It is proposed to take No. 10, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2013 - back from committee; No. 21, Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed); No. 1, Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) (Amendment) Bill 2012 [Seanad] - Second Stage; No. a22a, statements on CAP reform, to be taken at 1.20 p.m. today; and No. 22a, statements on the interim report on equine DNA in processed meat and mislabelling of processed meat, to be taken at 2.35 p.m. today, and the order shall not resume thereafter.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 10 shall be decided without debate; the following arrangements shall apply in respect of No. a22a: the statements of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case and such Members may share their time, the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case, and such Members may share their time, and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes; the proceedings on No. 22a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.40 p.m. today and the following arrangements shall apply: the opening statement of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case and such Members may share their time, and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 2013.

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a22a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil, on its rising today, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March agreed to? Agreed.

The election of Pope Francis has received considerable attention in the Irish and global media. I pay warm tribute to RTE for its excellent coverage of the papal election, which reflects the strong connection between many Irish people and the Vatican and the papacy. I congratulate Pope Francis and wish him every success. Approximately 18 months ago the Government decided to withdraw the Irish ambassador from the Vatican, despite the fact that the State had historically enjoyed diplomatic relations with the Vatican. The embassy was the classic manifestation of that relationship. We were told it that was a temporary budgetary arrangement and the Tánaiste indicated that the decision might be reviewed and reversed. We were also told that the only reasons the embassy had been removed from the Vatican were financial. The Finance Bill has now been sent to the Seanad. Will the Minister be proposing an amendment to the Bill to provide a subhead to restore the embassy to the Vatican?

As the Deputy has noted, the decision in respect of the embassy to the Vatican and a number of others was made on cost grounds. We have to measure everything. However, the Irish ambassador to the Vatican was not withdrawn. That phraseology suggests we no longer have an ambassador to the Vatican. The Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the Irish ambassador to the Vatican. The commitments made by the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach still stand and will be considered in the normal way.

Is this not a good opportunity to restore the embassy? It is a new era. A considerable number of people were offended by the decision.

The issue would be better dealt with by means of a parliamentary question.

There is an opportunity with the Finance Bill to correct the financial difficulties.

The Government has promised to bring forward legislation to cut the pay of public sector workers, including gardaí, nurses and firefighters. All front-line workers will face mandatory pay cuts if they do not sign up to the Croke Park deal. Ministers have made this threat repeatedly for several weeks and we know public sector workers will be considering the matter. It is clear that the Government has no empathy for front-line workers who are operating in difficult circumstances, with cuts to funding for the services they provide. However, there is an abundance of empathy for the senior bankers in financial institutions. Where is the threat to cut the pay of senior bankers? The response to the Mercer report, for which we had to wait two years and which cost more than €120,000, is pathetic.

To what legislation is the Deputy referring?

I am speaking about the threat made by several Ministers to cut wages in the public sector.

Is the Deputy asking about specific legislation?

There is a threat to introduce legislation. Is legislation being promised to cut the pay of senior bankers? Does the Minister think it acceptable that the CEO of Bank of Ireland, Mr. Richie Boucher, would still be earning €612,000, even if he succumbed to the request to cut his pay by 10%? Why is the Government treating senior bankers with kid gloves, while taking the hammer to front-line public sector workers, many of whom earn modest incomes? Does the Minister believe that is the appropriate approach to take to public sector workers, front-line workers in particular, when 6,400 senior bankers in failed institutions are earning more than €100,000? Is legislation promised to reduce bankers' pay?

The House will be aware that agreement has been reached with some of the main public service unions. The negotiations were led by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin. As we move towards the point where the agreement will be put to a ballot among the membership of the unions, they should be given the space to consider it without advice from this House, helpful or otherwise. The unions are well able to conduct their business and should be given the space to make their decision.

There are certain similarities between the situation in the banks and public services. If one owns 99% of a bank, as the State does in the case of AIB and PermanentTSB, parallels can clearly be drawn. The Mercer report which was published last Tuesday was not hanging around for two years. It was commissioned mid-year and we brought it forward rather quickly. Its publication was accompanied by a statement that the banks would be required to reduce their payroll costs across the board by between 6% and 10%. That is in the same space as the requests negotiated with the public service unions. It is moving on again and we will ensure these targets are reached. It is important that the cost base of the banks be cut because the ones with a majority or almost a total State shareholding are not yet profitable. If we are to restore the banks to normality, they will have to be become profitable. If they are to give the credit lines necessary to households and SMEs and support the economy, they must at least have the potential to be profitable.

Bank of Ireland is in a different space. The State has 15% of its shares. As a private bank with a minority State shareholding, we do not have the same direct influence over it. As a shareholder and in accordance with our weight, we make our views very clear. The 6% to 10% reduction in payroll costs is applicable to Bank of Ireland, as well as to the other banks.

I call Deputy Finian McGrath.

With respect, I asked the Minister whether he was willing to impose the same threat to cut bankers' pay as he was to impose legislation to cut pay in the public sector.

I know, but we will come back to the issue.

The Minister completely dodged that question.

The question is on legislation.

I spoke about similarities, but there is no similarity in the Government's approach. It is stating to public sector workers that it will introduce legislation to cut their pay if they do not sign up to the deal, whereas the bankers are asked to reduce their payroll costs and how they do it is up to them.

I have called Deputy Finian McGrath.

It does not matter that they are earning €400,000 or €500,000.

Will the Deputy, please, resume his seat?

I am not threatening anybody. I simply want to get the job done. Everybody knows the cost base of the public service is too high. Everybody also knows that the cost base of the banks is too high. If we leave the rhetoric aside and get on with the job, we could sort this place out.

