The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting victims, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, motion re renewal of the provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 1 and conclude within 45 minutes, on which Senators may speak for five minutes; and No. 3, Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 — Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2 but not before noon, on which spokespersons may speak for 12 minutes and all other Senators for ten minutes and Senators may share time, by agreement of the House.
Order of Business
Yesterday the chairman and the chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. As everybody now knows, the chief executive, Mr. Mike Aynsley, stated at the meeting that the lion's share of the €22 billion put into the bank by the taxpayer would never be seen again. There are many more billions of euro that will not be seen again. The members of the committee were also told that the investigation by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement would not be lengthened because of the bank's decision to claim privilege on certain documents. These two comments will obviously generate a lot of concern throughout the country, given the enormous sums of money involved and the impact of what is effectively the withdrawal of the €22 billion from constructive use in the economy. It cannot now be used for the development of badly needed services or in addressing the issues we discussed last night.
I am concerned that the Taoiseach indicated very clearly in the Dáil yesterday his refusal to broaden the terms of reference of the banking inquiry. We must take note of what Dr. Michael Somers, the former head of the National Treasury Management Agency, had to say about this. We should also listen to what Professor Patrick Honohan is saying about it.
The editorial in The Irish Times today states:
What is clear is that if the Government is serious about gaining a better understanding of what went wrong in order to underpin more effective policymaking in the future then it would be advised to have a second look at the terms of reference and ensure the commission is more clearly focused before it gets under way in earnest.
When one reads the comments in the editorial on the Government's terms of reference, one notes that they are very disturbing. If we have learned anything from the two reports issued, it is surely that we need to examine very carefully what happened. As I said yesterday and the day before, the inquiry needs to be transparent and held in public. It must be comprehensive. It appears from what is happening that the Government is not going down this route and is unwilling to respond to the calls of many experts, particularly the two key experts I have mentioned, and that it is refusing to re-examine the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry. This is very serious. Will this House have an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference? Will the Government take on board the advice of the Governor of the Central Bank and Dr. Michael Somers? I ask that we have an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference in the House.
I completely support the view that we should have an in-depth discussion on the terms of reference. We raised these issues last night and they were also discussed previously.
The question to be asked about Anglo Irish Bank is very simple and has been raised by all sides. It has been dealt with by the Minister for Finance who seems to have changed his mind or, at least, vacillated on a number of occasions. The question concerns whether it is better to save the bank or let it die, or what element of it can be allowed to die.
I do not want to have the same discussion time after time. What I would like to see are the various top-level figures for the cost of allowing the bank to die or retaining it. I have heard various figures and cannot work them out or decide which are correct. Like every Member of each House, I would like to see the figures, as would the general public. When one knows what the figures are, one simply chooses the cheapest option. I do not know what is the cheapest option. Knowing the figures is important in determining the terms of reference. I ask that this specific issue be discussed in the House and that the specific information that would allow us to come to a conclusion be made available to us. People should be asked to do their sums and put them in front of us, thus allowing us to make a decision. I do not share the view that one can just let the bank die but believe there could be an orderly winding down as long as that is the best, most appropriate and cheapest option.
The Catholic Church has finally been flushed out on the civil partnership issue. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform is to be congratulated for saying he is holding his position on it. The Green Party is holding its position on it also. Many have difficulties with the legislation and I have received many representations from people opposed to it. I have made the same point to everybody, namely, that if it is unconstitutional, they should show me the amendment that would make it constitutional. The matter should be dealt with in an appropriate, legislative way, not in an unfair discriminatory manner, as now proposed by the Catholic Church.
Here, here.
We should hold a strong and firm line on the issue.
I echo calls for a debate on the future of Anglo Irish Bank, in particular. We need to discuss its future and the prospects for the orderly winding down for which the Labour Party has been calling, particularly in the light of the comments made yesterday by the bank's chief executive to the effect that the bulk of the €22 billion of taxpayers' money seems to be gone for good. He has accepted this. A debate on the issue is crucial at this time.
I renew my call to the Leader for a debate on the relationship between church and State in the light of the Catholic bishops' comments on the Civil Partnership Bill, to which Senator O'Toole referred. The bishops have displayed extraordinary arrogance in intervening in this debate, describing the Bill as unconstitutional and calling for a free vote in the Oireachtas thereon. After the publication of the Ryan and Murphy reports and all the scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church, the church no longer has the voice of moral authority in this country. It is most unfortunate that, in what should be a secular republic, we are still seeing it intervene on matters of this nature.
Hear, hear.
