall be No. a11, motion re sittings and business of Dáil for 5 to 7 March 2019, to be taken without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken immediately; No. b11, motion re instruction to committee of the whole Dáil for the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019, to be taken without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken immediately; No. 11, motion re financial resolutions for the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019; No. 12, motion re Istanbul Convention; No. 13, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the convention on social security between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, back from committee; and No. 30, Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019 - Committee and Remaining Stages.

Wednesday’s business shall be No. 30, resumed.

Thursday’s business shall be No. 30, resumed. Private Members' business shall be No. 211, motion re local drugs and alcohol task forces.

Is the proposal for dealing with today's business agreed?

Not agreed.

Not agreed.

I call Deputy McDonald.

The purpose of this emergency legislation is to guard against the worst effects of a hard Brexit. I think everybody in the House has co-operated with Government because we recognise the necessity for contingencies for such a scenario. It is inexplicable therefore how so many of our amendments, moved in that spirit of being prepared, have been ruled out of order. They have covered such things as equality of citizenship and dealing with green card measures to support agriculture. I could go on. Some 25 of our amendments have been ruled out of order. It raises a question for us as to the quality of this debate and exchange and the robustness of the legislation. We were encouraged to co-operate with the Government, which is fine. We were told that we would be listened to and there would be an opportunity for substantive amendments to be brought forward, yet here we are, with 25 amendments on critical issues that have simply been set aside. Speaking to some colleagues earlier, they now regard the debate as something of a sham because it is a precooked outcome from the Government and we are to operate as some kind of elaborate rubber stamp. On that basis, we do not support the proposition. I would like substantiation of how so many of these amendments represent a charge on the State. They have been ruled out of order wholesale and we are very disappointed.

It is not normal to discuss the ruling out of amendments on the floor of the House, but to be helpful, I should point out that the ruling out of amendments is nothing whatsoever to do with Government. Some 74 amendments were tabled to the Bill. They got the highest level consideration from the Service before they were ruled upon. Some 38 of the 74 have been ruled out of order. Each Deputy who submitted an amendment has received correspondence setting out clearly why they were considered to be out of order. I have written to Deputies to say that I am available after this sitting to meet with any Deputy who wants to discuss the ruling out of an amendment.

I am sorry, Deputy Cullinane, only leaders can come in on this matter.

I do not accept that.

The Deputy does not accept that he is not the Leader.

The Standing Order which was used to rule out a number of the proposed amendments states that the basis on which they can be ruled out of order is that they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill. How could an amendment we proposed, about ruling out under any circumstances physical infrastructure between North and South in the form of a border, not be in line with the objectives of the Bill or how could it be deemed to be in conflict with a Bill that specifies in its description that it is a Bill to deal with the potential consequences of no deal and to prevent "disturbance" to the South in economic or other terms? How could, for example, asking that British driving licences would be recognised in the South be in conflict with the Bill? It is incomprehensible and it renders the debate a sham.

First and foremost it is not in order to discuss this matter on the floor of the House. I am quite willing to meet anyone who wants to come to discuss with me and the Service the decisions that have been made in respect of their individual amendments.

On something as important as this the public needs to know.

That decision is not made here in this Chamber-----

Sinn Féin should not have supported Brexit.

----and has never been.

Deputy smart alec O'Brien.

It is true.