The Order of Business is No. 2, motion to amend the terms of reference of the Smithwick tribunal, to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business, without debate; No. 3, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012 - Second Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 2 and to conclude no later than 1.30 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply no later than 1.20 p.m.; and No. 4, Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 - Committee Stage, to be taken at 2 p.m. In the case of No. 4, we had an excellent eight hours of debate on Second Stage, but in my opinion we had a waste and we damaged ourselves with the filibuster of eight hours on one section that happened yesterday. I think we should be mindful of that when we continue our Committee Stage discussion this afternoon.

I do not agree that there should be no debate on No. 2, which relates to the Smithwick tribunal. When the Minister, Deputy Shatter, told the House two years ago that he wanted to set a deadline for this, we advised him that the imposition of a deadline was not the thing to do. Now he is extending it further. The Seanad deserves to get a report or an update on the Smithwick tribunal. I will not agree to take No. 2 without debate. With regard to No. 4, it may be the Leader's opinion that there was a filibuster during the Committee Stage debate on section 1.

An opinion?

It may also be his opinion that yesterday's events did the House some damage.

The only people doing this House damage are the Leader and the members of his Government who want to abolish the House. What one does not do-----

The Senators opposite went the right way about damaging the House yesterday.

Please allow Senator O'Brien to continue without interruption.

Tá brón orm. I may have hit the nail on the head because the people who are proposing the abolition of the House are the Leader, his party in government and the Labour Party. While all the Senators opposite profess to disagree with abolition, they will walk through the lobbies like sheep and vote for it. Members on this side are perfectly entitled to speak for as long as they wish on Committee Stage. If it is the Leader's opinion that yesterday's discussion was a waste of time, that is fine.

That is what I said.

He will find today's debate will also be reasoned.

Good.

The Leader stated the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill will come before us again at 2 p.m. At what time is it proposed to adjourn the debate or will it be open-ended? I remind him that this is not emergency legislation. The farce we saw in the Dáil last night and into the early hours should not be replicated in the House. The debate should be adjourned rather than left open-ended.

Unlike the previous Government, this Government is at least legislating for the X case.

Please allow Senator O'Brien to continue without interruption.

I suggest the Leader set a time to adjourn the debate. I also ask him indicate, to the best of his knowledge, when the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill will come to the House. Some of the antics in the other House last night and this morning did the Dáil considerable damage.

We are not discussing the Dáil. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I have no doubt that this House will behave as it always does and ensure the legislation is discussed in a reasoned manner.

Like yesterday.

Perhaps the Leader does not agree that we had a reasoned debate yesterday. We should not have been debating legislation that will provide for the abolition of the Seanad. The Leader should not forget that it was his party leader who went on a solo run by seeking to abolish one third of the Oireachtas and rip asunder Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I have put a number of questions to him.

I propose a further amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that the Minister for Finance come to the House for one hour to discuss the new statutory code of conduct on mortgage arrears the Government has approved with the Central Bank. I have raised this issue day in and day out for some time and will continue to propose amendments to the Order of Business until the Minister comes to the House to explain what protection the new code of conduct will provide to those in mortgage arrears.

This Seanad spent weeks on statements dealing with various issues because legislation did not come before the House and we were not allowed to scrutinise EU legislation. As is the case with all Governments, but especially this one, we now have a rush to conclude business before the summer recess. This is not the way to do business. It would make sense to specify a time for the adjournment of the debate on the constitutional Bill. The debate could then resume tomorrow and continue on Monday.

Does the Senator not want me to guillotine the legislation?

I want to dispose of the Bill but leaving the debate open-ended is to guillotine it by other means. We will sit until 3 a.m., 4 a.m., 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. if the Leader so wishes but that is not the way to do business.

The Senator wants me to guillotine the Bill.

The Leader should learn from what his colleagues did in the Dáil this morning.

The Senator may get what he wishes for.

Setting parameters for the debate would be a better way to do business. However, we will not have a problem sitting until 4 a.m. or 5 a.m.

If the Leader sets parameters, the Opposition will not support them.

Senator O'Brien does not know what he wants.

We know what Senator Bacik wants.

To echo the Leader's comments, what took place in the Chamber yesterday over eight hours of so-called Committee Stage of the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 was nothing less than a filibuster. It calls to mind the old saying, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If Senators speak for more than one hour and ramble about various historical aspects of different democracies-----

Senators care about this House.

There are ways-----

They obviously care more about it than Senator Bacik.

Please allow Senator Bacik to continue without interruption.

The sort of self-indulgence we-----

We cannot go back over yesterday's business. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I ask the Leader and the Chair to ensure Committee Stage debate is a reasoned, proper and rational discussion. We all accept and agree that there are principled issues to be discussed but let us not have Senators speak in a self-indulgent manner for the sake of it. Having had eight hours of discussion on Committee Stage yesterday, we will resume the debate at 2 p.m. Let us have a debate of which the House can be proud, as has been the case with regard to debates on many different issues.

On a point of order, how dare the Senator cast aspersions on this side of the House. I ask her to withdraw that statement.

What statement?

This is a Chamber of debate and Senators on this side are as entitled to express an opinion as the Senators opposite.

Senator Mooney should resume his seat.

They should extend the same courtesy to us as we extend to them.

Does Senator Bacik have a question for the Leader?

I have put my question. I ask the Cathaoirleach to ensure today's debate is rational and reasoned and Senators are asked by the Chair, in the normal manner, to confine their remarks to Committee Stage.

Is the Senator directing the Chair on how to adjudicate on the debate?

Let us have the reasoned and rational debate the House deserves and treat it with the dignity it deserves.

The Senator would not recognise dignity if it hit her in the face.

What we saw yesterday were antics and play-acting.

There is no dignity in a dead Seanad.

Please allow Senator Bacik to continue without interruption.

I commend Senator Mary White on using the House yesterday in the way it should be used, namely, to introduce a Bill. I ask the Leader to ensure Committee Stage of the Bill on parental leave is taken when the Government's amendments become available. All of us appreciate the intention behind the legislation and very much approve of it in principle. It was welcome that the Government did not oppose it. Many Senators have spoken about the need to ensure some measure of paternity leave is provided to ensure fathers are given greater responsibility and their role as fathers is given greater recognition in the workplace. It is a welcome Bill and exactly the sort of business for which the Seanad is valued and on which it is commended. It reflects one of the values and strengths the House bring to the Oireachtas.