Ironically, many of us are critical of the Civil Partnership Bill in that it does not go far enough. It does not provide for full equality and we should be seeking recognition for same-sex marriage. However, for sure, the Bill represents a great improvement for gay people. For that, it must be welcomed.
Is the Senator seeking a debate on the issue? She may not make a speech on it now.
I welcome the announcement by Israel this morning of a partial relaxation of the blockade of Gaza. Clearly, this does not go far enough to ensure the human rights of the people of Gaza. We must acknowledge and pay tribute to the great bravery of the volunteers on the aid flotilla, including the Irish volunteers on the MV Rachel Corrie, because their actions have clearly led to international outrage over Israel’s killing of nine Turkish activists. That led to the decision by Israel. While it must be welcomed, it does not go far enough. We need to have a debate on the role of Israel and our relationship with it, given that this week we have seen the expulsion by the Government of an official from the Israeli Embassy. This event was glossed over, given all the other great political events of the week, but we need to have a debate on the continuation of our diplomatic relations with Israel, a country that has now been seen to have been involved in the forgery of Irish passports.
The House would be served well by having a debate on the draft terms of reference for the commission of inquiry into the banking crisis. The Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service has received the draft terms of reference. Some Members of this House are members of that committee. A wider debate would help. However, I caution against the belief that all the questions can be answered by the commission and that all the ills can be cured. I am confident the role of the Department of Finance will be investigated. The questions that remain concern how it is to be investigated and how the findings will be acted upon.
I worry slightly that we are seeing a repetition of the debate that accompanied the introduction of the reports that Messrs Regling and Watson and the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Honohan, were asked to compile. We heard the same arguments about their terms of reference, namely, that they were not wide enough, and about the likelihood of their not revealing anything. I ask people to have faith in the process. Two excellent reports have been released and they will inform how a commission of inquiry will work. I am happy with how the process has worked to date and I am confident it will work itself through.
With regard to Anglo Irish Bank which we must debate on an ongoing basis, people seem to believe there was an approach that would have resulted in zero cost to the State. The fact is that it was licensed and regulated badly by the State and the responsibility has fallen on the State to determine how the cost can be minimised. The alternative cost figure, as outlined at yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, pertained to an immediate wind-down of the bank, as advocated by Senator Bacik. This would cost the State €40 billion.
An orderly wind-down.
These are the figures we must keep in mind.
From where did the Senator get the figures?
It is a simple mathematical sum involving selling one's assets, paying off one's debtors and how much it will cost the State. It is a simple balance sheet exercise.
Why pay off the debtors, these bondholders, if one does not have to?
There should be no interruptions.
Finally, with regard to the debate this House will soon have on the Civil Partnership Bill, I have no difficulty with any citizen or group of citizens giving their opinion on what should be in the Bill, but the question of constitutionality is a matter for the courts. The question of whether this legislation is approved is a matter for this House and the Lower House. It will be on Report Stage in the Dáil in the next week and should be available for our consideration before the summer recess. I look forward to the debate on it.
I support the call for a debate on banking governance. It is a matter that must remain a top priority for all Members of the Oireachtas into the future and we must learn from the mistakes that were made in the past.
However, I draw the Leader's attention to the issue of redundancy. While it is important we keep an eye on the banking reports and banking governance, politics and everything else is diverting our attention from the fact that many people are being made redundant each day. I was in Strasbourg this week where I attended the plenary session with a delegation of workers from Waterford Crystal. It was good to hear that they will get €2.9 million in support from the European Globalisation Fund. That will be increased by another €1 million from the Exchequer.
While I was in Strasbourg I noticed the applications from other states. One that caught my interest was an application from Valencia in Spain. It was a combined application from small door makers that had been made by the Spanish Government. It succeeded. There is a need to debate how we can explore all avenues of assistance for redundant workers. There is no reason that this should not apply to construction workers, Quinn Group workers in the North, the workers from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Waterford Crystal and the Pfizer workers in Cork. Resources should be put into the relevant Department to ensure strong applications are made on their behalf. Thousands of redundant workers are entitled to access this fund but unless the Government makes that application on their behalf they will not be listened to in Europe.
I appeal for a full debate on this matter as it is very important. Our eye is off the ball in many areas but we must assist redundant workers in whatever way possible and this is one way to do so. I ask the Leader to make provision for that debate at an early date.
