I have listened to much rhetoric relating to Standing Orders from the high moral ground on the other side of the House. There was a general consensus that we would appoint one Government Senator and one non-Government Senator. However, I agree this was not mentioned in the motion that was passed. The motion only mentioned selecting two Senators. I am suggesting, and I am going to ask the Cathaoirleach, that the matter be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges so it can be investigated. I have information that I intend to bring to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and will do so acting in the best interests of the House at all times. Before any decision is ratified certain matters should be discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

What matters?

Whoever suggested I am kicking to touch-----

It is already done.

It has come to my notice that it has been suggested Senator MacSharry may have a conflict of interest.

On a point of order, there are very specific statutory procedures.

I was not going to mention this issue but I am being pressed by the other side of the House.

The Leader has been pressed by Deputy Paul Kehoe.

I am being pressed by the other side of the House in this matter and thus ask that it be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is important that this House acts properly at all times.

On a point of order, as the Leader has opted to make such a claim, it is only reasonable that he might do the House the service and me the courtesy of outlining the conflict of interest to which he refers.

That is not relevant.

I have no intention of doing that.

On a point of order, I second the request made by Senator MacSharry. I have no political dog in this fight but everyone knows what is going on here.

That is a matter for the legislation that is setting up the inquiry. It is not a matter for this House.

The Cathaoirleach has explained this and that is where the matter will be taken up.

On a point of order, I do not wish to interrupt the Leader but what is happening now is very serious. The Cathaoirleach chairs the CPP. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges has no role in the Committee of Selection. I am putting this question to you, a Chathaoirligh, and this is a point of order.

I and my group need to know whether the Cathaoirleach is going to accede to the Leader's request-----

I am not making a decision on that matter now. I have not received any requests and I am not making any decisions.

I am just trying to be helpful. We want this matter to be resolved. A democratic decision was made last night under Standing Order 89 and in the context of a motion tabled by the Government. The Leader is responding by stating that he will make a request to the CPP. Is he making a formal request, on the floor of this House, that the CPP meet?

We are not dealing with that issue now.

I am really sorry but we are dealing with it.

The Leader is responding to the questions that were raised on the Order of Business.

I am sorry but all Members on this side have done is to simply ask whether the Government is going to abide by the democratic decision taken last night by the Committee of Selection in respect of the Government's motion tabled under Standing Orders.

The Senator has made his point.

I have a serious point of order. The Cathaoirleach has never allowed the character of Members to be traduced or defamed in this House. In such circumstances, he must ask the Leader to withdraw-----

I did not question the character of any Member and I want that comment withdrawn.

The Leader made a very serious allegation against Senator MacSharry and the Cathaoirleach has never allowed that to happen before.

I did not question any Member's character.

Senator Byrne should resume his seat.

Will the Cathaoirleach ask the Leader to withdrawn the allegation?

I am asking that Senator Byrne to withdraw the comment he made about me. I have not questioned the character of any Member.

The Leader made a serious allegation.

The Leader has not made any allegation yet. He said he was going to request the Chair to hold a meeting of the CPP.

He said that Senator MacSharry was biased in the context of the banking inquiry.

This is not a matter to be dealt with on the floor of the House.

Even if he had €1 million outside the House-----

Legislation and guidelines are to be put in place to deal with the banking inquiry.

Will the Cathaoirleach ask the Leader to withdraw the allegation he made? He would not allow me to make such an allegation.

Senator Byrne should withdraw the allegation he made about me.

On a point of order, I am sorry the Leader finds himself in this position. It just goes to show the consequences of the Government putting a gun to the head of the Leader of this House.

Does the Senator wish to raise a point of order?

It is my understanding that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has no function-----

None whatsoever.

-----in determining whether somebody has a conflict of interests.

This matter relates to suitability.

Under the terms of reference of the banking inquiry, it has none.

What is being done is both a smokescreen and a delaying tactic. It is drawing into question the character and professional and political reputation of a Member of this House.

