Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Feb 2009

Vol. 193 No. 9

Order of Business.

The Order of Business is No. 1, Gas (Amendment) Bill 2008 — Second Stage; and No. 2, statements on the report on EU scrutiny (No. 21) entitled Provision of Food Information to Consumers. It is proposed that No. 1 shall be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business; spokespersons may speak for ten minutes, all other Senators for seven minutes and Senators may share time, by leave of the House. No. 2 shall be taken on the conclusion of No. 1 and will conclude not later than 6.30 p.m. Spokespersons may speak for ten minutes, all other Senators for seven minutes and Senators may share time.

I will oppose the Order of Business if the Leader cannot arrange for the Government to send a representative, preferably the Minister for Finance, to the House to outline to us the Government's plans. I understand the Dáil is being briefed at 4 p.m. today and I would ask that the Seanad is also briefed today on the Government's plans, given the breakdown and failure of the social partnership talks last night. Agreement could not be reached and, as we know, the Taoiseach had put his faith and confidence in that strategy of working with the social partners which ended in failure last night.

It is a failure that has a significant consequence. We are all concerned about Ireland's standing internationally and the costs of borrowing internationally. Every day that we do not give out a message of confidence from this country, and a message that we are dealing with the €2 billion cuts that are required, is costing us €55 million, or €385 million a week. There is the possibility that the cost of borrowing will increase for this country if we do not give out a message that we are facing the issues head-on and making sound decisions. I ask the Leader that we are briefed today on the Government position on these issues.

Fine Gael has been making suggestions for a number of months. Again today, the Fine Gael leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, suggested that the Taoiseach would stop bypassing the Dáil and Seanad and come in to discuss how the €2 billion in cuts might be achieved. We have suggested that both these Houses should be used today to debate how these savings can be made. In particular, Fine Gael would say we need tough decisions but they need to be fair and equitable. We have stated we are prepared to work with the Government to arrive at these solutions. We have already called in recent months for the Government to take tough decisions. We have suggested various routes, all of which were ignored. I feel strongly that the people out there, particularly those in small businesses and those who are unemployed, need to see an action plan from the Government.

We have been saying this for a long time; this has been going on since last July. In September a pay agreement was introduced, in October the budget was introduced and now discussions with the social partners are taking place. There has been a very inconsistent and indecisive approach from the Government in recent of months and it is time for this to end. The people seek a plan and reassurance; they are very concerned. Will the Leader facilitate a discussion with a Minister today to discuss the €2 billion in cuts required? Fine Gael especially wishes to discuss how we can protect the most vulnerable and the people at the front line so that vital services are maintained. However, we recognise this is a crisis for the country and that everyone must play their part.

It is unfortunate that the talks involving the social partners did not reach a satisfactory conclusion last night. It is also important, as Senator Fitzgerald remarked, that we discuss this matter. I have put the suggestion to the Leader, who has some difficulty with it. We must recognise that there are 2 million in the workforce, 300,000 are unemployed and 300,000 working in the public sector. That leaves 1.3 million people working in the private sector. Most of those are not on high salaries, although probably half are. It does not matter whether they are up or down, there are certain things we must recognise.

The majority of the public sector earn less than €60,000 per year. The union leadership found itself in a situation last night where it was asked to propose to union members that money be taken from people earning €30,000, €40,000, €50,000 and upwards per year to pay the banks, which continue to be run by the same people who caused the problems in the first place and who earn multi-million dollar annual packages. This will lead to social and industrial unrest. No leadership could propose that with a straight face to any group of people. I ask my colleagues on the Government side of the House to consider what we witnessed with the medical card proposal and other proposals. That was simply a matinee performance compared with what will occur. We have already witnessed social and industrial unrest in Greece, Iceland and in France last week and it is increasing. People are ready to make a commitment and are ready to take the pain, but it must be equitable.

It is not only public servants who say as much. One can put the question to anyone in the street, asking their views on the way with which the banks have been dealt. We are taking our money and investing it in banks which are the cause of this problem and which are still being run by the same people. It simply is unacceptable. No matter what people try to convince themselves of, there is no way this will ever fly. I appeal to my colleagues on the Government side of the House to consider that point. That is the reality and it will not change. We must be very serious about this matter.

I seek an answer to one question. Let us consider a sum of money, whether it is €60,000, €70,000 or €80,000 per year. It does not matter where one begins, no one could argue that everyone earning above a given amount should be charged more, nor could anyone argue with public servants being asked to pay additionally for their pension. However, if one does not deal with these issues and only focuses on 300,000 people from a workforce of 2 million people, half of whom earn less than €60,000 per year, to try to pretend to solve a problem, which it will not, while the people who caused this problem are swanning around looking down at us and not paying the price, it just will not work and it will cause industrial and social chaos.

