The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re accreditation of forensic service providers and decision on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; and No. 2, National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 – Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 1, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 25 minutes, those of all other Senators not to exceed 12 minutes and on which Senators may share time. The business of the House will be interrupted between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. and between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m.
Order of Business.
As I watched the Taoiseach speak yesterday about public sector reform, I was reminded of St. Augustine's comment, "Please God, make me good, but not just yet". It seems the Taoiseach is extending that quotation to public sector reform, "Please God, give me public sector reform, but not just yet". On hearing his comments yesterday and over the weekend on public sector reform one would have thought he was a disinterested observer in the process, not the Head of Government for nearly two years, not the Minister for Finance for a number of years, not the person in charge of the lead Department which should have been leading on the issue of public sector reform and not someone who had been in government for many years. He almost created the illusion yesterday that he had inherited a dysfunctional system when what he really did was to create and fuel that system.
There are several examples I would quote, including that of the HSE, where Cabinet clearly took a decision and has presided over a dysfunctional health system since the HSE was created. The Taoiseach was in Government when he signed off on benchmarking without linking it to productivity. Money was pumped into FÁS without anyone asking how it was being spent and without any proper monitoring or evaluation during the period. He also presided over golden handshakes. This is his record on public sector reform. We are still waiting to hear in this House about the report on public sector reform which he published just over a year ago. We have not had any reports in this House on public sector reform or on actions that have been taken during his tenure, which is a key point. The people we see marching are being asked to reform in their jobs yet we are not seeing the leadership on public sector reform which is so badly needed and which Fine Gael has been speaking out about for many years.
I welcome that the NAMA legislation will come to the House this week. However, when one considers how it has been handled in the Dáil and will be dealt with in its rushed couple of days in the Seanad, if any private business ran its affairs in that way, it would not survive. It is not a way to do business. Nevertheless, I hope we can have a positive and constructive debate on NAMA during the next few days in the House. I ask, as have quite a number of Senators across the House, that we have a debate on some of the key components which will be discussed in social partnership as well as on the Commission on Taxation, the McCarthy report and the general direction the budget needs to take.
Unlike my esteemed colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, I welcome the Taoiseach's statement over the weekend. It was called for, measured and people listened and paid attention to it. He has got himself into the driving seat to ensure he will push and deliver on public sector reform. It was an important statement and one that now allows him to follow his own agenda and the wider agenda, in that there are issues the Government is looking for and which it is clear about it. The Government says it wants this done in three years and that it wants a reduction in social welfare, in public services and in public sector pay. The ICTU is talking about extending that period and is calling for tax hikes for those earning above a certain amount, and it is also talking about public sector reform.
I believe the Taoiseach is in a very strong position to deliver and no one can resist that delivery at this stage. I also believe that if he moves on some of the issues that his critics have put forward, this will allow him to make progress on every one of the issues I mentioned. This is the reality that people recognise. As I said previously, there is a certain amount of synchronisation of strategies at present but it takes a period of time to get everybody singing off the same hymn sheet.
The Leader may listen again to the point made by Senator Fitzgerald, as well as by Senators Bradford, MacSharry and myself, and made at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in recent times, namely, that we should have a reflection of the national partnership talks in the House. We should have into the House a representative from IBEC, from the ICTU and perhaps from the Government to put forward their point of view so that we can respond to it. That is a very good idea because it forces everybody to respond to all the issues. It kills this polarisation where everybody can stand up and make their own speech and give their own point of view and not have to engage with the opposing argument. It would be helpful to the operation of this House if people were forced to respond to all the argumentation from all sides.
I am afraid it is not credible to say that by his statement at the weekend the Taoiseach has got himself into the driving seat. The Taoiseach has been in the driving seat for 18 months in this country.
Longer.
Prior to that, he was in the seat beside the driver as he was in the Department of Finance for an extended period. I am not prepared to go along with the notion that the Taoiseach now has credibility on public sector reform. He just does not have that credibility. There is a cabinet sub-committee that is supposed to be meeting on this issue for the last year and a half, but the Taoiseach could not even answer the question yesterday on whether that committee had met. I understood from his response that it has not met. It is no use saying the Taoiseach has now put himself into the driving seat. The Taoiseach has had every opportunity for 18 months and more to address these issues, but he has failed to do so, along with his Government.
