Dan Boyle (Green Party)

Senator Fitzgerald raised the issue of bonuses being paid to officials in the Department of Finance, on which she was joined by Senators Ross, Coffey, Hannigan, MacSharry, Healy Eames, Buttimer, Dearey, Coghlan, Hanafin and Ormonde. I believe there are two points that reflect the seriousness every Member of the House feels on the matter. First is the failure that allowed such a system to continue which, I believe, arose on foot of a 1994 agreement indicating that several successive Governments failed to tackle this culture. Second, there is also a failure on behalf of the people accepting such bonuses. In the present climate we should have a bonus-free environment. None of us can understand the circumstances in which bonuses can be paid or accepted in the current situation. Many Members made the comparison with the social welfare Christmas bonus having been stopped last year and not being paid again this year. Of course the principle is true but one does not replace the other. If we stopped all Civil Service bonuses it would only be a drop in the ocean towards replacing the Christmas bonus for social welfare payments. However, it is not possible to argue against that in terms of social justice and we need more information on the existence and payment of these bonuses. There needs to be a commitment on the part of all concerned - the State as the payer and those in receipt of them - that this is not a practice that should be taking place now.

Senators Fitzgerald, Prendergast and Hannigan brought up the question of the handling of the Social Welfare Bill yesterday. It is the practice that this House tries to debate in as much intensity as we can all legislation. The time pressures on current legislation are such that a decision needed to be made yesterday and it was made in the context that on Committee Stage ten sections were simply opposed and there was only one amendment proposing the publication of a report. The House is very circumscribed as to what amendments can be made to legislation such as the Social Welfare Bill. No less time was spent on this year's Social Welfare Bill than was spent in any previous year. Members of the House will have a further opportunity to talk about their ongoing concerns on social welfare decisions during the debates on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill. I ask Members to use that opportunity if they wish to put further concerns in this area on the record of the House.

Senator Prendergast raised the issue of the HSE skills training fund, which is a matter of ongoing investigation. Many Members are concerned about the use of that fund and the involvement of State agencies and social partnership organisations which seem to have misused this money, and we await the judgment on that. She also asked for a debate on home carers to which the Leader has already acceded. I believe another Member also made such a request.

Senator Norris raised the question of the Taxi Regulator and the knowledge of taxi drivers in the area in which they are providing a service. This point will be brought home. I believe there is probably too much reliance on satellite navigation systems in cars and the actual knowledge of how to get from place to place seems to be lost on many new drivers in particular. That point will also be made known.

Senators O'Reilly and Wilson supported by Senator Ó Murchú raised the issue of job retention in Quinn Insurance. On this issue, we should be led by the experience of other changes that have taken place in insurance companies such as PMPA which was taken over by AXA Insurance or BUPA insurance which was taken over by Aviva. The idea that there should be a transfer of employment, as far as is practicable, in the locations where these businesses are based is an important economic point. The Financial Regulator is acting on the basis of the financial viability of particular organisations. In the past this is something that the Office of the Financial Regulator has not done particularly well. That particular balance needs to be got right.

Senator Callely spoke about the need for procedures for the taking of items of topical debate, which the Order of Business tends to be most days. He asked for a debate on the incidence of suicide, to which I believe we can accede.

Other requests for special debates included one from Senator Bacik for a debate on the Magdalene laundries, from Senator Burke for a debate on the agribusiness sector in terms of the Food Harvest 2020 report, and from Senator Quinn on the National Competitiveness Council report. We should try to fit the debates requested on all these areas into our schedule in the coming weeks.

Senator MacSharry raised the disturbing question of mailshots of the portrayal of Ireland from the city of London in terms that can only be described as economic sabotage, and his raising of it was backed by Senator Hanafin. The need to bring the concerns of the Members of this House to the British Embassy as to how these nefarious business practices can be stopped and put in a proper context is a point that was well made and one that will need to be followed through.

Senators Healy Eames, Buttimer and Bacik asked for a debate on the EU-IMF deal which will be debated in the other House today. The reality is that many aspects of that deal already required votes in this House. We would have dealt with legislation in recent days which included aspects of that deal and which were voted on. The vote in the Dáil is not a legally required vote but-----