Will the Leader explain how the House can take itself seriously, or how it can have any self respect if there is no debate following the Taoiseach's remarks at 4 p.m? I appeal to the Leader to answer that question. How can the Parliament maintain any self respect if the Taoiseach's statement is not debated? Apparently the Leader will suggest that it is not entirely clear whether that statement will contain any substance. This is even more worrying. If the Taoiseach's statement contains nothing of substance, then he must get into his car and travel to the Phoenix Park. That is the only place for him if he has nothing to say to the people this afternoon. There has been months and months of inaction, despite the worsening news regarding the public finances, job losses, failure to put forward proposals and so on.

It amazes me that after so many months of inaction, the Government could think it then could turn around at dead of night in the middle of a blizzard and table proposals at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. and expect to resolve such massive issues. This constitutes taking people less than seriously in this entire discussion.

Members of the main party on the benches opposite always have prided themselves on being in touch with the people. Consequently, I presume they know what people are saying at present, which has gone far beyond people simply complaining about this or that decision by the Government. People are saying there is no Government, that no one is in charge and no one is making decisions. This is an extremely serious moment for Ireland, which I do not underestimate. Like Senator Fitzgerald, I certainly do not make light of it. It may surprise some Members on the Government benches that Members of the Opposition do not seek to grasp this opportunity to engage in political point scoring of the nature that could be seen from the parties on the Government benches when they were in opposition. This is a highly serious moment for our country and a debate is required in this House this afternoon. Even if a Minister is not available, Members should have the debate anyway, as Ministers have not contributed greatly to this debate in the past couple of weeks.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Members should have the debate this afternoon.

I will conclude by noting that the Government as a whole, including the Leader, should engage to some extent with the Opposition parties. The latter merely seek information and, as Opposition parties, do not seek necessarily to make the decisions because that is a matter for the Government. However, information should be provided to, and there should be engagement with, the Opposition parties. Moreover, there should be a little respect for the institutions of this House.

I was greatly concerned last weekend to hear a section of a debate that appears to have escaped under the radar at national level. It pertained to a decision taken by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to halt immediately the sports capital grants that have been so helpful to Irish sporting organisations since 1987. I note with interest that Senator Buttimer has decided to raise this matter on the Adjournment this evening and I look forward to the Minister's response. However, this issue deserves to have the Minister come before the House to explain how this decision was arrived at. The decision was taken to cease immediately one of the most successful sporting grant schemes, certainly in Europe, in recent years. All Members present could name ten or 15 projects in their localities that have benefited from it. Although the national lottery stated last year that its 2007 sales were the best since the lottery began, accumulating a figure of €245 million, out of all that income, not a single cent can be spent on Irish sporting organisations this year. This was a major decision taken by a Minister without reference to this House. I ask that the Minister appear before the House. Perhaps the decision is logical and perhaps he knows best but I would be extremely interested in hearing him explain that logic.

I join with Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole and Alex White in appealing to the Leader to have a debate today on both the economy and the talks with the social partners. Were the Leader to make a case for the abolition of the Seanad, by not having a debate, he would be doing so today. Members must be relevant and must have a voice on behalf of those who put them in here. By not having such a debate, Members are acquiescing in the Government's mishandling of events over the past six months. The Opposition has stated repeatedly that the process was wrong and that bypassing both Houses of the Oireachtas was a misstep and, unfortunately, this morning this view has been proven to be correct.

While I hope the Taoiseach has a plan to hand at 4 p.m. today, I greatly doubt it. Does he intend to re-engage with the social partners and what information is required? Where is it and why can Members not get it? Senators are democratically elected Members of this House and are here on the people's behalf. I appeal to the Leader to stop running, to take the bipartisanship that has been offered to him and to have the debate. He should consider the example of President Obama yesterday, who appealed to the Republican Party in the United States. Fine Gael appeals to the Leader, on behalf of the people, to put aside politics and to engage with it, because that party never has been found wanting regarding the economy, and Senator Fitzgerald has offered an olive branch to the Leader today. This issue is about people, mortgage holders, small businesses and public servants. It is also about the people in private industry who have been caught and were paid under the radar. Let us have a debate. If the Leader does not allow it, he should tell the House why. Do not give us spin.

Like others, I feel a debate on the economy is necessary. More than anything else, the attendance of a Minister during that debate would be necessary. I can understand why none might be available today, given that Ministers are reporting to the Dáil. I am delighted that a debate has been scheduled for later this week, as we must all take stock of where we are.

Given that the Taoiseach has invested much time and effort, listening to people saying he has done nothing is galling. It was a matter of months spent negotiating and in discussions. He made a decision on how he would proceed and tried to build a consensus because we would work better together. We in Ireland are insular and usually discuss only ourselves; we are inclined to forget that our international standing is equally valid. For this reason, the Taoiseach has invested much time and effort in the partnership process. It is regrettable that it did not work in terms of reaching an understanding of the importance of the requisite €2 billion in savings. All stakeholders in the economy would have taken responsibility for necessary decisions.

In another sense, failing to reach an agreement through the partnership process has advantages in that the supremacy to govern has been restored to politicians and to the political process. I listened to Senator O'Toole with interest. While I agree with many of his comments, given that his perspective must be dwelled on, we must remember that the union leaders who were in attendance had a vested interest. Last night, their vested interests were driven home. No one will criticise them for looking after their vested interests, but the Government must look after the national interests.