I join my colleagues in congratulating the new Pope. I wish him well in the future. Last week we learned of the sad death of another great lover of the poor, Hugo Chavez, in South America. Pope Francis has a long track record in this regard.

I ask for an update on the adoption (information and tracing) Bill which will provide for information and tracing services for applicants who seek information on adoptions to be placed on a statutory basis.

That is due later this year.

It is good to see the Minister for Finance in charge of the country for the next week or ten days. With regard to the massive cuts to housing grants for people with disabilities and to mobility aid grants, I would like to point out-----

Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

Yes; there is a point to what I am saying. Because of these cuts, people will now have to stay in hospitals rather then return home. Therefore, from a financial point of view the cuts will not save the State money. For example, in County Kerry we were cut by 56%. This will not save the State money. Is there any chance that more money can be made available for people who receive disability and mobility aids grants? I am not talking about housing improvement grants for older people. I am aware the Finance Bill has moved from this House to the Seanad, but some allowance should be made for a top-up grant to all local authorities throughout the country for this. This will save money.

That is a matter for a parliamentary question.

I am sure the Pope will be delighted to hear the good wishes coming from this House. I too wish the new Pope well. The Tánaiste is in Atlanta, Georgia, but I am sure he would want to send the Pope his best wishes too. As Deputy Martin stated, our links to the Holy See should be restored as a matter of urgency. They should never have been cut and their severance was a disgraceful decision at the time. As a gesture to the new Pope, we should make a stand on that here.

The links to the Holy See have not been broken, severed or cut. The Secretary General at the Department of Foreign Affairs is a fully accredited ambassador to the Holy See. The issue is that he is no longer resident in Rome. However, he is fully accredited and there are normal and good relationships with the Holy See.

On the issue of mobility aids, everybody in this House would share the Deputy's anxiety that every assistance possible be given to persons with disabilities. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, has told me there is a contingency fund of €2 million available for this, so perhaps if the Deputy submitted a request to the appropriate Minister, some of that could be allocated to his part of the world.

On housing matters, having regard-----

What about the Pope?

I am sure the Pope is delighted with the sentiments expressed by Deputy McGrath and was waiting with bated breath for them. We would all like to join in wishing the Pope well.

In view of the massive housing crisis inherited by the Government from its predecessors, is it intended to introduce the housing Bill any time soon? Will this Bill refer in particular to the tens of thousands of people currently waiting on local authority housing lists, who have no indication of what the future holds for them in regard to housing due to the dearth of family-type housing available on the market?

I understand it is proposed to deal with this issue in three separate Bills and that part 1 of these will come to the House before the summer and parts 2 and 3 will be introduced later this year.

As a black Protestant, I would hate to be left out of welcoming the Pope and wishing him well. I welcome him on behalf of everyone on these benches also. Has the new Pope been invited to Ireland yet? Perhaps when the Minister is over in Rome on Tuesday, he will get the invitation in early.

On the issue of legislation, was the Secretary General of the Department of Finance correct last week when he said at the Committee of Public Accounts in response to questions I asked that the legislation to reverse the Dunne judgment was well advanced? As the Minister knows, repossessions cannot be initiated without this legislation. Therefore, it is up to the Minister to open the floodgates to these repossessions and allow them happen. Will the Minister assure us that the repossession legislation will come to the House in an orderly way and that it will be fully debated here? Will he assure us it will not be slipped through the House before the Easter recess?

I am sure the Pope will be very pleased that Deputy Ross has congratulated him. I notice there is an Old Testament type of rhetoric in the interventions of Deputy Ross here sometimes, with phrases such as "opening the floodgates".

Or Sodom and Gomorrah.

On the legislation to remediate the lacuna arising from Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne's judgment, the heads of the Bill were passed by the Government last Tuesday. The responsibility for this is vested in the Minister for Justice and Equality and he intends to legislate before the summer if possible. There will be a full debate in the House on the Bill.

On forthcoming legislation, I have never seen such a crisis in morale among An Garda Síochána in my political life as I see now. This is very serious, and we are at a tipping point. It is not all down to Croke Park II, although that has been a contributing and exacerbating factor. Gardaí feel bad about that agreement and feel it does not respect the role they play on a 24-7 basis in protecting citizens. They feel they are under-resourced and under-equipped. They only held observer status with regard to the agreement anyway. This is a serious issue that the Government needs to examine. The relationship between the Minister and the Garda is in an unhealthy state. An unhealthy tension exists and gardaí feel a lack of respect.

The legislation I want to ask about is the Garda Síochána (compensation for malicious injuries) Bill. When can we expect that legislation? I would like another opportunity to raise this issue, because it is central to democracy and to how society is organised.

The heads of the Bill were cleared last July and the Bill will come before the House later this year.

I believe there has been a serious infringement of equality legislation in the context of the recent allocation for grants for people with disabilities and mobility problems, as well as grants for older people for the refurbishment of their houses to ensure they can live in reasonably comfortable homes. We are breaking the law seriously. Deputy Healy-Rae and I are well aware that hundreds of applications have been made in County Kerry and these applicants have been certified medically by doctors and consultants as being eligible for grants. We are not in compliance with the legislation in this respect. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, who are here today and who are both from Limerick, to examine this situation, because it is very serious, particularly in County Kerry.

There is no particular legislation promised, but if the Deputy is referring to the difficulties that have arisen from the ruling of the Ombudsman under equality legislation regarding persons with disabilities, the Minister for Health and his officials are actively engaged with representatives of the disability groups to ensure that a solution of equal value is brought forward.