I have received no request to hold a meeting of the CPP. Will Members allow the Leader to respond to the questions that were raised?

The Leader should withdraw his request immediately and accept the democratic decision made by the Committee of Selection which was taken yesterday. What is happening here is disgraceful.

The Leader should withdraw his allegation.

On a point of order, what the Government is doing is engaging in an act of political assassination. It did not get its way and it is now trying to assassinate the good name of a Member of the House, which is absolutely appalling.

Can we allow the Leader to respond?

The Cathaoirleach cannot allow the defamatory allegation which has been made to stand.

The Leader must withdraw the allegation.

I did not hear any defamatory allegations being made.

I did not say what I am being accused of saying.

I did not hear any defamatory remarks.

The Leader referred to a conflict of interests.

This is shocking.

I formally request that the sitting be suspended right now in order that we might deal with this matter. I am not suggesting that he did so for any particular reason - it may even have been a mistake - but the Leader has called into question the suitability of Senator MacSharry to serve on the bank inquiry.

That is a matter for the inquiry, not for the House.

The Cathaoirleach has a duty to protect the reputation of the Members of this House. In that context, I am asking him to resolve this matter by suspending the sitting for ten minutes in order that we might find out both what the Leader is proposing and the nature of the allegations to which he referred. I formally ask that, in the interests of getting our business done, the sitting be suspended for ten minutes in order to allow the leaders of the groups-----

This matter is not going to be dealt with on the floor of the House.

It is an extremely serious matter.

It will not be dealt with on the floor of the House.

It was raised on the floor of the House. It is a serious matter.

On a point of order, it was the Leader who chose to raise this matter on the floor of the House. As a Member of the House and as a citizen of Ireland, I am entitled to some level of protection from the Chair. The Leader stated that it has come to his attention that I have a conflict of interest. As a result of his choosing to share that information in the House and in front of the media, I am of the view that I, as an individual and as a Member of the Seanad, am entitled to hear from him, as is the House, what is the nature of that conflict of interest.

Hear, hear.

I remind the Cathaoirleach-----

May I explain the position to the Senator?

No.

There is a procedure in place-----

The procedure which took place yesterday when I accused a member of the HSE of spending the public's money, was that I was lifted by the Chair for saying something about someone outside the House in a way which could have made that individual identifiable. Here we have the Leader of the Seanad impugning my character-----

I did not impugn the Senator's character at all.

-----and stating there is a conflict of interest. He is not prepared to share it when the reality is quite different.

I did not impugn the Senator's character.

For my information, will the Leader please place on the record-----

Senator MacSharry-----

-----the nature of the conflict of interests to which he refers? Surely I am entitled to that information.

Senator MacSharry-----

If the Leader is not prepared to do that now, I expect a full statement-----

Will Senator MacSharry resume his seat for a moment?

-----from the Government clarifying the position.

Will the Senator resume his seat?

Outside the doors of this Chamber, the Leader will not have the protection of privilege.

The Leader should repeat his allegation outside the Seanad.

The perception of bias is not a matter to be dealt with on the floor of the House.

This is an outrage. I accuse you of being partisan in order to protect the Government. What is happening here is a disgrace.

Senator MacSharry's comments are outrageous.

What is outrageous is what the Chair has allowed to be done to a Member of the House. It is a disgrace.

That is an outrageous allegation.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say it, Sir. However, the Cathaoirleach is bringing the Chair and this House into disrepute by allowing this disgraceful impugning of the character of a Member.

The Senator should please resume his seat.

The Senator's accusation is worse than the one to which he is referring.

It is not a worse accusation.

On a point of order and from my personal knowledge of him, I am of the view that Senator MacSharry does not have a conflict of interest whatsoever.

That is not a point of order.

If this is a court of law, then I am speaking for the defence of a Senator who has been accused by the Leader of this House of having a conflict of interest.

That is not a point of order.

In Senator MacSharry's defence, I say that he has no such conflict of interest.

Will Senator Leyden resume his seat?