The Government had a vested interest.

As the unions believed they could carry the day, a deal could not be struck. I hope the Government reaches beyond union leaders and looks to the people.

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald to the effect that Members on all sides of the Houses should work together to do what is necessary. There is no doubt we should be concerned about the next generation. As someone who grew up during the tail end of the last recession, I know what this means. It is a sad day when young people do not enjoy the prospect of a job or future in this country. We must put the politics and sniping aside and consider what the nation can do to hold our international standing high, to benefit the country and to serve the long-term interests of everyone, including those in our profession.

I agree with Senator O'Malley in that there are vested interests, but that is why they were there. The trade unions are an interest group, as are the employers and the Government. I was impressed by the remarks of Mr. David Begg and other union leaders, namely, that their vested interests include a significant and superior vested interest in the welfare of the country. They are prepared to do a deal, but only one that can be sold.

There has been much bumbling and fumbling around in the dark. Some debates in the House have been without substance because nothing was placed before us to be properly debated. We were debating in a vacuum. It is nonsense. We need decisive action and the Government must bring the country behind us. It is a question of confidence. I am not an economist and I know little about these matters, but I listened to a commentator this morning say that a part of the borrowing problem is the way in which we are estimated internationally and that, unless clear action is taken, we may be downgraded. Germany is paying 3% on its borrowing. We are paying 5.5.%. That will get worse. This is clear, practical and tangible. We will pay more unless we can demonstrate that we have the capacity to address this problem seriously.

Can we examine the implications of a very interesting but rather sad report published yesterday? It was carried out by the Children's Research Centre in Trinity College Dublin and the School of Education at University College Dublin and concerned the mental health of young gay people. The material it confirms is shocking. I suspected it might be like this from my own experience. Some 80% of the wide variety of students interviewed by these two major universities experienced homophobic bullying in school. I cannot think of any other group that would experience this level of bullying. A total of 40% have been threatened with physical violence and 25% have actually been kicked, punched and beaten. I am part of that 25%. Would any other group tolerate this? This raises again the question of the appropriateness of the exemption of the churches from the operations of the Equality Agency because regrettably this prejudice comes from the churches.

The great poet, Seamus Heaney, launched Yeats festivities last week in Sligo. Unfortunately, however, a very important Yeatsian environment is being tampered with. Fort Louis is a house once owned by the Yeats family with which the young poet was familiar. On page 53 of his Autobiographies, he gives a charming account of sailing a toy boat on the little stream in front of the landscaped garden of his great-uncle’s house. Now the stream will be culverted, the trees removed and that aspect of our cultural heritage will be obliterated. While this is a matter for local decision, will the Leader be kind enough to draw this to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to see if something can be done to protect this place? The work is being undertaken only to prepare the way for some kind of ribbon development that probably is not necessary in Sligo.

I welcome the measured and positive response from the Opposition to the news about the economy. We should not ignore this but use it as a base on which to build not just for the coming weeks but also in the coming days. We should listen carefully to what was said here. While the social partners may not be on board formally, they are in spirit. It is quite clear in the contributions from the unions and the employers that they realise we need partnership. Their concern, which might be a matter of timing, is that they might find it difficult to avoid fragmentation within their own groups if they had to do the initial selling of it. This is a totally different situation from that which existed years ago and brought about industrial unrest. We must therefore be measured in what we say to make sure that we keep all the partners on board in the coming days.

This House has an important role to play in these discussions. The Leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Enda Kenny, said that he was prepared to lay aside other items which should be discussed today in order to focus fully on the economy. There will be certain parameters and time-scales to which it will be difficult to respond but all of that is a step in the right direction. Only with that type of united approach and respect for each person's opinion can we hope to make progress. The bottom line will have to be those who are most vulnerable in society. That includes those who are suffering because they have lost their jobs, those who cannot pay mortgages and so on. Whether we have to bring the banks into line regarding the repayment of mortgages, or whatever, everything must be part of a recovery plan. I think this will unfold in the next few days.

I support Senator Fitzgerald's amendment to the Order of Business. It is extraordinary that in both Houses, the Opposition is continuously calling——

I did not hear about any amendment to the Order of Business. Maybe Senator Regan supports her opposition to the Order of Business.

Yes, I am opposing the Order of Business. The Opposition has been calling for information on the economy, indications from the Government on its proposals, and some sense of direction on where we are going. The pleas of the Opposition have been rebuffed at every turn. We are asking today whether we can have a briefing on what is happening. My understanding is that the Leader is not prepared to accede to that. While the Opposition benches have been endeavouring to have constructive engagement on this issue, Ministers have given speeches which are full of platitudes and generalisations which have no relation to the problems at hand. It is very disappointing that this is the situation.

