The first issue I want to address is the failed system to encourage retired officers of the Air Corps to return. A massive system was put in place to encourage them to come back but, to my knowledge, one lieutenant colonel and one captain have applied to come back and be commissioned. In inviting people to return, the authorities have not ring-fenced the appointments to prevent those returning from progressing to the next rank. If, for the sake of argument, a commandant returns and a vacancy for a lieutenant colonel arises, that commandant, who may have been out of the system for ten years, is suddenly eligible to apply for promotion to the post. That is grossly unfair to those who remained in the Air Corps. In the teaching profession, those who leave teaching and return not only return at the bottom of the scale but do so at the bottom of the new scale. It is grossly unfair to entice people who have left and enjoyed a period in the private sector, possibly earning big money with some of the commercial airlines, to come back and start closing off promotional posts for those who have remained loyal to the State and stayed behind. More important, who dreamt up this idea? Who dreamt up the idea that the only way we can solve the problem of losing members of the Army, Air Corps and Navy is by asking people who have retired to come back? Where is that coming from? What sort of thinking went into that? We should have the Minister of State with responsibility for defence in here to discuss this. I ask the Leader to do this for me.

He is coming in next week.

Last night, the fifth report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Standing Orders 19, 20, 51 and 65 arrived in my mailbox. I see that the change to Standing Order 19 reduces the quorum to six. That is outrageous. This is a House of Parliament. We should not try to make it easy for Members to avoid sitting in the Chamber. The quorum has been used with great effect in recent times to try to ensure a Bill that is seriously flawed-----

It is being abused.

Order, please. The Leader will have an opportunity to respond.

The Senator is pretty good at calling quorums himself, in fairness to him.

When the motion is put, Senator Craughwell may oppose it if he wishes.

The Senator may have done his homework-----

Order.

The quorum-----

Senator Craughwell is a former president of the Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI. He should know how to behave.

Please stop.

The quorum is a legitimate tool used in parliaments. It was used during my time as president of the TUI in order to ensure that something which is totally-----

It is a good job the Senator is not in the Áras.

We can only hear one Senator at a time. Senator Craughwell's time is practically up in any event.

I would say that my time is probably only half-way through.

I accept that Senator Craughwell has been interrupted.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. This is wrong and I would ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, to go back.

Why is it wrong?

It is wrong to reduce-----

Explain why it is wrong.

No, Leader. That does not arise at this stage. We will deal with it when the motion is put.

It is rubbish. The Leas-Chathaoirleach is encouraging the Senator.

In light of the fact that the Leader will have unfettered opportunity to respond, let me explain to him why I believe it is wrong. It is wrong because it makes it easy for the Government side in a debate to scrape through with the minimum number of Senators available for quorum duties. The bottom line is, that is wrong. The Leader has argued that the quorum used by myself, Senator Norris and Senator McDowell during the debate on Committee Stage of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017 has been misused or abused. It is a legitimate parliamentary tool, and from that point of view, I reject any attempt to say that it has been abused. I would ask the CPP to revisit this.

Of course. I thank Senator Craughwell.