On a point of order, I have the height of respect for the Cathaoirleach and his impartiality. As Whip of the Fianna Fáil group, however, I must make it quite clear that we cannot allow the reply by the Leader to the Order of Business to continue until this matter has been resolved. I have nothing but the height of respect for the Chair, the Leader and every other Member but we cannot co-operate by allowing the Leader to continue with his reply to the Order of Business until this serious situation - which has serious implications for every Member of the House - has been resolved.

I repeat my ruling to the effect that the perception of bias is not a matter to be dealt with on the floor of the House.

Where should it be dealt with?

We are talking here about an allegation. The Cathaoirleach should oblige the Leader to withdraw the allegation he made.

Senator MacSharry made a worse accusation.

There are guidelines which apply in this regard.

Those opposite should respect the Chair.

Could Members please allow the Cathaoirleach to speak?

There are guidelines and legislation in place for dealing with this issue.

What about the allegation? The Cathaoirleach does not need any guidelines to rule on that.

I already made a ruling in that regard.

All I am asking is that, for our knowledge, the Cathaoirleach expand on that ruling, explain the nature of the guidelines and indicate how the matter will be dealt with.

I am not expanding on my ruling.

I need to know the position.

On a point of order and as the Cathaoirleach rightly stated, we amended Standing Orders to cover the perception of bias. Those Standing Orders do not, however, cover the Leader of the House making an off-the-cuff allegation about one Member. In fact, I am of the view that the Leader has poisoned the banking inquiry in the context of the defamatory allegation he made. It is the responsibility of the Cathaoirleach to protect both the House and the Member involved by obliging the Leader to withdraw that allegation.

The Leader made no allegation.

The allegation he made has nothing to do with the Standing Orders relating to the perception of bias.

On a point of order, I think the Seanad should take some time to consider this matter. I propose, therefore, that the sitting be suspended for 30 minutes.

I second that proposal.

It is a matter for the Leader to propose that proceedings be suspended.

I am asking that the Leader-----

I am not accepting the Senator's proposal. He is not the Leader of the House.

I ask that the Leader move the suspension of proceedings for a period of 30 minutes.

On a point of order, it has been brought to my attention that the only other occasion on which proposals from the Committee of Selection were challenged in the Seanad was when the Labour Party opposed former Senator Joe O'Toole's nomination to the Commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Seanad stood by the committee's decision on that occasion. It should also be noted that Labour was in opposition at the time.

That is not relevant. I call on the Leader to reply to the Order of Business.

I apologise but, with all due respect to the Cathaoirleach, the Leader and other Members, I made it quite clear that our group will not allow the Leader to continue with his reply to the Order of Business until this very serious matter - which relates to a Member of the House - is dealt with to our satisfaction.

The House and, in particular, the Member are entitled to that.

A point of order.

You may say it is not a point of order, a Chathaoirligh. Could I ask, as a long-serving Member of this House, that we reflect on the very sensible, wise and calm intervention of Senator Michael D'Arcy? We are all adults and surely if we could suspend for 20 minutes or half an hour it should be possible to resolve this difficulty. We do not want this House brought into disrepute. I formally second the proposal put before the House by Senator Michael D'Arcy, as he is entitled to do.

I can only accept a proposal such as that from the Leader.

I will agree to a suspension of the House for 30 minutes so that the leaders can discuss this matter.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

To clarify the ruling that I made earlier in the House, on 5 February this year, the Seanad adopted Standing Orders which among other things set down procedures for dealing with perception of bias in relation to Members appointed to take part in a Part 2 inquiry under the Houses of Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. These procedures allow for written submissions in this regard, with supporting evidence, to be made to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. A matter of this kind cannot be raised on the floor of the House.

In light of the Chairman's ruling, I ask for a suspension of the House for a further half an hour to enable us to discuss the matter with the leaders.

The only person who breached those Standing Orders this morning was the Leader of the House. The Cathaoirleach should ask him as a matter of course to withdraw the allegations that he made.