It is perfectly legitimate for people to criticise the public service and to call for reform, as I have. The problem is that the debate has become suffused with anecdote, prejudice and worse. Everybody has their story about the public service and what should happen. However, the Government gets to do more than what we get to do, which is to come in here and call for things to happen. It is ludicrous for RTE to report the Taoiseach as "calling" for public service reform. That is what we do in here. We call for things but unfortunately we have little or no power to deliver them. The Taoiseach does not get to call for things. He gets to do things. That is why he is the Taoiseach.
We should forget about calling for things and expressing wishes. Let us have a balanced review of the problems that exist and of the issues in the public service that require reform. That can be done in a relatively short period. Let us then have some action on the issue. People who are marching on the streets are being told they are the problem, but they are not the problem. Cuts do not amount to reform. If people are serious about reform, let us have a balanced assessment on what needs to be done and then let us have some action.
I commend the Leader for calling the meeting today. It deals with this in a cool, calm way, instead of having all-night sessions. Going through this vitally important Bill shows the benefit of having the Senate.
I will not mention names, because the case is before the courts, but I commend the proprietor and those involved in recent events in Dublin. They were very courageous.
I call on the Leader to encourage the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to bring in a new Bill on tiger kidnapping, which he announced yesterday in the Irish Mail on Sunday. He has decided to bring forward a Bill which will result in life imprisonment for those involved in tiger kidnapping. It is a reprehensible crime to hold families of bank officials hostage and to demand a kidnapping fund. The Leader should indicate to the Minister that this House would take that Bill very quickly for him before Christmas. It is an urgent Bill and if we have to meet on Friday or Monday to debate it, we should do so.
We are discussing the National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 today and information that is essential to have a proper debate on this Bill should be provided by the Minister for Finance. We are essentially adopting a framework decision with this Bill, but it all operates within the EU state aid guidelines. Those guidelines provide that aid given to financial institutions is either repaid or there is a restructuring process. That is the phase we are in.
Where are we in respect of the approval of the business plan and the extent to which the Government is subsidising the financial institutions?
What is our position on the European Commission? Commissioner Neelie Kroes indicated that while NAMA was moving in the right direction in principle, she wished to see the details. Has the Commission approved NAMA? While Members have been led to believe it has, my inquiries have revealed no such approval. It is all subject to the examination of the detailed restructuring plans of the banks and the submission of the business plan by the Government. Moreover, the guidelines provide that no state aid be given for non-viable institutions. Is there a reasonable prospect that the Commission might approve further aid to Anglo Irish Bank which, given the extent of its indebtedness, does not have a viable future?
I seek clarification as a preliminary step towards having a reasonable debate on the Bill. There is a suggestion that a surtax, rather than a levy, will be imposed on the banks. Ireland has fought long and hard to protect its corporation tax rate of 12.5% which was the subject of discussion in the Lisbon treaty referendum debate. Is varying the rate either realistic or permissible under European Union rules? It gives opponents the opportunity to call into question a single rate of corporation tax. I believe a surtax is not a realistic prospect.
I thank the Senator.
Therefore, the issue of recovering funds from the banks for the subsidisation given——
I call Senator Ross.
——in the context of NAMA is not dealt with in the Bill.
I wish to address a peripheral matter. I was absolutely staggered when I read in yesterday and today's newspapers that after its stand-off with the Minister for Finance, Allied Irish Banks was about to appoint an insider as its executive chairman. Of all lessons to be learned, I would have thought the banks and the Minister had learned that the single thing one did not want was an insider as executive chairman. Apparently, he is to be appointed for what has been called an interim period of at least one year. One of the problems with the banking system in Ireland has been that too many banks have fallen into the hands of one person with too much power. However, following a stand-off, AIB is going to commit exactly the same folly as other banks in Ireland. This is even more astonishing when one realises this is utterly contrary to all the best rules of corporate governance, one of which is that one should not have an executive chairman and that one should separate the two powers. It appears that this so-called compromise, which obviously is being well spun this time by the Department of Finance, not by the banks, in fact consists of the Government giving in again to the banks.
