The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re appointment of members of the joint committee into the banking crisis, to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business without debate; No. 2, motion re the report of the Committee of Selection to be taken on the conclusion of No. 1 without debate; No. 3, address to Seanad Éireann by Ms Anne Brasseur, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to be taken at 12 p.m. and to conclude no later than 1 p.m., with the contributions of all spokespersons and Members not to exceed five minutes and Ms Brasseur to be called on to reply to the debate no later than 12.55 p.m.; No. 4, State Airport (Shannon Group) Bill 2014 - Report Stage, to be taken at 1 p.m. and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the proceedings on Report and Final Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 p.m. with one question that shall be put from the Chair which shall include only those amendments set down or accepted by the Government; and No. 5, Industrial Development (Forfás Dissolution) Bill 2013 - Committee and Remaining Stages to be taken at 2.30 p.m.

The Leader has raised fundamental questions about democratic accountability in setting out the Order of Business. When the Government came into power it stated it would usher in a new era of transparency, but the events of the past week have shown this was a hollow truth. We are now witnessing political skulduggery at the very highest level. Here is a situation where a democratically convened committee of selection, which adhered to all procedures, nominated two people onto the banking inquiry. When the Government could not get its way, it acted like a child who does not get his or her way on the football field and picks up the ball and runs home with it. It is bypassing the democratic process. We on this side of the House will not agree to having these matters put on the Order Paper and passed through without debate. We will table an amendment to the Order of Business that Nos. 1 and 2 be debated. When the reference to the inquiry was first brought before the House-----

On a point of clarification, are two separate amendments being tabled? The Senator can move one amendment.

I will move the amendment with regard to No. 1.

When the banking inquiry was first discussed, the Government Chief Whip came before the House and we had a debate. I call on the Leader to initiate further debate on this. I cannot understand what the Government hopes to achieve by this. It has already undermined the credibility of the banking inquiry. I wish to put on the record once more that Fianna Fáil is totally in support of the banking inquiry and we will co-operate in any way possible to ensure the real truth is got at under the terms of reference, whatever they may be. What I found astonishing about the Taoiseach's comments in recent days is that he plainly and openly stated on the record of the Dáil that he was not in favour, or was opposed to, the democratic decision arrived at by the committee of selection of this House because he wanted a Government majority to ensure the terms of reference would be according to what the Government wants the terms of reference to be. In other words, the committee members should be good little muppets and do what the Government tells them to do and come up with the type of conclusions the Government wants. This is essentially the message being sent out to the general public.

There is an old story about digging a hole. The Government has continued to dig the hole and has not stopped digging. By putting forward these proposals this morning, without debate to make it even worse, the Leader has, in my opinion, flouted the entire democratic process the House enjoys.

I ask Senator Mooney to clarify the amendment.

I move an amendment to the Order of Business that the Government Chief Whip come to the House to discuss No. 1.

I welcome the motion before the House proposed by the Leader. It will enable us-----

Shame.

Shameful Labour Party.

If Senators do me the courtesy of listening-----

A final sell-out.

Senator Bacik without interruption.

It is being put before the Seanad-----

Democratic revolution.

If passed, it will enable us to move on with the banking inquiry-----

We do not need to have it passed to go on with the banking inquiry.

Senator Bacik without interruption.

-----and for a party which states it supports the banking inquiry Fianna Fáil has certainly done its best to play politics with it and politicise-----

Excuse me, you are the ones playing politics with the banking inquiry.

-----the appointment process-----

There is no point in putting the blame on Fianna Fáil.

That is an outrageous statement. It is disgraceful.

The Government wants an overall majority to have its own kangaroo court.

It is woeful to have to listen to this.

Senator Bacik without interruption.

If Senators look at the terms of the motion, they will see it will give the Seanad greater representation on the inquiry, which is a rather positive aspect to it-----

That is only a sham.

-----by having four Senators as opposed to the original two.

Sit down and stop digging.

It will also ensure some measure, not an adequate measure, of gender balance. It is unfortunate that of the seven members selected from the Dáil, no woman was selected.

Absolute rubbish.

Dear God Almighty, this is rubbish. That is a disgraceful comment-----

Allow Senator Bacik to make her point on the Order of Business.

-----indignation that women were not put on the banking inquiry.

I ask Senator Daly to allow Senator Bacik to make her point on the Order of Business.

In Senators O'Keeffe and Michael D'Arcy we will have two excellent additions to the banking inquiry and they will strengthen its work and bring expertise and experience to bear. Colleagues will know that at the selection committee last week the Government was ambushed-----

That is absolutely outrageous-----

-----and I use that word-----

On a point of order, I want the Senator to withdraw that remark. The democratic process was undertaken and the procedures were fully adhered to by the chairman of the committee. The democratic process was adhered to. Senator Bacik was present at the time and how dare she make that accusation.

If it has caused offence, I am happy to withdraw it.

She has left the allegation hanging in the air.

I ask Senator Bacik to withdraw it.

I am happy to withdraw it.

I thank Senator Bacik.

CPP issued a statement following its meeting yesterday that the inquiry which has been established on foot of the motion of 14 May is not a Part 2 inquiry and has no jurisdiction to deal with issues concerning allegations of conflicts of interest in respect of any member. It was helpful to all of us to establish legal certainty on this.

The smear did not work.