It appears that the Taoiseach's strategy on the social partnership talks has been ill-conceived from the beginning. Partnership has worked in a time of economic growth, where trade-offs exist and the goodies can be spread among the different sectoral interests. That is not the situation now. Senator O'Toole has explained the difficulties of the unions in selling a deal to their members, and I think these are the difficulties that exist. It is understandable that the unions should want the Government and the Taoiseach to make the decisions and lead from the front, rather than imposing the burden on them to sell a deal that is harsh for their members. However, that is the problem. We have spent all of this time, yet still we have no decisions.

I ask the Senator to put a question to the Leader.

The question is for the Leader. The Taoiseach's nerves may be shattered after the disastrous decisions that have been taken in the budget, be it on medical cards for the elderly and so on. However, I would have thought that the Taoiseach would have found his composure after the long recess and found an ability to take decisions. I hope that he will be in a position to do that this afternoon. The social partnership talks, and social partnership itself, have proven to be a straitjacket on decision-making by the Government. It is about time that the Taoiseach got the message.

I join the calls for statements on what the Taoiseach is going to announce, but at an appropriate time. There is ample opportunity for all of us to hear it at first hand in the Dáil, where matters like this should be first announced.

I also share the views of those who would like to see tolerance. Having fought in a number of constitutional campaigns, I am quite mindful that there are few things as intolerant as some of the Irish liberals. The very people who expect tolerance sometimes show little tolerance in their views and in their statements, in their direct attacks on the church and in their misrepresentation of people who have sincerely held views. Sometimes, those very sincere views are held by people who defend a person's right to have his or her view, but would disagree strongly with those views. That does not give a person a right to say that another person is homophobic if he or she follows the church's teaching, which includes caring for everybody, no matter what their views. If people in this House reflected on what they have said and how they have denigrated the church at times, they might stop and think how intolerant they are themselves.

I rise to ask the Leader again to arrange for the Minister for Health and Children to come into the House. I am concerned about the effect the national service plan will have on the HSE plans for reconfiguring maternity services. It seems there will have to be a minimum number of births per unit. It is suggested that this is necessary to ensure comprehensive and safe services for all patients. That suggestion is an insult to every midwife who is delivering care in this country and elsewhere in the world. One does not need a centre of excellence to have a baby, or to deliver a baby. One does not need to deliver a specified number of babies to be said to be proficient at delivering babies. It is a shocking insult to suggest that a person who delivers ten babies would not be as good at delivering babies if he or she was delivering just five babies. HSE officials need to start talking to the people on the ground who represent various constituencies throughout this country. We constantly hear about the "reconfiguration" and "transformation" of services. We are actually being told that services are being taken from us. The cutting of services is being presented to us as a fait accompli.

I will be parochial by referring in particular to Clonmel, which has had more than its fair share of torment in recent times. The people of the town have had to deal with floods and snow, etc. The relocation of breast services to Waterford was a welcome development. The decision will predominantly affect women. Under the new configuration of services, gynaecological services will be provided in the surgical ward that is being relocated to Waterford. It has been suggested that changes should be made to maternity services at a hospital that delivers 1,200 babies each year. Why is that the special number? Who makes such decisions? One does not need a centre of excellence to have a baby. The next thing we will be told is that we should only have sex in the city.

It is difficult to follow that remark, but I will try. There is too much water down around Clonmel. It has gone to your head, Senator Prendergast.

If Senators want to talk across the floor, there is plenty of room for them outside.

I support the calls for a debate on the terrible issues the country is facing. I understand that senior Ministers are not available when they are in the Dáil. I agree with Senators O'Malley and Hanafin — perhaps we should go to the other House to listen to what is said. Like everybody else, I heard at 6.30 a.m. this morning that the talks had failed. I almost had a seizure. We were all hanging on every last word in the hope that the talks would succeed. It is regrettable. Everybody was amazed and saddened that a better result was not achieved this morning. It annoys me, of course, to hear Opposition Senators saying the Taoiseach did nothing. I listened to "Morning Ireland" from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. this morning. Everyone who spoke on the programme who had been involved in the talks made it clear that the Taoiseach and others did great work to move forward the talks. I commend both sides — the Government and the people to whom the Government was talking — for working tirelessly to try to achieve a positive result. It has been suggested that the Government was wrong to introduce the pensions issue at such a late hour. The Government has been criticised for that. I am a novice — I do not know what goes on at talks of this nature — but I understand from people who are in the know on these matters that the talks in question were organised no differently from similar talks that took place in different times. I am glad that the social framework is still in place and that the unions are still willing to talk, particularly on other issues. It is regrettable that the current talks have fallen on this issue.

As Senator O'Malley said, Ireland's international reputation is being watched closely. Ireland's credit rating is hanging in the balance. When we are in this House and in the Lower Chamber, we tend to be very parochial. It would do none of us any harm to open our eyes and widen our horizons for the sake of the generations to come. Just because we are already on the ladder does not mean we should pull up that ladder after us.

I commend the Taoiseach and the others who worked hard for the past week to secure a solution. That solution is not yet achieved but they continue to work it out. It is stiff and cheap of the Opposition to seek to score political points particularly when it is not offering any alternatives.

