I also welcome our distinguished visitor from New South Wales to the Chamber. He is welcome and I wish him well.

I thank the 23 Senators who spoke on the Order of Business.

With regard to the request to amend the Order of Business to discuss the motion on Seanad reform, I cannot accept the motion for a number of reasons which I have explained at length but will repeat for the benefit of the House. First, it would put the Cathaoirleach in a position where he would have to name the people to be appointed, which he cannot do. Second, it refers to 20 other Members of the Seanad, which is one third of the membership and twice the size of the committees currently being formed within the Houses of the Oireachtas. Third, the Senator is asking for a timeframe which is within two weeks of the Seanad being constituted and which has already expired. To be fair to Senator Conway-Walsh, I am sure she will understand my bona fides on this issue. I am not against Seanad reform. Yesterday, at the meeting of Leaders and Whips, a discussion took place with former Senators Maurice Manning and Joe O'Toole on the Manning report and how reform might be implemented. One may not agree with the content of their report but it provides a roadmap for the future. There will be a Second Stage debate in the House on Senator McDowell's Bill on 13 July. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be established, I hope, next week. We can use that committee to drive reform, if needs be, on how the House operates and how we do our business. I have tried, in an open and constructive way, to engage with Senators on all sides. I do not have anything to hide with regard to how I do my business and how this House does its business. I try to facilitate all sides. Sometimes one cannot get agreement on the sitting arrangement between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin, at other times one can do so. The overarching zeal for reform is a matter in respect of which I hope we can work together. I ask the Senator not to put her motion to a vote and divide the House because I do not want her to be seen to obstruct reform or to oppose Government reform at a time when we all want reform. I hope the Senator understands the spirit of my remarks.

In regard to the second amendment to the Order of Business, I ask Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh rather than divide the House to withdraw the amendment. I will endeavour to have the Minister come before the House today. Níor chuala mé an clár ar Raidió na Gaeltachta agus níl a fhios agam cad a bhí á plé. I think the Minister is agreeable to come to the House. Rather than divide the House, I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.

So the Leader is-----

If the Senator withdraws his amendment, I will arrange for the Minister to come to the House today. I will have the Minister in the House to discuss the specific issue of waste collection rather than have a motion on it.

As I understand it, an undertaking is being given by the Leader that he will have the Minister in the House today on the basis that the amendment is withdrawn.

I welcome that. What amount of time will be available and will there be speaking time for-----

I hope to have him for about an hour.

Will speaking time be allowed for group leaders?

That is my intention. It will be one per group. To be fair, we had a robust debate on the issue last week. In the spirit of new politics, the Leader is open to working with those on all sides. Nothing has changed regarding the waste industry since we had a debate on this matter in the House last week. The bill issued by Greyhound is very clear. I have one here but I cannot find it now. It is very clear. It asks people either to stay on their current payment plan or move to the pay-per-weight system. There is no movement in terms of fees or in terms of the amount. Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor was not being completely fair in the context of what she said because there is no change to what her party agreed in the Dáil when the matter was discussed or to what the Minister said here last week. There is a freeze. Greyhound has asked some people to choose if they wish to opt for the pay-by-weight system or stay with their existing plans. There is no change in the bill.

May I raise a point of order?

I am not taking a point of order.

Allow the Leader to continue.

I have a bill here. If we want to have new politics, let us have them but let us not go back to Punch and Judy.

I ask the Leader to continue without inviting debate.

The Leader is an open book but I will not take politics from people who will not work with new politics. In the spirit of new politics, the Minister will come to the House and we will have a discussion. As already stated, I have an open-door policy but I will not accept the old type policy of misleading people.

I thank the Leader.

On a point of order.

I ask the Senator not to invite debate. A point of order.

I am trying to be correct as regards the order of the House and the standing order. My understanding is that we are debating the Order of Business. The Order of Business as it has been laid before the House is to be changed because a Minister is to come before us.

As I understand it, the Leader has given that undertaking.

Therefore-----

My remarks allow for that.

I welcome that.