The committee have considered the reference made by the Seanad yesterday to the committee of amendment No. 3 to the Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1955, with regard to the ruling of the Chair. The committee concurs unanimously in the ruling given by the Chair on amendment No. 3. I take it that report is agreed?
Report of Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
In view of the fact that the Minister told us yesterday, in relation to that particular paragraph, that it would not be either the intention or the effect of this paragraph to decrease State expenditure or save the State money——
What is the question?
I am asking whether the committee adverted to the reply to the question I asked the Minister, whether it was the intention, or would it be the effect, of this paragraph to save money for State funds. He said, no, it was not, implying that if you deleted it, it would not increase the charge on the State funds. Did the committee advert to that reply?
I am not in a position to inform the Senator of the nature of the committee's deliberations. The committee which is a pretty representative committee was unanimously of the opinion that the ruling yesterday was correct and that is all that can be said about it.
May I take it that the answer to my question is: "No; the committee did not advert to this Ministerial reply?"
May I say that this is a most unfair remark by Senator Sheehy Skeffington and I take exception to it? The committee is a representative committee and I think it is deplorable that Senator Sheehy Skeffington should assume that any proceedings of the committee should be deprecated in that way. I deplore this regrettable tendency shown by certain Senators only for the past year or two to delay the business of the House. Every day we lose five or ten minutes. If more deference were shown to the Chair and to the committee, it would be for the good of the House and the country.
Senators
Hear, hear!
The question is: That the report, as submitted by Senator Hayes, be agreed to.
Agreed.
Senator Sheehy Skeffington rose.
Let us have no more suggestions, but get on with the business. Senator Skeffington is challenging the decision of the House in this matter.
I take it that——
This question has been decided by the House and Senator Skeffington has no right to speak about it.
I would prefer the Chair's ruling to that of Professor Hayes.
I suggest that the House has come to a decision and Senator Sheehy Skeffington is not only being ignorant but also inexcusably and characteristically rude.
I was asking for a ruling from the Chair. So far, I have only got a ruling from Senator Hayes, which I regard as being out of order.
What is the point?
Is it agreed that we accept this committee report? I take it that, to that question, it is possible to make an answer, and that is what I was endeavouring to do. If I am ruled out of order by the Chair, I am prepared to accept the Chair's ruling, but I do not appreciate being ruled out of order by Senator Hayes.
The matter has been decided, Sir.
Is there any debate allowed on that?
No.