We have not made any political points.

It Members of the Opposition are offering alternatives, those alternatives have no substance.

I sincerely hope the Leader will be amenable to our concerns and will not oblige us to oppose the Order of Business. Will he propose an amendment to the Order of Business as already announced by him? I agree with my colleagues on this side of the House who have spoken before me. I also liked what Senators Ó Murchú, O'Malley and Hanafin had to say. Will the Leader propose to adjourn the House to allow us to attend the Dáil Chamber for the announcement that is to be made at 4 p.m.? Later in the afternoon, whenever a Minister is available, I ask that the Leader allow a debate on the details of that announcement.

My colleagues and I have said repeatedly in this House that, like Members opposite, we are absolutely dedicated to a balanced and fair package. We accept the need for reform. We are all in this together, and we all have a vested interest in the future of our country. This announcement is of vital concern to our economy, as is the proposed recapitalisation package for the banks. We cannot afford drift in this regard or we may face disaster. Until the banking issue is resolved, there will be not be the confidence necessary to ensure we can return the economy to growth in the future.

There must be an equitable package. We on this side of the House are concerned by some of the information that has been leaked, but we do not know the accuracy of that information. I appeal to the Leader to allow for a brief adjournment, to be followed by a ministerial briefing and debate.

I now raise another issue of vital national importance.

Time is getting on.

I appreciate that and undertake to be brief. Reports this morning indicate that Eircom has a proposal to close down 129 telephone boxes in County Kerry. People living in coastal and mountain communities are dependent on these facilities. On a national basis, Eircom proposes to remove 2,151 telephone boxes. In the Black Valley and other locations throughout the State, there is no mobile telephone coverage.

The Senator should submit this issue for discussion on the Adjournment.

These facilities are vital to hill walkers and pony trekkers in those isolated communities. We have only until 16 March to make representations. I hope the Government will not allow this to happen as the tourist season approaches.

Like other Senators, I acknowledge and welcome the constructive contributions in this House on the current economic situation. We are facing the most difficult economic challenges any of us have seen in our lifetime. I am not sure whether we will emerge unscathed. I am not sure whether other countries, including the United States, which is the largest economy in the world, will be able to cope with these challenges. As a country with a small population and a great export dependency, we will rely on some degree of global recovery in order for our economy to be refloated.

In the meantime, there is a vital need for national consensus in order that decisions taken are measured, fair and supported wholeheartedly by everybody. I was asked to do an interview this morning on local radio during which I set out what I believe should happen. As I have been saying for some time, there must be significant reductions in pay, particularly in the public sector. A reduction in numbers is needed and we will be affected in a range of other areas. I was surprised when some working class people took the trouble to telephone me to say that needed to be said.

This is not palatable and no one involved in politics wants to promote such thoughts but if we fail to do it and fail to act together, the consequences for the next generation will be extraordinarily bad. We have challenges in banking and in fiscal policy and we had best not lose sight of the competitiveness loss which needs to be addressed. I hope we will all recognise it is in our interests to support the package of measures we will hear rolled out today, as unpalatable as it may be, and look upon it as only the second of probably five or six instalments that will be made in the next two to three years to try to redress the extremely difficult and challenging position we are in.

I support Senator Fitzgerald's call that we reject the Order of Business in its proposed form. I join in the appeal to the Leader to reconsider at this stage the proposal that we debate this issue to show the relevance of this House to the public and to ourselves. We are talking about a crisis and of a whole policy position having come unstuck over a number of months. We are now back to the drawing board. We on this side of the House will be constructive as always, but this issue merits debating. We have made specific proposals but the entire issue merits debating and there should be a reporting procedure to the Seanad. It would be very bad for the dual chamber concept if we do not achieve that before this evening. I appeal to the Leader to provide for that.

In the light of the current situation, will the Leader arrange as a matter of urgency for a day-long debate on the creation of jobs in the green energy sector? We should have had an incentivised national insulation programme in place long before now that would assist the construction industry. In conjunction with that, we should have energy assessors working throughout the country. Co-operative wind farms should be set up by farmers throughout the country——-

The Senator can raise that in such a debate if the Leader agrees to it.

The introduction of co-operative wind farms, similar to the introduction of the creamery system in the past, should be a pillar of the debate on this area. There should be a move from transport being powered by oil to it being powered by alternative sources such as electricity and gas.

In the context of such a debate that would address the opportunity to create green energy jobs, will the Leader provide for consideration of the schools building programme and the use of alternative energy in our schools? It is long past time that such a schools building programme was in place. This area presents a great opportunity for job creation. That opportunity has not been grasped and if it is not, we will simply muddle along for months. A day should be designated for such a debate and even if it involves an extra sitting on a Friday, what of it, given that this matter is critical. I appeal to the Leader to show the relevance of this House and to grasp the opportunity to address this matter.