I welcome the decision by the Government of Israel to ease the blockade of the Gaza Strip, where 1.5 million people are in an open prison. In fact, it is very similar to a concentration camp. What is happening in that region is tragic. However, this is a tribute to the nine Turkish volunteers who sacrificed their lives on behalf of the 1.5 million people in Gaza and travelled on the flotilla with others, including people from Ireland. The decision is a step in the right direction. I appeal to Hamas not to resume sending missiles into southern Israel. They are provocative actions against a country which will respond, and not with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That is the reaction of the Israeli Government to Hamas in the region. It is a step in the right direction and I commend Deputy Micheál Martin's work in this regard.
It would be useful to have a debate on opinion polls and how they are compiled. I raise this with regard to section 59 of the Electoral Act 2000. As far as I recall, it was amended in this House. I believe last Friday's opinion poll was manipulated in favour of the Labour Party against Fianna Fáil and, indeed, undermined Deputy Enda Kenny's leadership of the Fine Gael Party. The Irish Times——
(Interruptions).
Is the Senator seeking a debate on it?
It would be useful to discuss how opinion polls can be used to manipulate the outcome of a general election.
You were doing it yourselves for long enough.
There was a proposal to ban them for the week before general elections were held but this was defeated at that time. The Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll was flawed and flukey. Those concerned now admit that they will review the situation because Fianna Fáil’s position is far stronger than shown in that poll——
It is less.
——and the Labour Party position is far less strong. It is grossly unfair. However, I am aware that The Irish Times and its correspondents——
(Interruptions).
——are delighted to undermine the Government and Fine Gael. They are hoping to get a Labour Party-led Government——
The Senator has made his point.
——but they will not achieve that.
(Interruptions).
I call Senator Norris.
I welcome the fact that a number of my colleagues have spoken out about the intervention of the bishops. I deplore it. They are, of course, entitled to their view and to express it publicly but to attempt once again nakedly to intervene in the political process is deplorable. I was one of the founders of the Southern Ireland Civil Rights Association in 1970 which campaigned for full civil and human rights for Roman Catholics and Nationalists in Northern Ireland, particularly in employment and housing. It is really regrettable that their lordships should seek to intervene in this way. This morning I wrote to Cardinal Brady and offered to engage in a public debate with him. I have sent a copy of the letter to the director general of RTE. If the bishops want a public debate, I will be happy to give them one and ventilate all the issues involved. Can the Leader give us a clear timetable for this legislation? There appears to be some confusion between the Government parties.
Second, will the Leader ask his colleague, Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú to withdraw the disgraceful remarks he made about ten days ago in the House in which he compared the granting of civil and human rights to gay people in this country to the imposition of the penal laws? That was a most atrocious, grotesque and deliberate perversion of the truth. I say this with some authority. There was a Roman Catholic bishop in my family during the penal period and my mother's family suffered considerably. It is an outrage that anybody should attempt to use that analogy.
Yesterday, an attempt was made to interview me about Bloomsday outside the gates to this House. A group of the stormtroopers barged into the photograph and attempted to shout me down. I nearly lost my eye due to one of their placards——
They were only taking advantage.
Would the Senator mind taking this a little seriously?
They were only trying to get on the——
There must be no interruptions.
I am talking about human rights and there is no need to be so bloody smug about it.
Senator Norris should speak on matters on the Order of Business.
They attempted in every way to prevent me having a say. They were also extremely personally abusive to me. If you, Senator Keaveney, find this entertaining, you are a lesser human being than I thought you were.
The Senator is not the only one who nearly had his eye gouged out there yesterday. There is a great deal of human rights abuses for people coming into the House.
I ask Senator Keaveney to make a contribution on the Order of Business.
I will start by telling Senator Norris that he was not the only one who nearly lost an eye yesterday.
The Senator is not to talk across the floor to anybody. That is out of order. It is questions to the Leader on the Order of Business.
I wish to clarify that I was not being smug about anything. I was just pointing out that other people nearly lost their eyes as a result of abuse when trying to get into the House yesterday.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
It was unacceptable behaviour.
In a week in which the Saville report gave some solace to the people of Derry and there has been a partial lifting of the blockade of Gaza, I again ask the Leader to consider the report I did for the Council of Europe, which I did not get to discuss in Norway yesterday, as a starting point for looking at the image of the other. Ireland has learned lessons which it can bring to other areas of conflict. It is a year since that report was produced and it is no less relevant now than it was then. In the context of the image of the other, getting to know the other and considering how we will deal with issues such as 2016, it is important that we examine how we deal with the image of the other on the island of Ireland.
