Joe O'Toole (Independent)

——to deal with this and taxpayers should be represented. That seems an obvious requirement. I am pleased the legislation will give the State the authority to take equity in some of these companies and to examine their subsidiaries.

An issue raised here time and again and by those involved in the regulatory area — we have the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs — is that the power of the Financial Regulator needs to be strengthened. I argued in this House nearly ten years ago for authority to be given for the free flow of information between the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the financial authority and the offices of the other regulators in the State. There was major objection to that proposal in this Chamber and a watered-down version of the legislative measure was eventually passed. We are now talking about why the Financial Regulator is not doing his business.

Another suggestion rejected by this House was that each director of a significant company should be required, in end of year directors' statements, to state that the company concerned has traded properly and correctly within the law. That was opposed by all the major players in the business section and all the accountancy bodies and a watered-down version of the measure was passed, the effect of which means nothing at the end of the day. It is time we revisited these issues to make sure they are addressed. I ask that we reconsider them.

I wish to raise another point which I ask Members to seriously consider. Some Members of this House are long serving and I have served here for 20 years. I was appalled at the salaries, terms and conditions, etc., of Members of the Oireachtas when I came to this House. I could not believe that any group of workers at any stage in life could be so disorganised and badly represented in terms of dealing with salaries. I was involved in the 1992 negotiations, of which I am proud, which dealt with some of these issues. It was a time when we heard stories of political widows in particular who found themselves with not a shilling of a pension because irresponsible husbands, who were Members of this House, or the other House, had bought out their pensions because they had lost an election and needed the money for good reasons or whatever. Consequently, their widows were left with nothing. People were trying to deal with their cases.

In 1992 we made a comparison between Members and other workers. If other workers lose their jobs, there are provisions such as redundancy, notice and a fair movement into and out of employment. The deal that was done at that time was that in lieu of redundancy and notice — if a Deputy or Senator loses his or her seat, he or she is immediately out of a job with no notice, which was unfair to ask of any group of workers whoever they might be. I would say the same if I were talking about teachers, general operatives, painters or any other group, and Members got paid a month's salary for every year of service in rough terms. Apart from that they got no more than any other public servant who would have notice and termination provisions built into his or her contract.

There is a responsibility on every Member of this and the other House to defend and explain that to ordinary people, even if it is irresponsibly dealt with in a populist media. We must remember, as is well known to some of us who have spent our lives involved in trade unions, that nobody ever cheers when some groups of workers get anything. We should simply ignore that and not expect it to be a popular view, but it is a reality that should be put forward, defended and protected.