It is welcome we in this House have suddenly and belatedly developed a sense of urgency about the economy, especially those on the Government side who for so long — this is a political Chamber where it is perfectly justifiable to make political points — fiddled around in talks that have come to nothing, brought us in to discuss matters in a vacuum and now suddenly realise we are in a crisis. The reason for this is because so much political capital on all political sides has been——-

Someone in the Chamber has a mobile phone switched on. I do not know who it is, but it should not be switched on. I have warned Members about that previously.

It is not mine, as I do not have one. A great deal of political capital has been sunk into Government by the permission of someone else. When one does not get the permission, one does not know what to do. I do not say that as someone who is critical of social partnership. What happened last night has been an incredible shock to the Government because it presumed, as did everyone else, that a deal was done last week and all that was going on was the usual window dressing. Now we have a situation where the Government is bankrupt of ideas and it will actually have to govern. It may be a blessing in disguise, but it is typical of the Government that it has done this and not merely on social partnership.

Government by negotiation is going on somewhere else. Somewhere in Dublin today, apparently, the banks and the Department of Finance are negotiating a deal to put €8 billion into the banks. Why the hell are they negotiating this? I cannot understand it. The Government has become so used to asking permission from somebody to govern that it asked permission of the unions to govern the finances of the economy and then it asked the banks for permission to give them €8 billion. What is going on? Why do they not just say to them that they are getting this money on the following conditions?

Senators

Hear, hear.

They are getting it on condition that the whole lot of them clear out, go for their tea and go somewhere else.

Senators

Hear, hear.

It is an extraordinary situation. I do not apologise for making political points because this Government is somehow paralysed. It is constantly taking the cowardly course and refusing to take unpopular or, sometimes, popular decisions on its own. I ask the Government to start governing, accept the mandate the people gave it nearly two years ago and get on with it for the sake of the country.

Senators Feeney and Norris quite rightly referred to international eyes looking at us. They said our credit rating is in danger and the cost of borrowing is rocketing. That is a well recognised danger and they are right. It is costing us millions every day because nobody has confidence in this Government. That is the situation. Let us look at the real scenario that faces us. If this goes on it will not be a matter of paying too much money, or of paying millions more every day. Nobody will lend to us. That is what will happen next. If the Government does not face that scenario it will be a real disaster. We will not be able to write the necessary cheques.

I welcome the offer today by the Opposition to help and to co-operate within the confines we currently face. That is to be welcomed.

Today was not the first day that happened.

Senator Ó Murchú struck the right tone in that regard. I disagree with Senator Ross's assertion that the Government is apologising for giving money to the banks. Senator Ross knows, as I do, that one cannot run an economy without an efficient and well-capitalised banking system. The Government has stabilised the banking system, which was not credible some months ago. We all saw how fragile it was, not only here but worldwide. I do not agree at all with Senator Ross's approach. He is anti-banking and he comes from a background——

He is not anti-banking.

He is anti-banking and he comes from a background of banking. He knows——

He is not at all anti-banking.

He knows what he is talking about——

(Interruptions).

No interruptions.

It is his principle.

He is just telling the truth.

Questions to the Leader and no interruptions from the other side, please.

I shall move on from the banking situation and say to the Leader that I agree with Senator O'Reilly.

The Senator is in trouble. He should withdraw that.

If Members wish to stay in the Chamber they should stay quiet and allow one speaker.

Before Christmas, we put forward the document, Building Ireland's Smart Economy. Part of that document concerns the energy rating of houses and energy efficiency within houses. I got that motion passed within the parliamentary party before Christmas. It is now a question of putting some money behind the proposal. There is potential for substantial job creation in that area, with the possibility of 25,000 to 30,000 jobs. It is vitally important. We heard an architect talking this morning on "Today with Pat Kenny". From the Government's point of view this could be a self-financing project.

I welcome Fine Gael's proposal today and we should seriously consider going into the Dáil to listen to what the Taoiseach has to say at 4 p.m. A reasonable approach would be to suspend the Seanad at 4 p.m. and have a serious debate on the economy. While we had debates on the economy before, I would like to see a more——

Time is almost up and the point is made.

Stop him, a Chathaoirligh.

Please, a Chathaoirligh.

I will finish by saying it is important we examine where the economy can create jobs. Although there is a downturn in certain sectors, there are areas where we can inflate and rejuvenate the economy. We should examine that. Some 25,000 to 30,000 jobs equate to three, four or five Dells. It is important we examine where we can create jobs.

Last week I raised the underfunding and insolvency of some private pension funds, with particular reference to Waterford Crystal. Little did I know the receiver would go in a couple of days afterwards, close the doors and sack 600 people without any prior consultation with the workers or their union. Negotiations are going on with two companies, Clarion and KPS, about purchasing the company. I hope one of them will purchase the company. Whichever one does, it is essential that crystal manufacturing will be maintained in Waterford and that the visitor centre, which attracts more than 300,000 tourists per year into Waterford and the region, will be maintained.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Businesses, and the tourism industry in particular, will suffer severely if anything happens to that visitor centre. The resolution to that cannot be found until the pensions situation is rectified, and it must be rectified. Yesterday I spoke to a man who had worked in the company and paid his contributions for 44 years, and has been told he will not get a penny of a pension. That is wrong.

