The House has agreed that the schedule should not be read out and should be taken as read. There are arising from it just two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with today's business agreed?

I wish to raise two objections, the first of which relates to the curtailing of debate on the Health (Amendment) Bill 2021 through the use of a guillotine. There is no reason to curtail this debate in circumstances where the Tánaiste has stated that the legislation would not be operational for a number of weeks. The only reason to curtail debate on this issue is to fix the loophole around fixed penalty notices that were handed out at ports and airports at the beginning of February. On "The Late Late Show", the Garda Commissioner spoke about fines at Dublin Airport, yet the legislation underpinning those fines was invalid. As such, they could not be enforced. By any stretch, that is a shambles.

We cannot have a lengthy debate now, Deputy.

To fix it, it is proposed to rush legislation through that also rushes through legislative measures on quarantining that will not be enforced for a number of months. We will fix legislation that was flawed because of the speed it was run through the Houses with more flawed legislation that will be run through quickly and not be operational for weeks.

The Deputy has made his point.

The second point I wish to make is that, presumably based on his legal advice, the Tánaiste has stated this legislation is expected to be challenged in the courts. The courts will do what they wish if it is challenged, but they ordinarily give deference to the fact that the Houses have determined that legislation is proportionate. However, this House will be curtailed in its debate, not by a vote of the entire House, but by a reduced number of Deputies. The number of reasoned amendments that could be tabled was reduced by the Bill's timing, and even those amendments will not be reached, but we are expecting the courts to give deference to this flawed regime. We are sitting here at enormous expense so that Deputies can vote, yet all Deputies-----

The Deputy has made his point at length.

-----will be deprived of their vote, curtailing debate on an issue that the Government expects to be challenged in the courts.

On the Order of Business, brief comments are acceptable, not lengthy statements.

I have never objected to the Order of Business before, but this is important.

I know that and I take the Deputy's point. He is correct, but can we please try to keep the comments as short as possible?