He made no allegations.

Senator, the Leader has made a proposal.

I agree with the Leader's proposal for a further suspension so that the leaders and the Whips might discuss this matter. We fully understand the gravity of the situation and we shall try to facilitate the Government getting out of the mess that it created this morning.

I would not agree with that.

I welcome the Cathaoirleach's clarification that any comment on any Member who is appointed to serve on the banking inquiry must go in writing to the CPP and cannot be mentioned on the floor of the House.

Will the Leader withdraw the allegation?

There was no allegation.

I call the Leader.

I propose a further suspension of the House until 2 p.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I also propose that we defer debate on the Companies Bill until next week.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I ask the Leader to withdraw the remarks in relation to Senator MacSharry.

I have listened to the recording of this morning's proceedings. What I actually said was that I had information of a suggested conflict of interest. It was only ever my intention to have the information I received considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before any appointment to the committee of inquiry was ratified. I had no intention at any stage of impugning any Senator's integrity.

In view of the Cathaoirleach's ruling and in the interests of the harmony of the House and to allow today's business as scheduled to proceed, I am prepared to withdraw the words "conflict of interest". I am not prepared to go any further on the matter. I hope that the House will accept my bona fides on this matter.

Is the Order of Business agreed?

No. What happened here today is most unfortunate. The Committee of Selection met legitimately with a quorum and selected Senators Seán D. Barrett and Marc MacSharry to be members of the banking inquiry. It is not in any way, shape or form coincidental that the statement made earlier by the Leader was directly related to that decision because it suits Government to have a majority on the inquiry and its nominee was not successful in being appointed. That is the background. It cannot be dressed up in any other way, shape or form. No one can disagree with that.

I can disagree with it.

Yes, but without credibility.

With credibility.

I have the utmost respect for the Leader. I have worked closely with him over the past three years and have the utmost regard for how he has always conducted himself in this House. For us, what happened this morning was a bridge too far. The Leader has withdrawn the remark of a suggested conflict of interest. I can tell him there is no conflict of interest. As per the Cathaoirleach's ruling, it was highly inappropriate for the Leader to raise this issue on the floor of the House today. That should not have happened.

The Leader should apologise to Senator MacSharry and his family for what has been said here today. I put it to him as a respected colleague that at the very least decency requires that he apologise in the House today to our colleague.

Hear, hear.

That is appropriate. We all make mistakes. I have said things before that I regretted saying and I have apologised for them. Members here know that. There is no weakness in apologising and admitting one made a mistake. I put it to the Leader that the foundation of the banking inquiry is rocked owing to what happened last night at the Committee of Selection and the manner in which the Government has dealt with it here today, which was unprecedented. The public want a banking inquiry and deserve to have one. They also deserve a non-partisan banking inquiry. An independent committee of the Seanad met and according to procedures, selected two Members of this House for appointment to the inquiry. The Government parties are not happy with that decision. That is politics, life and democracy. That decision stands. It was made under Standing Order 89 and according to the Government's motion which came before this House on 14 May. As far as we are concerned, that is a separate issue. It is done and dusted in that two Members have been selected.

I acknowledge that the Leader has withdrawn part of the remarks he made earlier.

All of them.

Okay. I welcome that. However, I believe it is not too much to ask that the Leader apologise to a colleague in the House for putting those remarks on the record of this House.

Be magnanimous.

Senator O'Brien without interruption, please.

The Leader made a very serious charge earlier, which has already had ramifications in terms of the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House and on the Internet and so on. What happened is unfortunate. It should not have happened. It was a mistake. I put it to the Leader that it was an error of judgment. While acknowledging that the Leader has withdrawn the remarks, I ask that he apologise to our colleague. We can then move on to the business of the House and to ensuring that the two selected members, Senators Barrett and MacSharry, fulfil their role on the banking inquiry, as I am certain they will do.

As I said previously, what I actually said was that based on information I had received, there was a suggested conflict of interest. I am prepared to withdraw those remarks.