Senators

Hear, hear.

That would not happen in a banana republic. Something will have to be done. There will have to be some inquiry to find out what went wrong with those pension funds and how it can be rectified. Anybody working and paying into a pension fund for so long is entitled to some pension. That should not be tolerated. The national pension fund is being raided to bail out the banks and we cannot leave people like that man, and many more of them in that situation, without a penny after paying their contributions. That is unjust and cannot be tolerated in this country. I call for an inquiry into the matter.

I also call for a jobs task force for Waterford. Not alone did we have last week's situation with Waterford Crystal, at Bausch & Lomb 1,400 people will work three weeks in every four and will take August off at their own expense, an effective cut of more than 25% in their wages. We have had jobs haemorrhaging from Waterford in the past six or eight months. That region and city needs and demands support from the Government. We expect the Government will give support and I call for that jobs task force to be established and for the situation regarding pensions at Waterford Crystal to be dealt with now.

I raise the issue Senator Cummins raised. Workers who have worked at Waterford Crystal for many years and paid into a pension scheme over a long number of years find themselves with no pension provision. Last week I asked the Leader that we examine the whole area of defined benefit pensions across the country because there will be other companies in a similar position to Waterford Crystal. The Leader said he would consider having a debate this week. I ask him to have that discussion at the earliest possible opportunity. There is more than ample opportunity to have it this week and it would be fitting to do so.

I share the concerns of Senator Cummins. It is shocking that the workers in Waterford Crystal have been forced into the situation they are now in. They are trying to work voluntarily to keep the kilns lit, so to speak, in the premises so that the factory can be sustained into the future. They have taken some action in this regard. Today they were in the Dublin offices of Deloitte & Touche, which is the receiver for the company, seeking some clarification on the current position.

It strikes me that a number of leading business people believe there is a future for Waterford Crystal. They are prepared to take on that task and we should be trying to encourage that so we can maintain as many jobs as possible in that business.

I share the sentiments of Senator Fitzgerald and others and, in particular, Senator Ross, on social partnership. I am a bit shocked myself at the sense of disbelief from the Government benches about the collapse of the social partnership talks last night. There has always been a strong possibility that agreement would not be reached and that the Government would need to have some sort of fallback position. I presume we are to be told that position at 4 p.m. today. It is striking that we have been left in a vacuum over recent months. That is the point the Opposition is trying to get across. I welcome the sense from most speakers on the Government side in the House today that they are at least listening to what the Opposition has to say.

Senator Ross was treading on thin ice with some of his comments, as he could have been accused by some Fianna Fáil backbenchers of treason or talking the country down. I say this based on the remarks some of them made last week when my party leader made a number of pronouncements in Brussels, which were sadly true. The financial community across the world is looking at Ireland——

The Senator's point is made. These are questions to the Leader.

——and is looking for leadership from the Irish Government. We are paying penal rates of interest in international markets because we have had a distinct lack of leadership for the past 18 months. It seems it is only now that the gravity of the situation is dawning on the Government.

I urge the Leader, even if we have to extend the business of the House this evening, to have a discussion on what the Government is proposing at 4 p.m. in the other House. If we are to be relevant we should do this. I said last week that the original idea of the Seanad was a form of social partnership, with the vocational panels representing the various interests of the community. We should use the forum of this House to have this debate today.

Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole, Alex White, Cannon, Buttimer, O'Malley, Norris, Ó Murchú, Regan, Hanafin, Feeney, Coghlan, Walsh, O'Reilly, Ross, Buttimer, Cummins and John Paul Phelan — I think that is 20 Senators, which is one third of the membership of the House — all expressed their views regarding the social partnership talks and the disappointment we all experienced this morning. It is a serious challenge to the Government and the country.

Let me first put the record straight with regard to our commitment to discussing the economy in this House. The economy was discussed this day two weeks ago, on 20 January, when special legislation was introduced.

In the absence of any information.

A long and lengthy debate on the economy took place last week in the House.

An empty discussion.

A framework document was published in The Irish Times the next day.

What about the framework document?

The Leader to reply on the Order of Business. Everybody had an opportunity to speak.

It is very unhealthy when leaders start interrupting leaders. I am proposing to the House——

I have to put it on the record that the framework document was published.

I am responding——

I ask the Leader to answer the question. Why can we not have a debate on the fundamental question?

The Leader to reply to the Order of Business.

Give us the answer.

It was published in The Irish Times.

I am responding to the call that was——

Give us the answer.

If there was room on this side of the House the Senator would have been over here long ago.

What does that mean?

I am responding to the call that was made today, and I am now informing the House that I intend to propose——

Surely he is not allowed to abuse Members in such a fashion.

——an all-day sitting next Thursday to discuss the economy, the recapitalisation of the banks, which Senator Ross mentioned and which is urgently needed, and, as has been mentioned by some Senators, the credit rating of the country, Ireland plc. I will allow as much time on Thursday as leaders require of me for Senators on all sides of the House to make their views known with the Minister present. I am putting the record straight on this.

