Alex White construction Archives

Ministers need to withstand “fierce pressure” from developers

18th May 2010

It is interesting to note that last week the Taoiseach - to the extent that he did so, I welcome it - appeared to move from the narrative of “we are where we are” and made an attempt to recognise the significant contribution he himself and Governments of which he had been a member had made to the situation at which we had arrived, where we were close to the verge of bankruptcy.

In order that we are clear on what I am saying, I merely refer to his contribution and role, as people get carried away by what they believe are exaggerated criticisms of the Taoiseach; I am not saying he was entirely responsible. He played a significant role, for which he must answer. I, therefore, would like to know when the Honohan report will be published and whether we can have a debate on it in the Seanad.

We should include in that debate the remarkable statement made last week by the Taoiseach’s immediate predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern. It was truly remarkable, but it did not receive much attention. When talking about tax incentives, he agreed that they should have been got rid of much sooner. He went on to state, “there were always fierce pressures … there was endless pressure to extend them.” He stated the pressure had come from developers, the owners of sites, areas that had not seen development, community councils, politicians and civic society. That is an extraordinary statement that should be subject to scrutiny.

When we talk about having debates about politicians and the noble profession of politics, as I believe it is, we also must look at the responsibilities of a Government and politicians in government. The people are entitled to expect more of a Taoiseach or Minister that, when he or she is put under pressure, whether it be “fierce pressure” or “endless pressure”, by developers or the owners of sites, he or she will withstand it, when it is appropriate to do so. We need developers and builders and while I am prepared to accept and have no difficulty in accepting that they are perfectly entitled to meet Ministers, officially and formally, I expect more of Ministers, that they will not roll over and do the bidding of such individuals when they seek to apply pressure, whether it be “fierce pressure” or “endless pressure”, which words are not mine but those of the former Taoiseach.

Public need to know how DDDA cut so many legal corners

25th March 2010

Why have the documents relating to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority not been published? Senator Dan Boyle indicated he believed they should be published quickly when the former Senator Deirdre de Búrca explosion occurred some weeks ago. Will Senator Boyle indicate to the Seanad when they will be published and, if he cannot do so, can he indicate the reason for the delay? We are informed by RTE that the Minister and the Attorney General have the reports. The Attorney General has seen them. The Minister received them last month. Apparently, the process is ongoing. What is the nature of this process?

If such reports are in existence I am not prepared to absolve in advance the Fianna Fáil party and its leadership in respect of what has taken place. In fairness, I may do so when I read the reports but I wish to see the reports first to make up my own mind.

Planning permissions apparently given by the DDDA were considered ‘non-compliant’. That is the phrase RTE has used. RTE did not inform us with what the agency was not compliant. I presume it meant the agency was not compliant with the planning code as we understand it.

It is an extraordinary situation whereby an agency, set up for a very good reason to foster development in a particular area, could end up being used as a conduit to circumvent the planning code and to cut corners. We have seen so many corners cut in recent years by persons in the private sector. We hope we will not find out now that this public body was set up to facilitate private persons and institutions circumventing the law.

Report has potential to change constitutional landscape of children’s rights

16th February 2010

Labour Party Spokesperson on Children, Senator Alex White has welcomed the publication today of the Report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children.

Senator White, who along with Brendan Howlin TD was a Labour nominated member of the Committee said:

“This Report, and the proposal for change which it contains, has the potential to radically alter the constitutional landscape of children’s rights in Ireland.

“For the first time, children will have specified constitutional rights including the right to protection and care, the right to an education and the right to be heard. There is also a provision affirming that the welfare and best interest of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration.

“The Report recommends a change in the threshold of intervention in the family by the State. We believe that such intervention, where necessary, should be proportionate.”

Senator White concluded by pointing to the important body of work represented by the three Reports of the Committee.

“It shows that hard work together with careful and patient analysis can deliver real results.”

More :: Click here to read the report in full (PDF)

No certainty what NAMA will bring

10th November 2009

Yesterday, the Bill that will introduce NAMA began its journey through the Upper House. The Government have insisted that the legislation must be back in the Dail by Thursday, giving the Seanad three days to deal with the Bill. Below is my Second Stage speech. Keep with the site or with the Facebook page for further updates.

It is true there are no certainties in this matter. There can be no certainty on anybody’s part. In particular, the Minister cannot be certain that what he hopes will occur will actually transpire. There can be no certainty associated with the assertion that matters will come right. None of us can be certain with regard to what is going to occur. That is a measure of how momentous and serious is this debate.