Hear, hear.
It is absolutely extraordinary that this proposal could be indulged. Moreover, the lack of opposition and the manner in which it is being reported obviously reveal a situation where the Government is surrendering again. It did so with Bank of Ireland and Anglo Irish Bank and is now doing so with AIB. I appeal to the Minister not to present this as a compromise, as it is not. Were this appointment to be made, the retrenchment by the banks would be almost complete. This constitutes the appointment of an insider with too much power and is an indication that the Minister's fight to remove the people at the top which was a great victory for him at the time as he removed ten out of 12 of them has now been turned around and the banks have scored a major victory over him.
I ask the Leader to make reference today to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. While I am conscious that success has many fathers, it is important to put in context what happened at the time. The fall of the wall was the result of a convergence of facts. First, the system that operated behind the wall was corrupt and inefficient. Second, people came together at the time. I have in mind a cardinal from Poland who spoke out strongly about people's rights, including their social and religious rights. That cardinal was Karol Wojtyla who subsequently became Pope John Paul II. The Solidarity Movement took strength from this and began to agitate and seek better conditions. On previous occasions in Hungary and what was then Czechoslovakia the Soviet Union tanks had moved in but on this occasion the Pope said that if they did, he would stand with the Solidarity Movement. It was a major change in Europe. When millions of people came out in support of the movement and Pope John Paul, the good people in the West, including the then US President, Mr. Ronald Reagan, called strongly for the wall to fall. The climate was right and everything converged for it to fall. We now have a new Europe, Germany and Russia and a better world as a consequence.
I join Senator Ross in asking for a debate on the impending banking appointment in AIB. We seem to have learned nothing and it is symptomatic of the Government's malaise. The appointment of an insider sends a wrong signal to ordinary people that the banking system has learned nothing and that it is business as usual. If this is what the Government wants to happen, it should go ahead and make the appointment. However, if it is serious about reform, we should have a real debate on the matter.
I join Senator Fitzgerald in raising the issue of public sector reform. If the Taoiseach is in the driving seat, why have we not seen public sector reform to date? It is a little like "Driving Miss Daisy" in that he is giving orders from the back seat and telling people what to do when he should be driving reform, but he is not doing so. I note this morning the silence of the Green Party which, when in opposition seven years ago and recently before entering government, was calling for real reform. Suddenly it has become silent.
Will the Leader invite the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to the House? This morning in the Irish Examiner and other newspapers we read that 1 million people are facing Christmas without the Christmas bonus. They are really feeling the pinch of the recession. They did not have bank shares, invest in mad property developments or have a relationship with developers or bankers. These are the ordinary plain people of Cork, Westmeath, Kerry and elsewhere and are now suddenly on the edge, faced with a choice as to what to buy for Christmas or every week. They ask whether they should buy groceries or pay off part of the gas bill. The Green Party wants to introduce a carbon tax at a time when fuel prices are escalating.
Fine Gael supports a carbon tax.
I accept that. At a time when the cost of fuel is increasing, we should be looking after the elderly, not penalising them further. I, therefore, want a debate on social welfare payments. Does the Leader agree with Deputy Enda Kenny who said he would not touch child benefit? Does he agree the Government should not cut it?
Does the Senator agree with Deputy Kenny on getting rid of the Seanad?
I call Senator Callely.
That is more like it.
My views on the Seanad are well known.
There are to be no interruptions, please.
In the light of what has been said, it is important to wish the Taoiseach well in his endeavours and determination to address public service reform and associated issues such as the public service pay bill. Those who have been listening will have heard him set out his stall. I wish him well, especially in the next fortnight.
Where was he for 12 years in government?
Senator Buttimer should not interrupt. He was not interrupted.
I was, twice or three times.
Senator Callely interrupted no one.
I endorse what Senator Hanafin said about European history, particularly in the past 20 years. I congratulate our national news network, RTE, on its piece on European history in the past 20 years. It is presented by Tony Connolly and we enjoy it every day on "RTÉ News: Nine O'Clock". It is worth anybody's while to watch it and the research and broadcasting are excellent.
