I thank the Leader for extending the time for Second Stage of the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013. We have six speakers remaining and I acknowledge the position on the Government side. The proposal is sensible in that it will give everyone who wants to speak an opportunity to do so. That is important.

On Tuesday, I tabled an amendment to the Order of Business on the new Central Bank statutory code of conduct on mortgage arrears that the Government brought forward and approved. The Leader suggested to me on that morning that I raise my concerns directly with the Minister for Finance under the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011. I took him up on his advice and endeavoured to elicit as many answers to the questions as I could from the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, on the day. None was answered because, as I mentioned to the Leader, they were not relevant to that Bill. The Minister of State was not required to answer the questions that I asked.

To remind the House, I specifically asked why the Government was removing the 12 month moratorium and would now be allowing banks after three months to issue legal proceedings to repossess homes. I also asked why the Government was removing the maximum number of contacts someone in mortgage arrears could have with a bank from three a month to any number the bank wanted such that if at any time the bank wanted to ring the person concerned, knock at his or her door, call to him or her, hassle and harangue him or her, that was what the code of conduct on mortgage arrears meant it could do.

Ulster Bank completely misled the public in its statement earlier in the week that 35% of those in mortgage arrears were strategic defaulters. That is absolute rubbish and, frankly, a lie. I ask Ulster Bank to produce the figures that apparently prove one third of those in mortgage arrears with the bank are strategic defaulters. It is total nonsense.

Banks talk about co-operating and non-co-operating borrowers. I asked the Leader on Tuesday what was the Government's definition of a co-operating or non-co-operating bank and why, in God's name, had the Government and the Central Bank given the banks everything they wanted in this new code of conduct on mortgage arrears. There is no independent appeals office, which we brought forward by way of legislation, only for the Government to vote it down, although this was recommended by New Beginnings, the Independent Mortgage Advisers Federation and many other independent groups. It would mean there would be an arbitration process whereby the decision would not be left to the banks, that the banks would be the ones to come forward with what they believed was a sustainable solution, and, if the mortgage holder could not meet this, all bets would be off.

What the Government is proposing in the statutory code of conduct is free gain for banks against those in mortgage arrears. I remind the House that one in four mortgages is either in arrears for 30 days or more, or has been restructured. Nearly 50% of restructured mortgages have gone back into arrears. I do not believe anyone in his or her right mind can stand over the new code of conduct.

During the course of the debate on the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011 I directly asked the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, the questions I had put to the Leader on Tuesday and not one answer did I receive. As a result, I am again proposing an amendment to the Order of Business that we allow one hour for either the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, or the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Brian Hayes, to come to the House to answer the questions many of us have regarding how the code of conduct will protect mortgage holders and why the Government allowed the banks to get everything they wanted in it. I will continue to propose amendments to the Order of Business every single day until we have a specific debate in order that we can all tease out this issue because I know Members on the Government side are just as concerned about it as I am, as has been referred to on the Order of Business and in debates all the way through. I formally propose that amendment to the Order of Business.

As Senator Darragh O'Brien knows, I share his concerns about the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. It is ironic that people are having breakfast this morning and reading reports that the European Central Bank is going to leave rates as they are, even though many know they could not survive a rise of two interest points in the ECB rate; that is the situation in this country. It is a very serious matter and I would go so far as to say it is the most serious matter facing the country. I share Senator Darragh O'Brien's concern and ask the Leader to have the Minister come to the House at his earliest possible convenience, as I have called for on numerous occasions. However, I appreciate the position the Leader is in and know that he has made his absolute best efforts to ensure that debate will take place. Therefore, I would not be in favour of putting him under any more pressure than he is under. We have to accept that he is doing his absolute best as Leader of the House.

I wish our American brethren a happy Fourth of July and the best on their national holiday.

I welcome the announcement made yesterday that St. Patrick's Institution was to close, a most welcome development. Some of the findings by the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly, are nothing short of shocking and appalling. During his visit, after last year's report in which serious concerns were raised, he found a prisoner in a filthy committal cell, with a considerable quantity of stale food on the floor. There was a broken toilet which was filthy and full of excrement. He found another prisoner who had been taken from his cell and strip searched, although no records had been created. In another cell he found two prisoners who were afraid to leave because they had been badly beaten and one had been stabbed three times.

This is both serious and a national disgrace. On a previous occasion I called for the setting up of a commission of inquiry to examine what had gone on in St. Patrick's Institution over many decades. Calls for its closure have been made for in excess of 20 years. It is a national disgrace that, as a country, we wait for people who have suffered at the hands of the State to take individual actions. We should have a permanent commission of inquiry in areas where the State has provided care, particularly for children.

I will conclude by noting that two out of every three children who leave the care of the State and a greater number of those who have been in the prison service experience homelessness within two years. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, in this House committed to having an after-care service for these children. I ask the Leader to have the Minister in the House as soon as possible to explain what progress has been made in providing after-care services for children who have been in the care of the State.

I note that in the Financial Times today there is an article by the associate editor, Mr. John Gapper, which states:

This week brought two announcements that strike at the distortions caused to banking by cheap credit and the underpricing of risk over past decades. One was the US Federal Reserve’s decision to implement the Basel III capital rules, and to add extra measures. The other was the European Commission’s assault on how banks trade credit derivatives.

He concludes: "It was never going to be easy to reform bad banking habits acquired over decades but, several years after the crash, banks are facing the inevitable regulatory reckoning". We have to be alert to these developments and, as we had a bigger banking problem than anybody else, more resolute.

In this House the issue of the tapes was raised. I commend the Minister for Finance, Michael Deputy Noonan, and Deputy Pearse Doherty for pursuing the issue and hope we can get all of them. Parliament will have to take on this task, as the Leader commented yesterday. We did not get a sense of urgency in the legislation we discussed during the week, but I commend both the Minister and Deputy Pearse Doherty for pursuing the issue of the tapes and trying to discover where they have been for the past three years and why they have not been available.

I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes - or the other Mr. Hayes, as we will have to call him as we now have two Ministers of State with the name Hayes - for the strength of the debate here yesterday and accepting in principle the Food Provenance Bill proposed by Senator Feargal Quinn. His prepared script was leading him to take the opposite point of view. This is not the first time it has happened that the Civil Service has prepared scripts against Bills prepared by Members of this House. The usual recipe is that it is not constitutional and that it would have-----

We cannot discuss yesterday's business.

Use it as a reference point in the future. It is a well known academic discipline.

I will bear that in mind. I am commending the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, and the Leader. This will have unintended consequences. The Bill, if implemented, will do the exact opposite to what the Senator said and it was suggested the European Union would not like it. The European Union is our competitor in this business. It gave us daft rules on the insuring of women in driving cars and tobacco marketing. It also did not like smiling babies on infant formula, one of our major businesses. At some stage it might add that the Bill, if implemented, will cause obesity and-or global warming. The problem we face is that the knee-jerk reaction in Civil Service circles is to reject every Bill we propose. We are living in a parliamentary democracy. If it is of help to the Leader, I suggest we organise a meeting between the Senator who proposes a Bill and the relevant Minister and Minister of State before the civil servants get their hands on it and find all sorts of reasons it cannot proceed.