The Order of Business is No. 1, motion regarding the address to the House by Mr. Gay Mitchell MEP on Thursday, 24 January 2013, to be taken without debate on the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, motion regarding the address to the House by Ms Mairead McGuinness MEP on Tuesday, 29 January 2013, to be taken without debate on the conclusion of No. 1; No. 3, Taxi Regulation Bill 2012 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 3 and to conclude no later than 1.45 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed ten minutes, those of all other Members not to exceed six minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply to the debate no later than 1.35 p.m.; No. 4, Water Services Bill 2013 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken at 2.30 p.m. and to conclude no later than 5 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed ten minutes, those of all other Members not to exceed five minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply to the debate no later than 4.50 p.m. Private Members' business, No. 36, motion No. 14, shall be taken at 5 p.m. and conclude no later than 7 p.m.

I welcome the announcement that our MEPs are to address the Seanad. It is important, at a time when we hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, to be given a view of the work being done by our MEPs in the European Parliament. Such addresses would be appropriate business to schedule in the future on an annual or biannual basis. People may complain that they do not have much knowledge of what happens in the Houses but the general public surely has very little knowledge of the work MEPs do in Europe. The Seanad could facilitate greater understanding of that work.

I welcome that departure.

On the final day here before we rose for Christmas we debated the Finance (Local Property Tax) Bill 2012, which was passed, with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. I and several of my colleagues spoke for our party. It was a detailed debate during which the Minister answered numerous questions and I commend him on the way in which he conducted himself, although I did not agree with many of his points. I have a major concern, however, because during that debate we discussed at length the self-assessment element of the Bill and how people would assess their own homes. The Minister said clearly that it would be up to individuals to strike a valuation and if it was reasonable there would be no difficulties. It was all very helpful. However, over the course of the recess the Government obviously instructed the Revenue Commissioners to announce to the newspapers that they would strike valuations for the 1.65 million dwellings in the State. The Government did not announce this to the House and neither did the Minister when the Bill was before the House. The Revenue Commissioners will write to the Leader, to me and to other colleagues here stating the worth of our houses. This will be done by the end of March. I said to the media over Christmas that I could not understand this and would have no faith in the carrying out of detailed valuations of properties of all shapes and sizes across the country between December and March. More worrying was the fact that the Revenue Commissioners stated it would challenge someone who disagreed - for example, if it valued a house at €200,000 and the owner said it was worth €150,000. Should the Revenue Commissioners find against that valuation, the householder would be subject to fines and penalties. Not once did the Minister mention that in his address here. We went through the Bill in detail. I asked numerous questions of the Minister specifically about valuations, as did my colleagues, yet this was announced in the newspapers. Obviously the Department of Finance instructed the Revenue Commissioners to get this out over the Christmas period.

Every household in the country will receive a valuation from the Revenue Commissioners by the end of March. Unless there have been 10,000 new staff appointed about whom I do not know, I ask the Leader what confidence he and the Government have that the Revenue Commissioners will be able to make full and detailed valuations of the 1.65 million dwellings in the State between now and the end of March. Why did the Minister not mention that point, which is very important, as well as the fact that people could be penalised and extra charges levied on them, during the course of the debate on the property tax? I am well aware that the Minister for Finance is extremely busy at the moment, and we wish him well in his endeavours. However, over the next week or two perhaps he or the Minister for State at his Department, Deputy Hayes, could find a half an hour or an hour to clarify why this was not mentioned while the Bill was before this House or the other House, and whether it is correct that if someone submits a valuation that is not identical to that of the Revenue Commissioners he or she will be subject to a challenge by the Revenue Commissioners as well as additional charges and penalties, because that is not what we were told in the week leading up to Christmas.

As I did not have an opportunity to do so yesterday, I would like to extend my condolences to the family of the late Shane McEntee and to our colleague, Senator Clune, on the sad loss of her mother.

On another note, I compliment the Leader and the staff of the Seanad on the excellent hearings held in this Chamber in the first week of January by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, which were well attended by Members of the Oireachtas and members of the public and were well reported. It was a really good use of the Seanad Chamber, as I am sure my colleagues will agree.

Yesterday, many of my colleagues spoke of the need for a sentencing policy in light of the largely suspended sentence handed down in the case of Patrick O'Brien from Bray two days ago. I join in the call for that debate and ask that it be broadened to include the general treatment of sex offence cases within the criminal justice system. Over the past year there have been several worrying cases in which sentences appeared to be somewhat inconsistent and out of line with the normal practice, which is that offenders in serious sex offence cases receive substantial custodial sentences. It is most worrying if there are disputes between individual sentencing judges and the Court of Criminal Appeal which appear to change the nature of a sentence or to render it somewhat different to the normal run of substantial custodial sentences. It is important that victims of sexual abuse are not put off reporting abuse because of sentences or because of cases such as this one. It is important to remember that since 1993 the Director of Public Prosecutions has had the power to appeal unduly lenient sentences, and there have been several high-profile instances in which sentences have been increased on appeal. That is a very important power. We need to debate sentencing policy and we need a codifying Act that brings together all the different piecemeal changes that have been made to the law on, and sentences for, sex offences over the years. The previous Government promised such a Bill and it is in this Government's legislative programme. We see now an urgency to codify the law on sex offences.

We need also to review our criminal appeal system. Anyone with any knowledge of the working of the Court of Criminal Appeal knows how unsatisfactory it is that the court is not placed on a permanent footing. There are frequent changes to judicial personnel on the court and there are long waiting lists before the court hears appeals, particularly appeals against conviction and sentences. This case highlights several issues and I join with others in expressing my concern about it and in calling for a debate on the broader issue of the trial of sex offences.