There has been much debate on our financial institutions and banks in the past 12 to 24 months. I have taken up an issue with the banking chiefs. When one walks into a financial institution, one sees a great deal of advertisements for mortgages and car loans. The institution claims that it is in business for those reasons. I have asked the bank chiefs to make something that is currently lacking available to the public, namely, the code of conduct introduced on the recommendation of the Minister for Finance and the regulator. The code is not visible in the banking institutions. Will the Leader contact the Minister and the banks to determine what progress can be made to improve that situation, thereby ensuring people are fully aware of what codes apply?
Senator Ross and others have expressed well their opinion that appointees to the banks should be external. However, not everyone signs up to this view. Some people with a considerable amount of wisdom, knowledge and experience should not be discriminated against because they have worked the system well.
Time Senator, please.
They have been good to the system and the financial institutions. They should not be disbarred from appointments just because they have come through the system.
I add my voice to that of others who have been critical of the way in which today's debate on NAMA has been organised. Perhaps "organised" is the wrong word. While I am glad we are debating it and I look forward to contributing, we need a debate on the way in which business is ordered in the House. There is an aura of machismo about the way in which——
Speak to the Labour group's leader.
I speak with him all of the time.
The Leader is heckling.
No interruptions.
After 30 years, he has learned to heckle.
He is learning from Senator Buttimer at last.
If heckling is to continue, there is a lot of room outside and I will ask people to leave.
I am simply making a comment on the necessity to debate the way in which the House's business is being handled.
Hear, hear.
We have been waiting for months to debate NAMA and it has finally arrived. This is a matter for the Government and the leader of Fianna Fáil in this House and no one else. He is the person who determines the way in which business is conducted. Therefore, he is responsible for late night sittings. Is this a necessary or efficient way to run a business? Senator Fitzgerald pointed out that no private business would be run this way. In private business, there is a recognised problem called presenteeism, in which employees believe they need to be present for all hours of the day and night to show how diligent they are. This leads to the opposite of greater productivity, as it can have a negative effect on morale. I am looking forward to contributing to the debate on NAMA, but we must examine the way in which it has been ordered and whether it is necessary or efficient to conduct our business in this way.
I seek a debate on the use of imprisonment in light of today's reports that the number of people jailed this year for not paying fines is set to double to 4,000. On average, they are jailed for short periods of, for example, 24 hours. They should not be sent to prison and we need to consider alternatives. Where someone is not paying a fine, he or she should be entitled to do community service. I am conscious that legislation has been prepared in this regard and will be before us soon. In the meantime, nearly 1,900 people have been jailed for the non-payment of fines this year. This is a scandal, particularly given that others in the banking sector are acting with impunity. On Friday, I marched with the 70,000 people in Dublin who were looking for a better way. We owe it to them to try to clean up the mess in the prison system.
I am glad to follow directly after my colleague and friend, Senator Bacik. This is precisely the issue that I wished to raise. I wish to ask the Leader two questions. Before the close of business, can he indicate when the Fines and Civil Partnership Bills will be introduced? Both matters were first raised by me in the House. Five years ago, I tabled the Civil Partnership Bill 2004. I understand the 2009 Bill will be introduced this month, but can we have a specific date this time? The Leader always says he will let us know by the end of the day, but we never get the information. I would like it today.
Regarding the Fines Bill, Senator Bacik is right. Since 2006, the number has quadrupled. To keep someone in jail for a month costs €2,000. This year, 4,000 people will be jailed. A year ago I attempted to amend the Broadcasting Bill to consider one aspect of it, namely, the fact that people were put in jail for non-payment of fines and television licences. I instanced a case in Cork where a woman was taken away from her four children for non-payment of her television licence. In the current economic climate there is very little that people can do. That is immoral, wasteful and unjustifiable. For two years the Government has been served notice by this House, in the same way that it was served notice five years ago about civil partnership, and we are still waiting for that. Will the Leader explain why, in the light of the leading part this House played in those two issues, the legislation is being introduced in the other House? We have had statements for the past couple of weeks, making a nonsense out of things. Why did we not get those two pieces of legislation into this House?