Second, I note that mobile telephone call and text roaming charges are to decrease again. I welcome that. However, I have previously raised the issue of all-Ireland telephone packages both in this House and with the telephone companies. When I told the companies I am a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly their attitude changed from "This is a technical impossibility" to "Well, actually, it is only a commercial decision". I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to the House before the end of this session to find out what are the impediments to having an all-Ireland telephone package. When I am in my home, my telephone signal bounces into UK coverage because I live on the Border like Senator Wilson and other Senators. I am aware that many elements have changed in the telephone packages but, at present, if I have a certain number of telephone call minutes and text messages, those calls are not included in my package.
They are extra to my package only because I cannot get a signal in my house and the stronger signal is a UK signal. There should be an all-island package. I am told that there is no technical reason why there cannot be one and it is a commercial decision, and the Minister could be brought in on this issue.
Would the Leader confirm Senator Boyle's time line for the civil union Bill? I remind Members that we live in a democracy and I am quite safe in my view that I will be voting for the civil union Bill. The bishops, as the heads of the church, are entitled to their viewpoint, as are all citizens. We must have this debate in a rational, calm manner. I understand Senator Norris's frustration and I admire him for what he has done, but we must have a debate that is calm and that will bring about a proper result, which is the passing of this Bill in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I say to those who are protesting outside that they are entitled to protest but they are not entitled to ram their views down my throat or anybody else's throat.
Hear, hear.
Or to stick placards in people's faces.
Senator Coffey made the most important contribution this morning in this House. When will we have a debate on the Government's job creation policy? One part of their economic task is to fix the banks, but the most important task facing Government is the creation of jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who are unemployed and idle and have no hope, and they see no vision, no plan and no future under the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government. When will we see the Government's job creation plan? When will we see an opportunity to get Ireland back to work again? Must we wait until after the next general election for a jobs plan? We in Fine Gael have it, with the NewERA document. Where is the Government's jobs plan? It is non-existent.
Fine Gael keeps changing the costings.
(Interruptions).
No interruptions.
They have not got one. The Government is limping from one job loss to the next and people require hope. They require jobs. They want Government to be proactive, not reactive which, unfortunately, is the case. I want this debate as a matter of urgency.
I support much of what Senator Buttimer stated about the public wanting hope and confidence, particularly on job creation. It is important that those in this House and in the other House, and in other areas of knowledge, should have that information available to them. I refer, for example, to the State agencies' plans, Vision 2020 and all the other measures on job creation.
It brings me to the point on continuing the debate on banking and related matters, which was also mentioned today and which I would also welcome. I raised with the Leader previously if we could have some type of structure put on debates. There is considerable importance in putting such a structure on debates, maybe to go through each Department and to take issues such as those mentioned, whether it be banking and related matters or job creation, so we would know the topic and get appropriate briefing documents. This is not the first time I have asked for this and I hope we can make some progress.
On banking, it would be remiss of me not to mention today that we should also acknowledge that some of our financial institutions such as the NTMA are doing extraordinarily good work, albeit in difficult circumstances. This week alone, that agency had another fantastic €1.5 billion of bond sales, albeit with a slightly different yield. It is a tremendous achievement and congratulations should go to the NTMA.
I ask the Leader to obtain a briefing on family law with a particular interest in property and assets. Can the Leader indicate what, if any, legislative provisions are in place or are being considered to separate one's individual property and assets from any matrimonial benefit of property and assets? I look forward to receiving that.
I support Senators Coffey and Buttimer in their call for a jobs stimulus programme. Members will be aware that by and large I have supported the Government all the way through. I am a great believer in the principle of join the army, wear the boots. I support its anti-recession policy.
A Senator
Senator Harris came over this side.
Senator Harris took the shilling well.
I support the Government's anti-recession policy. However, I put it to the Leader that, because there are internal problems in Fine Gael, it is no time for complacency on the part of the Government as to the extent of public shock on the news that Anglo Irish Bank is throwing away €22 billion. This is most important. It is what I call an iceberg situation. The Government has hit something like an iceberg on this one. It will not go away and it is connected to the wider question of job stimulus and banking behaviour. In that regard, I do not know — I am not an economist — whether we can let it go or whether we just must take the hit, but I do know that, politically, the public will require now a movement on job creation from the banks, especially for small businesses which have their backs against the wall. I strongly recommend that the Government looks at matters such as recourse mortgaging, as in the United States where one can sell one's house and give the bank what one can after it is sold, whereas here one cannot as the bank holds the deeds and will not let one sell the house and therefore there is no market. The Government is not paralysed. It should take on board the need for a small persons' and small business banking system and do whatever needs to be done politically, or else it will rue the day.