Senator Darragh O'Brien has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That No. 56, motion 11 be taken before No. 1 for one hour." Is the amendment being pressed?

Yes.

In the interests of clarity it has been agreed that the motion will be discussed during the debate on Irish Water which will be taking place fairly soon.

For the first hour.

The motion is not being discussed; it will be voted on.

Silence, please. The House has decided that the first hour will be for discussion of the motion.

On a point of order, does that add an extra hour to the debate? If not, that is not what is being voted on.

Is the Order of Business-----

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will be here today. That is what we want in order that we can have a meaningful debate. The motion is now on the floor for the first hour and the motion will be voted on or agreed in the first hour of that debate. That is better than having statements. It is realistic and a message from the Seanad will go out about Irish Water and our resource staying as a public resource owned by the people.

Is the Order of Business, as amended, agreed to?

On a point of order, will the Cathaoirleach to clarify what process the debate will now take seeing as up to-----

Please, resume your seat, Senator. I am asking the Leader to clarify for the House how the debate will proceed for the rest of the day and the speaking time arrangements.

The time arrangements will be the same as those I outlined. It is now midday. The Minister will be called to reply to the debate no later than 2 p.m. with the contributions of Senators on Irish Water and on the motion not to exceed five minutes.

For the sake of clarity, the first item on the floor now is the motion which I will move. People can speak in the first hour and in the second hour. They are two separate items, one being the motion. I will move the motion at the start and the Minister will reply to the motion. The second hour will be a general debate on other issues related to Irish Water.

On a point of order, that would mean that some people will not get into the debate at all and it is unfair as some people will be speaking twice.

That is a matter for the Chair and the Chair is tied by the decision of the House.

I appeal to the Cathaoirleach.

May I point out to the House that this means a reduction of three quarters of an hour in the total speaking time because it is stated in the Order of Business and it was agreed that the debate would commence at 11.45 a.m. and conclude at 2.30 p.m. Now it is starting at noon and ending at 2 p.m.

The House has made a decision.

I am pointing out that there has been a substantial reduction and that some people will speak twice while others will not speak at all. I think that is wrong.

That is not true.

To move this on, we will work out that people on the Opposition side will not speak twice. We will work out that as many people as possible from the Opposition side will have an opportunity to speak. I do not envisage any of our speakers speaking twice. They are two distinct debates.

On a point of order, I appeal to the Leader and to the House on an issue as fundamental and important to the nation as water-----

That is not a point of order. Please, resume your seat.

-----that adequate time is given to this debate. It is not mathematically feasible to achieve what is being proposed.

Please, resume your seat. You are wasting time. The Leader has said the Minister will be called upon to reply at 2 p.m. instead of at 1.50 p.m. Is that agreed?

That is with regard to the statements. Will the Minister be responding to the motion?

Yes.

At what time will he respond to the motion? There will be a vote on the motion after one hour.

I ask if it could be agreed that the vote on the motion would be taken at the end because it will cut into the time.

The House decided it has to be taken after an hour.

In that case, would the Opposition be agreeable to taking the statements first and the motion in the following hour because otherwise we will be cutting into the time for the statements? The House can decide again to change its mind and take the motion in the second hour which would be more suitable.

The Leader will have to put that proposal to the House.

I propose that with the agreement of the Opposition, the debate on the motion will be in the second hour of the debate. I propose that statements be taken first, with the motion in the second hour, followed by the vote. If we take the motion first, we will be cutting into the time for the statements.

We want to get this very clear.

Is this a point of order?

It is a point of order. The amendment to the Order of Business was that this item be taken before No. 1, statements on Irish Water, and for one hour. Therefore, the motion must be taken first because this is what the House has decided. We will work out the speaking arrangements here. It is open to the Leader to ask the Minister to extend the time he can give to statements but the motion is to be first.

The Minister cannot do so.

If that is not possible for him, so be it. However, the motion as passed by the House must be taken in the first hour.

Will someone tell me why we cannot have a vote on this now since every one of us knows our thoughts on it?

Exactly.

All it allows is one hour for people to make their contributions about a referendum.

They can make their contributions by their vote.

Resume your seat, please, Senator.

I will make a proposal.

Resume your seat, please, Senator.

I am only trying to help.

The Leader has to make any proposal to the House. Does the Leader wish to change anything at this stage?

As I said previously, I propose that with the agreement of the House we would have the two-hour debate, with one hour, being the second hour-----

I will respond to the Leader.

-----and that we would have the vote on the motion at the conclusion of the debate rather than cutting into the amount of time for statements.

I have a proposal that will assist. As we have tabled the motion, I propose that the motion be taken first without debate, that the two full hours be allowed for statements on every aspect, and that we first take, without debate, the motion on the referendum and the people's ownership of water in this country.

Yes. Hear, hear.

This means that everyone would have an opportunity to speak.

I second that proposal. We now have a situation where we have an hour and three quarters-----

Resume your seat, please, Senator Norris.

-----as opposed to the original proposal of two and a half hours.

Does the Leader wish to make the proposal put forward by Senator Darragh O'Brien?

I will agree that it be taken without debate to get it out of the way.