I listened attentively this morning, as did all Senators, to those representing the various walks of life at the social partnership talks. I do not want to mention anyone who is not in the House, but I have the utmost respect for David Begg. The people of Ireland have his trust 100%. This morning it was stated that for a reduction in wages of about €10 per week, which is about three pints of Guinness — I would not know because I do not drink——

A Senator

Two pints of Guinness.

Maybe two in some places. We are talking about a reduction of €10 a week. This was a serious problem at the talks for the lower paid in the public service. They will benefit from their pensions to the extent of 40/80 of their salaries, which is 50%, and it is index linked for the rest of their lives. It is only very young people, I understand — a small percentage — who are affected by this proposal. Everyone in the country wants corrective measures taken today. Everyone in the responsible media has been pontificating on this over recent months.

The Taoiseach now has a fair idea of the extent to which certain activities were going on in the banking sector over many years — indeed, it seems now, even more than many years. Now that everything has come to light and the Government has its directors in place in the various banks, the fight back can start. The corrective measures needed will now be put in place, and I hope this day, the feast day of St. Blaise, will be remembered as the day on which we began our comeback on behalf of the future generations of Ireland. It is in that regard that I am making the proposal to the House that next Thursday, all day and late into the evening if required——

The Senator's throat was blessed.

He has a hard neck.

——will be left aside for Members to make long and lengthy contributions, as they have been calling for.

Senator Cannon asked for an urgent debate on the sports capital grant. I am acceding to that request and will endeavour to have the Minister make space in his diary so he can attend.

On a point of order, on the basis of the Leader's remark, can I ask him whether the Minister will be in the House for tonight's Adjournment debate on this matter. If not, why not?

That is not a point of order.

I offer my congratulations, on behalf of Senator O'Toole and all Senators, including the Cathaoirleach, to the Gaelic Athletic Association on its 125th anniversary. I had the pleasure of attending the celebrations in Croke Park, and how proud I was to be an Irish person and a member of an organisation that has done so much over that length of time, through voluntary contributions, to bring together everyone on the island. It really was a credit to the association. On the matter of the sports capital grant allocation, I also offer my congratulations to Rory McIlroy, who is an example to every young person in the world, on his outstanding achievements in Dubai on Sunday.

Could I ask the Leader to reply to my point of order, a Chathaoirligh? I have a matter on the Adjournment and I would like to know whether the Minister will be in the House, and if not, why not.

The matter on the Adjournment will be replied to later this evening.

Senator Norris called for a debate on the research which was published yesterday regarding mental health among young gay people. I have no difficulty in allowing this to take place.

The Senator also spoke about the Yeats house in Sligo. I will convey his views to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. "Ben Bulben of Sligo majestic you stand to welcome me back from my travels" — what a contribution Yeats has made. He is respected throughout the world.

Senator Hanafin spoke about his and other Members' strongly held views on the church's teaching and the contribution of the church. I join him in those remarks and will convey his views to the Minister after the Order of Business.

Senator Prendergast sought an urgent debate on the Health Service Executive's current proposals and plans for maternity services. I have no difficulty with arranging for a debate on this issue.

I will convey Senator Coghlan's views on the matter he raised regarding Eircom telephone boxes for the people in Kerry. Perhaps the Senator should speak to his leader about using Fine Gael's Private Members' time to discuss that issue.

Senator O'Reilly and Senator Butler called for a debate on the positive steps that can be taken for job creation in the context of green issues. Senator Butler has outlined a lengthy proposal to the House for the creation of between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs. It would not cost the State anything but it could gain a great deal from it. I congratulate the Senator. I heard the proposal aired on the "Today with Pat Kenny" show this morning. It shows that a good proposal from a Member of the Oireachtas that is put before their parliamentary party and particularly before the Houses can be very meaningful. Senator Butler's proposal has great merit and deserves congratulations. I hope the Government takes it on board and makes it a reality.

Senator Cummins and Senator John Paul Phelan outlined the dreadful plight of the Waterford Crystal workers. I doubt that any other Irish company, aside from perhaps Baileys and Guinness, has made such an impact by becoming a world renowned brand. In many of the prestigious events in the sporting world, for example, the trophy awarded is generally by Waterford Crystal.

If someone pays their contributions over a lifetime, it is immoral if they are not entitled to have those contributions honoured. I will certainly allocate as much time as necessary next week to have this issue and the plight of the people who paid their pension contributions discussed. The workers have been paying these contributions over generations. As Senator Cummins said, one of the workers has been paying his contributions for more than 40 years and has been told that he might not be able to enjoy the benefits of those contributions. That is not good enough. I will consult the Senator after the Order of Business to arrange how we can make this debate happen next week.

Question put: "That the Order of Business be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 18.

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • de Búrca, Déirdre.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Prendergast, Phil.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Labhrás Ó Murchú and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Joe O’Reilly.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share