I am struck by the number of my colleagues who have referred to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and have called for a debate on particular aspects of that. The history of that period merits a brief examination for a simple reason, namely, the fact that the so-called shock therapy that was visited upon many of the countries that left the Soviet way of managing the economy is exactly the kind of shock therapy that is now proposed for this economy. Let us consider the measures that hit many of the former eastern European Soviet countries in the early 1990s and into the end of the previous century, such as radically reducing public expenditure and very big increases in taxation. They are exactly the kind of measures that are facing this country now.
A study of the history of that period shows the huge challenge that was posed at that stage by those measures to democracies that were struggling to get on their feet. Thank God we have a far prouder and far stronger democratic heritage and foundation in this country. However, I believe the challenges that are ahead of us, which politicians from all parties will have to confront, are going to test the fibre of our democracy in the way that those new countries were tested.
I wish to make one practical suggestion on that front, namely, that at a time when we will see wages dropping and taxes going up, the one thing the Government can do to aid people in coping is to make things cheap in this country by bringing down the cost of groceries, Government services and services that are regulated by the Government. I am struck by the fact that this afternoon we will begin debating a Bill that includes a provision on the expenditure of €240 million every year on professional fees and services. That is a sign for me that we do not recognise what can be done. I again seek a debate on what can be done to tackle the high cost of living because the importance of that issue will only increase in the future.
The bringing down of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago is a reminder to us of how dependent we in the west of Europe are on Russia and Russian oil. I mention that because of the concerns we have about energy. It will be announced today that Britain is now planning to build a number of new nuclear power stations. That gives rise to all sorts of tremors and concerns in everyone who hears it. On the list of non-Government motions, we have tabled No. 16 on the basis that at least we should not have a closed mind on nuclear energy. We should at least include such a motion and debate it on that basis.
Britain receives 30% of its energy and France receives 80% of its energy from nuclear power. They have no concern, or very little concern, about what happens if a different wall, a commercial one, goes up between Russia and western Europe because they already have that source of energy. I know we should investigate the possibility of wind energy but if one looks out today one can see that there is no wind and if we were dependent solely on wind energy we would not be able to rely on it. Senator Norris and I have had this motion on the Order Paper for some time and we should at least consider such a debate. Let us ensure we have it soon.
Over the weekend I attended the annual Retail Excellence Ireland awards in Kilkenny. The lack of recognition given to retailing was impressed upon me. There are 280,000 people employed in retailing, not just grocery retailing but all retailing. The two State bodies, the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority, that take an interest in this area are due to be amalgamated. They have different views on the code of conduct being proposed for retailing. It is a reminder for those who are in favour of reducing the number of quangos and State bodies that where two State bodies are amalgamated and have opposite views on an issue, we must take those views into account when we amalgamate them. Even if we are fully in favour of amalgamation, let us recognise the benefit of these bodies in an area such as retailing, where there are 280,000 employees and the possibility of being able to reduce costs in a competitive marketplace.
Three weeks ago when I raised the Multi-Unit Developments Bill and the Property Services (Regulation) Bill, the Leader said they were with the Office of the Attorney General. I thank him for clarifying that at the time but as three weeks have passed, could he make further inquiries about those Bills so they can be brought to the House as soon as possible?
Like other Senators, I congratulate the people of Germany on the 20th anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall. I spent some time in Berlin in the 1980s and crossed the wall at Checkpoint Charlie. I was struck by the stark differences between the lives of people living in west Berlin and those living in east Berlin. In 1988, I asked some Germans if they thought they would ever see the wall being taken down and the eventual reunification of the country. They were clearly of the view that it would not happen in their lifetimes. The fact that it did is due to the great and brave work of many people, some of whom were mentioned in the House this morning. I wish to emphasise two in particular, Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev. Without the latter's policy of perestroika and glasnost in the early 1980s, this could never have happened. It is thanks to him, people like him and the countless thousands of others who applied pressure that Germany is a safer and better place, as is Europe and the rest of the world.
