Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their contributions on these three amendments. Focusing on amendment No. 1, there must be pay restraint. In reality, however, reductions in net income are vital in the overall current economic situation. The Government recognises the importance of that at the most senior levels of the banking sector. It is important not only in the context of financial support being provided by the taxpayer to that sector but also because it sends a message to workers on ordinary incomes who are suffering as a result of the global crisis.

The covered institutions remuneration oversight committee, or CIROC, was established to oversee remuneration plans of senior executives of the covered institutions. CIROC was also asked to examine whether an overall cap on executive remuneration could be introduced for the banking sector. I can inform the House that the Minister for Finance received CIROC's report on Tuesday and is considering it. The report proposes caps on the remuneration of various senior executive positions within each of the institutions. That will go to Cabinet in the first instance and I imagine there will be a public statement shortly afterwards. In the meantime, I take the points that Senators have made.

One needs to be aware that in banking cultures, and far below the top level that has attracted so much attention, remuneration in recent years has been made up of basic pay, bonuses and share options. There has been an unhealthy culture whereby the value of people working in that sort of world is measured by the size of their salaries and bonuses. We have to shake ourselves out of it because nobody's value is measured by whether they have a higher salary than someone else. All of that is false thinking. Some of the best people are those on low incomes and salaries, yet their contribution can be quite disproportionate.

Senator Twomey raised the question of the Government's view of fixed rate mortgages. Perhaps a question should be tabled on that matter in the other House. The pros and cons of fixed rate mortgages were well debated at the time they were introduced. People make choices which have risks attached, whether they concern variable or fixed rate mortgages. I do not know whether anything can be done about that matter in discussions. However, in a situation where banks are vulnerable we must resist the temptation to interfere in every possible way. The banks have to recover credibility, but they will not do so if they are subject to systematic Government, Oireachtas or public diktat on any and every activity they undertake. However, I am not denying the reality of the particular problem to which the Senator referred. No doubt it can be looked at.

Up to now, the repossession of homes has been on a very small scale. I saw a figure last week in the Financial Times of 75,000 repossessions in the United Kingdom. Allowing for the disproportion in population between the two countries, we are at nothing like that level here at the moment. The recapitalisation package contained specific measures to hold off on repossessions.

I am not a spokesperson on education, but it was stated that the Minister for Education and Science did not know the number of prefabs. I saw an article in the Irish Examiner two or three days ago which provided great detail from the Department of Education and Science on the number of prefabs and their cost. Therefore I do not accept that point.

Sweeping rhetoric is made about how the Government is bearing down on the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in society. Frankly, that is absolute nonsense because every effort has been made to protect them. I was glad to see that only last week Age Action Ireland's bulletin pointed out that such people were not affected by the current set of measures since the beginning of this year.

Senator Harris was speaking in the voice of the author of "The necessity for social democracy" back in 1989. I agree with his general points about remuneration. I do not wish to make any particular virtue of it because we are still pretty well paid, but Ministers and Ministers of State took a voluntary 10% cut and followed it up by being subject to the pension levy, which together probably adds up to about 16% or 17%.

I was amused by the reference to going back to allotments and I do not think there would be any harm in that. In fact, within the last week, as Minister of State in charge of the Office of Public Works, I had discussions with my officials and those of the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, on precisely this point and the possible use of property within State control. As someone who still does a bit of fruit and vegetable gardening, to the extent that time allows, I greatly regret the way that has gone totally out of use. Some 20 or 30 years ago, if one was travelling along the canal in Dublin one would see a line of allotments, but nearly all of them are now overgrown. In the countryside, every cottage garden was used to grow potatoes, cabbage and possibly turnips. It would be healthy, quite literally, if the 75% of people who, according to the ESRI, do not engage in direct sporting activity, did a bit of gardening. Senator Harris will remember the final line of Voltaire's Candide, "Il faut cultiver notre jardin". I would not see that as being the equivalent of going back to the cave, or anything like it.

We are clearly in a prolonged crisis but it is hard, if not impossible, to say how prolonged it will be. I am sure it was also very hard to say so if one lived in the early 1930s. We do not have a crystal ball to see into the middle distance. I hope I have dealt with the main points raised by Senators. I will not be accepting these amendments. However, a commissioned report on the matter is being studied which will provide the basis for action in this area.