We have reached the 11th hour and the Government has signalled that the legislation will return to the Lower House on Thursday, which constitutes a curtailment of the debate in this Chamber. In such circumstances, there is a sense of inevitability regarding Members’ approach to this debate. However, this should not mean we should set aside our serious and genuine objections to what the Minister is proposing.

Like other Senators, I recognise the Minister’s good faith about the way he has approached this matter. I sometimes feel uncomfortable making that point in respect of Government Ministers. I assume good faith on the part of members of the Government, whereas other Senators often use half of the time available to them to inform a Minister that he or she is a great man or woman. I operate on the basis that the Minister for Finance is doing a professional job for the country and believe this is also the basis on which he operates. He does not, therefore, require to be congratulated. In so far as it is important to say so - particularly on a personal level - the Minister’s input has been considerable, if wrong-headed, in recent months. However, that input has been solely motivated by the need to act in the very best interests of the country.

Unfortunately, in the context of what has occurred in the past 15 years, the Minister is dealing with a legacy created by the Government and his party, as a component thereof. It is fine for Senator MacSharry to express his frustration and annoyance that this point continues to be raised. I will not treat him to a few minutes’ worth of material on the Galway tent. Owing to time constraints, I will not refer at all to the history of Fianna Fáil, its associations, etc. but if I had time, I would gladly do so. I am referring to Fianna Fáil as the party of Government; I am not dealing now with its historic links with the building industry or anything else. Fianna Fáil was in office when our current difficulties emerged. It was in power when my party brought forward proposals in the late 1990s to examine the matter of house prices.

At that time my party argued, in trenchant terms, that there was no requirement to amend the Constitution in order to implement the principal recommendations made in the Kenny report which was published over 35 years ago. These issues were canvassed and debated during the lifetime of the last two or three Administrations. It is not satisfactory for those opposite to simply state they are not to blame and that everything happened around them and that they had nothing to do with it. That is simply not the case.

Govt not entitled to seek congratulations after IMF report

13th July 2009

It is true that the reports from the IMF and the OECD are neither a ringing endorsement of the Government’s stewardship nor handy crib sheets for the Opposition to attack the Government. But the problem is that when the reports were published, particularly the IMF report, they were accompanied by the sort of press releases the Government issues at such times suggesting that they constitute a ringing endorsement of Government policy.

That was exactly what we got when the IMF report was published. In the Minister of State’s speech in the Seanad, he welcomed the opportunity to have this debate because it gives an opportunity to put on record the endorsement of the Government’s policies and the endorsement it provides for the action it is taking. It includes some endorsements of what the Government is doing but the extent to which we should fall to our knees and thank the Government for taking action in this unprecedented crisis is another matter. The Government is not entitled to come into this House and seek congratulations for doing the job it is paid by the people to do, for taking steps to turn around this crisis that is partly of their making.

I am adhering to the call for restraint in this debate by saying the crisis was only partly of the Government’s making but it was of its making to a considerable extent. This was pointed out in the IMF report, which the government is so quick to characterise as an endorsement of the Government’s position. The Minister asked that while we debate the IMF report, we refer to it, and I propose to do so. I do not intend to paraphrase the report at all but will quote directly from it lest I am accused, as others have been and as some have done, of spinning it.

I will talk about the future, because that is what we are all interested in, but we cannot look to the future unless we are honest about how we got to where we are. Senator MacSharry is a good colleague in this House who often uses the phrase: “We are where we are.” That covers a multitude. It is easy for a Minister or someone else to say it, but how did we get to where we are? This is part of the analysis required to see how we get away from where we are. In addition, it is not a matter of where we are in the sense of spreading the blame; it is about where the Government has brought us. We must reword that handy little catch-all phrase which is used mainly by Government spokespersons and apologists in an effort to dissuade us from considering how we got to the state we are in.

The IMF report states:

Dazzling growth and buoyant public revenues prompted tax reductions and expansion of public expenditures that have proved unsustainable. Various commentators and the IMF in its Article IV consultations did warn that the seemingly-unstoppable growth masked serious imbalances, including the fragility of public finances.

