I second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Darragh O'Brien. There has been much debate over the years on the reform of the Oireachtas, not just the Seanad but also the Dáil, and how we do our business. Many of the demands we hear possibly come from people's perception of the way we work within the Houses of the Oireachtas. A point was raised by the Independent Senators and I agree with the sentiments they put forward. If a motion is tabled by a non-Government source, we should not automatically feel it necessary to oppose it. I have seen this not just with the current Government but with previous Governments. I was often surprised when I saw amendments tabled because many of the motions we debated on Wednesday evenings were generally ones with which, in our hearts, we agreed. We were trying to make a contribution, first, to highlight the issue put on the agenda and, second, to provide information. We have specialists in this House who table motions, which gives us an opportunity to build up our store of information. If the motion is passed eventually without a Government amendment, it does not bring down the Government or radically change how we do our business. It does, however, give us an opportunity to flag certain issues of importance. I cannot think of any issue more important than vulnerable children . In the context of the motion to be debated today, while I am not being critical of the Government because the previous Government did exactly the same thing, when it comes to reform, it would show we are capable of getting out of the straitjacket of party politics and the way we traditionally have done business. We all know times have changed. Whatever may happen to the motion to be debated today, I would like to think that in the future, more consideration would be given to arriving at consensus rather than division when people bring forward issues that are fundamental to society and vulnerable people who expect us to give them a voice when they have none.

Senator Quinn is one of the most reasonable and non-controversial people we have the good fortune to know. I liked his words with regard to the discussion document he circulated to us all. He has always endeavoured to be constructive and I agree with his call on the Leader to table the subject he raised for debate in the near future, in a non-controversial way and without a motion or vote. We want to ensure we are not divided on this subject. It is very well-meaning and meritorious and perhaps the Leader would consider it for debate for a few hours.

I echo the comments by Senators Coghlan and Ó Murchú. We do not come here for a Punch and Judy show and to have produced articles with lines like "Ashen-faced Minister will have to answer to the junior Minister because he was defeated in the Senate". We come here to serve the country and we should look at motions in that spirit because the previous type of politics led us to where we are now.

I thank the Leader for facilitating the education reference yesterday. It was very important and we knew the Minister would agree with what the Seanad said but the Seanad was here first and it is very important the Leader facilitated that.

I also wish to raise Senator Kelly's motion on the Order Paper concerning windmills. I believe the public service obligation part of one's electricity bill will increase because of the subsidies needed for the windmills. I appreciate Senator Kelly has other objections but we need to discuss this, particularly proposals that would involve Irish electricity consumers paying more in the public service obligation to export electricity to England. One estimate is that it will go up by 42% this year. It seems those projects need to be analysed and perhaps it is a topic to which we might return.