I do not care how belated the Taoiseach's conversion to reform of the public sector is as long as he continues his hard focus on the immediate need for reform of public pay. Reform of the public sector is a woolly type of concept. There are two aspects to reform of the public sector. At present, there is a need to address public sector pay to secure savings of €1.3 billion. Beyond that there is the wider question of reform of the public sector, which, incidentally, will benefit the public sector as much as any other sector of the community. Thousands of public sector workers are annoyed and frustrated by the time serving of other colleagues. There should be productivity and rewards for good public servants because we need a good public service.
However, reform of the public sector, based on the experience in other countries, is a difficult matter. The public sector is very obdurate about reform. It cannot be done overnight, and the Taoiseach can call as much as he wishes for it. It reminds me of the Shakespearean character who says: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep", to which the other character replies: "Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?" One can call as much as one wishes for reform of the public sector but unless somebody is responsible for it, it will not be done. In that connection, I was struck by the call from Deputy Liz McManus of the Labour Party on television last night for the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for public sector reform. It is clear that we need a person who will drive that reform and that it will not happen over the next three weeks or three months. It will take three to five years to reform the public sector and to make it productive, a happy place for its workers and a sector whose services are satisfactory for the private sector.
In the meantime, there is no point talking ridiculously about demonisation and divisions between the public and private sectors because the 23% to 30% premium lies between the two sectors like a sword. Until that is dealt with the demonisation talk is a waste of energy. There is a factual, financial and social division between these two classes at present, and the division ranges from 23% to 30%. Unless that gap is closed, relations between the public and private sectors will not improve. It is very like Northern Ireland. If one pays Protestant and Catholic workers different rates of pay, there will be tension. As soon as those gaps were closed, things began to improve. The gap between the public and private sectors must be closed. The Taoiseach appears to have focused on that, and I am grateful for that small mercy.
On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it must be recognised that more walls have been erected in Northern Ireland in recent years than was the case in the preceding decades. I am sure there are other countries in which divisions remain to be overcome. Would it be possible to use today's anniversary celebrations as a symbol of hope that all of the other walls — either physical or otherwise — between people can be broken down and that the image of the other can be the focus of all governments across the globe?
Last week I had occasion to meet Ion Caramitru, the Romanian who was famously pictured standing on top of a tank and waving a flag when the era of Soviet power came to an end in his country in 1989. Mr. Caramitru later served as his country's Minister for Culture before returning to acting and directing in the theatre. In that context, I request a debate on copyright and authors' rights, an issue in which Mr. Caramitru is extremely interested. Copyright and authors' rights are not the same, particularly in view of the fact that someone else can own copyright to one's work. People are now in a position to scan one's work — music or books one has written — onto the Internet and as a result, one can lose all one's rights. I am, therefore, seeking a debate on authors' rights.
One week after publication of the report on how to encourage more women to become involved in politics and at the risk of sounding sexist, I agree with Senator Bacik's assertion that there might be a quicker way to reach the end of most of our debates.
Hear, hear.
Regardless of whether it is a female perception, perhaps this will give rise to a faster and more efficient Second Stage debate on the legislation being taken today.
Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole, Alex White, Donohoe, Regan, Ross, Buttimer, Callely, Bacik and Harris referred to the statement made by the Taoiseach yesterday and, in general, welcomed it. I also welcome it. The Taoiseach has 25 years' experience as a Member of the Dáil and his sincere and genuine efforts to try to bring about agreement and consensus show that he is pursuing a wise course. I support everything that was said on the matter, particularly the comments made by Senator Harris to the effect that a post of Minister with responsibility for public sector reform should be created. Members on all sides of the House agree that there is a need for reform. I will pass on the views expressed by the Senators following the Order of Business.
In the context of the challenge faced by the Government, the officials of the relevant Department, the social partners and everyone concerned, common sense must prevail. There is major disquiet on all sides, no more so than among the 420,000 people who are unemployed. They are the real casualties of the difficulties caused by the global downturn and are being particularly affected in the run-up to Christmas.
Senator Regan and others referred to NAMA. They may reiterate the points they raised in the presence of the Minister when Second Stage is taken following the Order of Business.
Senators Fitzgerald and O'Toole requested a pre-budget debate. I have already given a commitment to arrange such a debate, during which the McCarthy report and the report of the Commission on Taxation can be discussed. It is hoped the debate will take place during the coming week. Senator O'Toole also referred to the social partners coming before the House in order to discuss this matter. Perhaps we might prevail upon the Cathaoirleach to allow a meeting of the CPP to take place later in the week in order to discover how we might progress the Senator's proposal.
