Last week, on the Order of Business, Senator Mullen raised issues arising from an unnecessary abortion that took place in a Dublin hospital. He spoke in a modulated and reasonable voice and his tone was perfectly appropriate but he was heckled and barracked in a concerted fashion until he had to stop. He was told among other things that it was disgraceful that he was raising issues arising from a tragedy, but we all do that. We do it in the wake of tsunamis, the murder of families and so on. I do not agree with Senator Mullen's views on many issues, including abortion, but it is very important that a voice like Senator Mullen's be heard in this House and heard with respect, unless and until he makes, as he sometimes does, inflammatory comments. Then it is fine to go after him, but to try to stop somebody speaking in this House is quite wrong.

I think I did my utmost on that occasion to defend Senator Mullen.

The Cathaoirleach certainly did.

I have a toss of a coin between Senators Ó Céidigh and Mullen but seeing as Senator Mullen is in the limelight, we will let him go first.

I thank Senator Norris for what he just said. As I mentioned last week, I did not ask it for myself. I am well able to defend myself but I think there is an issue about where public discourse is going. We must set an example in here. I acknowledge that the Cathaoirleach chaired that incident very properly.

I second Senator Craughwell's amendment to the Order of Business. I do so in the context of the motion I brought forward on the important issue of mental health, which was kindly supported by Senator Norris, a number of other Independent Senators and, I am sure, some party people as well. Generally speaking, it is better for the running of our business if we know when debates begin and end, not least when, as I expect today, people may be coming from outside to listen to debates, as I understand there may be.

I would be grateful if the Leader would accept that proposed amendment to the Order of Business, which I second.

In regard to what was said earlier by a number of Senators, including Senator Boyhan, about the confusion in the voting at last weekend's elections, the remarkable thing was not so much the confusion about voting, although that continues to be a problem, but the confusion about counting. I was and am astounded that, at this point in our democracy, we found ourselves with an imbroglio such as arose in the context of the counting of the European election votes. It is not merely out of possible future or other-world self-interest that I think we would probably be served better by having one constituency for the entire island of Ireland because we have unrealistically drawn boundaries based on seat allocations that might not, in fact, come to pass.

The most important point is that if three people from a particular constituency are competing to go to Brussels now, the quota should reflect that and, if necessary, there ought to be a parallel counting of votes, whereby one would be on the basis of the fact that three candidates will be elected, and where there is an additional candidate to be elected, as is the case in Dublin, there would be a separate counting of the votes - this would not involve the same amount of work again - on the basis that there are four candidates, because, as we know, it could produce two completely different results. There could be a situation under a quota for three seats where one person would be elected whereas, under a quota for four seats, a person who might have been elected under the quota for three might not get elected at all under the other quota. No matter which way we went yesterday, we were doomed to possible inaccuracy, and that has to do with the question of the distribution of surpluses. It is an issue we need to look at.