On a technical matter, will the Leader consider an amendment to the Order of Business to allow the taking of No. 16 before No. 1?

I refer to the mini-debate on the Committee of Selection. No. 5 is a motion on the report of the committee. There is no requirement for such a motion to come before the House because Standing Orders are prescriptive and we cannot rewrite history. As a member of the committee, I had to make a decision, as did all committee members, and we did so last night arising from a motion passed in the House some weeks ago, which said a select committee carrying out a banking inquiry should include two members nominated in accordance with Standing Order 89. That was in black and white. There was no shade of grey and it was prescriptive. The motion was passed. Seanad Éireann instructed the selection committee by an overwhelming vote of Members not to consider, submit or present two names but nominate two Members to sit on the banking inquiry under Standing Order 89.

We need to be cautious about what we do because the Standing Order - we all fought to preserve the House last year on the basis that it is independent, not a creature of Government and stands on its own two feet - does not suggest but simply prescribes that there should be a Committee of Selection and that it shall nominate the Senators to serve on particular committees. That is the job of work which we were asked to do last night and which we completed. Some people are disappointed with the outcome but the Standing Order is clear.

It is disturbing to hear on the media and coming from certain sources concerns that the Government would not have a majority on the committee. If the committee is formulated arising from divisions in the Dáil and the Seanad, there would be members of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and the Independents on it. The purpose of the select committee should not be that one side or the other has a majority; it should be that the committee comprises people who would do an independent job on behalf of the people. If we look at the committee as being about Government versus Opposition, majority versus minority, it will start in a negative fashion. We have to respect the motion passed in the House some weeks ago. I am sorry for exceeding my time but this is important. We must fully respect a motion passed in the House and we must fully respect the Standing Orders of the House. If we attempt to do other than that, we will create a dangerous precedent.

The Senator is way over time.

I concur with Senator Noone's comments about the failure to nominate a female Member but the Dáil had the power to nominate seven members of the committee and this House could only nominate two members. That is where the spotlight should shine. The Dáil was remiss in that regard.

My comment was not aimed at this House.

I listened with great interest to Senator Bradford's contribution and I disagree with little of what he said. However, while I have chaired the Committee of Selection, there have been 17 decisions, culminating in last night's decision, which have been put to the House. During my term, last night's meeting was the first at which a democratic voting process took place as set out in the normal circumstances. Will the Leader reflect on the implications of usurping the decision of the committee for Standing Orders? In addition, in the context of precedent, there was only one time in the past 60 years when a decision of the committee was challenged in the House and the outcome was the House upheld the decision following a division. As the committee chairman, I have to be careful not to impose my view and I must be fair and impartial. I ask the Leader and the Government to seriously reflect on any effort to revisit the issue, which, as chairman, I would be slow to do. Any other political attempt to usurp the democratic decision of the committee would want to be carefully thought out.

I wish Senator Norris well. He has been out sick and he attended the committee meeting. He came in with one mission in mind, which was to support his TCD colleague, Senator Barrett. That demonstrates his commitment to the task. Whatever about his physical and medical difficulties, there is nothing wrong with his brain. He is still acute and sharp and his comments did not do Senator Barrett harm when he was unanimously accepted as one of the two nominees.

With that in mind, I hope the issue can be resolved fairly and properly. Senator Maurice Cummins is very fair and a good Leader of the Seanad. I hope he can forget his role on behalf of the Government and do the right thing on behalf of the House.