Senator Leyden welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in one of the Sunday newspapers to the effect that in the context of tiger kidnappings, life sentences should mean just that. I am sure colleagues on all sides agree with this policy. People's fear of the law must be restored. I commend the Minister on expressing his views on the matter yesterday. If he wishes to bring forward legislation in this regard, the House will assist in its safe passage.
Senators Hanafin, Callely, Donohoe, Quinn and Keaveney welcomed the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, a momentous occasion and a turning point in the history of the western world, in particular. It brought freedom to many millions who benefited greatly from its collapse. I wish the German people and all involved a joyous day of celebration.
Senator Buttimer called on the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to come to the House to discuss the challenges facing social welfare recipients. I remind the Senator that in 2000 children's allowance was approximately €34; it is now approximately €166 a month. There has been a significant improvement during the years and the Government can be proud of its achievements. The allocation is way above the cost of living and all the indices relating to allocations to the underprivileged and recipients of social welfare. As I have often said, for many families the most important issue on budget day concerns the allocations for the social welfare portfolio.
Senator Callely raised the issue of a code of conduct for banking. He has also suggested those with experience who have given their life's blood to the business of banking and who are probably appalled at what has happened in banking worldwide should not be discriminated against. I acknowledge the good people involved in banking and what they have done and are doing. We certainly need the most experienced people to assist the Department, the Minister and the country at this time. I agree with most of the sentiments expressed by the Senator in this regard.
He is on that side of it.
There are always two sides. Senator Ross has his Sunday newspaper and the Order of Business in and on which he can express his views. I must try to ensure balance here.
Why?
I acknowledge the Senator has more experience than me as a Member of the House, but that said, there it stops.
That has nothing to do with the point Senator Ross was making.
Senators Bacik and Norris raised the issue of sentencing and people in prison for minor offences and suggested that instead of a prison sentence, they should be making a contribution through community work schemes or in other areas. We can ask the Minister to come to the House to debate the issue. I fully support what has been suggested.
On the working hours of the House, Senators do not come here as employees but as Members. This means they are available to the nation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That goes for every Member of the House.
Rubbish, I am certainly not available 24 hours a day at any time. That is a ridiculous thing to say. We have enough tripe from people who think we are available 24 hours a day. I damn well am not, nor will I be.
The Leader to continue without interruption.
I will get back to Senator Norris during the week on the matter of his Civil Partnership Bill 2004 and report what progress has been made on it.
Senator Quinn spoke about our high dependency on energy and both he and Senator Norris have brought forward a motion, No. 16 on the Order Paper, which requests the Government to establish as a matter of urgency an expert committee to examine in an impartial fashion the feasibility, benefits and potential hazards of nuclear energy generation. I strongly suggest that they raise the issue during their Private Members' time. We would be delighted to support them in any way we can on that well worded motion.
Senator Quinn also mentioned the problems faced by the retail sector in which some 280,000 people are employed. I read yesterday in an article in one of the Sunday newspaper's that the sector was on its knees. We will do anything we can do to support it. This issue can be included in our pre-budget debate.
Senator Hannigan referred to the Multi-Unit Development Bill 2009. I shall make inquiries on how this is progressing. I gave the House an up to date report two weeks ago on that and I shall report to it later in the week again. Senator Keaveney raised the question of copyright, the rights of authors and intellectual property in general. This is a very serious area, where Ireland has had an enormous advantage because of our intellectual property rights regulations, which led the way in Europe in showing how cognisant we were of the significance of intellectual property. There is no difficulty in having a debate as regards the rights of authors.
We look forward to having more women in politics, and I must be very mindful, of course, of the views of my constituency colleague who is very experienced in this area and who has her views on this.
Her Fianna Fáil colleagues agreed it in the joint committee.
On a point of order, I must remind the Leader that his Government sought and obtained a judgment against the British about sleep deprivation and defined it as a form of torture.
That is not a point of either disorder or order.
Order of Business agreed to.