The point made by Senator Wright about the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995. anticipates tomorrow's business, so I do not want to deal with it now. I am surprised, indeed shocked, to see proposals for the curtailment — I would not use the word guillotine, it was never used in the old regime — of time proposed for a Bill. When this Bill was introduced, I said I would give it a reasonable amount of time to be dealt with and I intend to do that. I do not intend to break with precedent.
The business for this week was agreed at the end of last week and there were no objections or counter-proposals. I intend to stick to the business ordered for this week and if the Bill is completed, well and good; if not, I will make time available next week. I have no desire to see this Bill either stonewalled or debated for longer than is necessary. It is an important Bill and we are doing the Opposition a courtesy by taking it seriously and allowing time for a full debate. I hope there will be no talk of guillotines or unseemly motions of this nature tomorrow.
As regards the Price Waterhouse report on the Defence Forces, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, has made a number of statements clarifying aspects of it. He will be in the House next week in his capacity as Minister for the Marine, but Members may be able to ask him questions on defence. I will try to arrange a debate on defence matters as soon as possible.
Senator Dardis raised a question about the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. Early next week when the House establishes the new committees — I intend to allow time for a debate on them — there will be an opportunity to examine some of the technical questions arising from its report. It is a matter for Members if they want to discuss the contents of the report. I am not sure that any useful propose would be served by such a debate, but if Members believe it would be useful, we will do our best to make time available. The technical question can be discussed next week.
As regards Senator Maloney's point about the animal which he brought into the House, I will convey his feelings and those of a number of other Senators to Aer Lingus and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Senator O'Kennedy raised a point which has in part been dealt with by Senator Magner, namely, Senator Magner's status as a first class Whip of the Labour group, but not quite the leader. As far as I am concerned, Senator Magner spoke in an individual capacity outside the House, as he is entitled to do. It is not my function to bring this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, but other Members may do so if they wish. I do not see that the matter warrants referral the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.