This is a direct quote and not an attempt to paraphrase or put a spin on anything. The report states that the IMF analysis “shows that after strong growth between 1987 and 2001, which earned Ireland the moniker of the ’Celtic Tiger,’ potential growth had steadily eroded”. Here, the IMF is telling the Government that growth had started to erode from 2001. This is the report the Government is so anxious to tell us constitutes an endorsement of its policies. The report goes on to state: “Analysis by OECD staff, consistent with the results from the Kalman-filtering approach, concludes that Ireland was perhaps the most overheated of all advanced economies.” I will not burden people with the detail of the Kalman filtering approach which is an econometric model. Again, these are the words of the IMF report itself.

‘Visionary’ economic plans are simply a list of cuts

10th July 2008

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0Z1TjQzvgk]

Yesterday evening, the Seanad had an opportunity to discuss the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. We briefly discussed the subject last week and were told that a ‘visionary’ plan would be instigated this week. What Mr Cowen and Mr Lenihan brought forward this week was a list of cuts that were hiding under the term ‘savings’.

Where is the vision we were promised?

For weeks now, we have been told that the economic woes which we are now experiencing have been internationally generated. How can a government claim credit for a good economy but blame the international situation for a downturn? In development after development, whether large or small or in urban or rural areas, it massively over-incentivised the construction sector and failed to direct prudent investment into areas which would have yielded long-term results for the economy.

Above, you will find a video of my contribution to the debate.

More :: You can read the full debate by clicking here
More :: ESRI report shows that this year’s recession is homegrown (The Irish Times)

Tax revenue down due to collapse in ‘holy grail’ of construction

2nd July 2008

Tax revenue down due to collapse of 'holy grail' of construction A debate on the economy needs to be based on the facts. We can see clearly what the facts are. While we may differ in our opinions, we must have some level of shared understanding of the facts. I am less than hopeful in that regard when I hear some of the statements made in the Seanad and elsewhere as to what the facts really are.

What the Taoiseach said yesterday shows that he is persisting in the sham and untruth that our economic difficulties at the moment are wholly based on the international situation. He again said in the Dáil yesterday that tax revenues were down because of the international situation. Tax revenues are not down because of the international situation. Tax revenue is down and will continue to be down because of the collapse in the holy grail of the construction industry into which so much trust was placed by his colleagues and him in recent years. That is not an opinion; it is a fact. I raised this matter last week and some colleagues on the government side described it as an idiotic idea. It is not an idiotic idea because it is factual to point to the reality that our economic difficulties are almost wholly domestically generated.

We had a difficulty during the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign, when certain Ministers and others said they had not read the treaty. I ask Ministers and Members of this House to read the documentation available to them before the debate next week. I ask them to read the ESRI medium-term review, which makes clear that these difficulties are domestically generated. They are not based on what is happening internationally. If colleagues read the information first, we can then have the facts-led debate.

More :: Returns expected to show tax shortfall of at least €1.5bn (The Irish Times)

Communities abandoned as housing PPPs collapse

20th May 2008

It is not an exaggeration to describe this event as a parable of our times. It tells us a number of things about where we are at this stage of our development.

First, it tells us that at the time of an economic downturn, the first people to feel the brunt are the most vulnerable in our society, those whose communities have been ravaged by under investment, drug abuse, social exclusion and the lack of basic facilities. It would be no exaggeration to say that when we talk about schemes being abandoned, we are talking about communities being abandoned.

Second, it demonstrates the folly of our over-reliance, particularly in recent years, on the private sector to address pressing social problems and concerns. We have become completely obsessed with outsourcing everything to the private sector and have little or no confidence in our ability or the ability of a properly funded public sector to take the lead in issues such as this. I am tempted to suggest that instead of denoting public private partnerships, the acronym PPP should denote private profit prevails. That is clearly what it means in the current situation.

The third thing demonstrated by the collapse of the PPP should be of urgent interest to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and to Green Party Senator Dan Boyle. It relates to the reason given for the abandonment of these projects. We have been told it relates to the downturn in construction, but what was less well noticed were the other reasons proffered by Mr. McNamara for walking away from these projects, namely, that he must, quite rightly, observe the reasonable and necessary building regulations with regard to energy conservation and apartment size that have been introduced in Dublin City. What kind of shoeboxes did he propose to build on those sites?

There are sighs from those on the Government side and no doubt this will be an issue at the famous event in Galway at the end of July. Certain elements of the construction industry, bigger builders and those who find themselves in the top two or three in the CIF’s recent publication, do not take the standards seriously. That is where the Minister’s attention should be directed.

More :: My contribution was featured on Oireachtas Report - watch it here. (From 15mins 45secs onwards)

Category: construction