Alex White Blog

Blog

‘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)

Rushing through of Intoxicating Liquor Bill undermining integrity of the Seanad

9th July 2008

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008

The Seanad discussed the Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 this afternoon. This piece of legislation is somewhat unusual as the bill only passed the Dail last night and the government is seeking to have it passed in the Seanad by tomorrow evening.

At Order of Business this morning, a number of senators raised concerns regarding the rushing of this Bill. I stated that it was undermining the independence and integrity of the house.

What concerns me also, is the fact that I have received letters and emails by the dozen in the past 48 hours from people concerned about what effect the legislation will have on them - not only members of the nightclub industry but youth groups and organisations. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider fully what each one states.

Below is my contribution to the second stage of the bill in the Seanad:

No one can doubt the background against which we are having this debate. We discussed it on a number of occasions in this House and it was discussed elsewhere. I refer to the abuse of alcohol, the problem of binge drinking, and the knock-on effect right across a range of social and personal problems such as mental health problems. All of these issues and their impact have been documented and elucidated in this House many times over.

No one questions the commitment of all of us, Senators on both sides of the House, to address this fundamental problem with which Dr. Gordon Holmes, in his insightful report, assisted us so much. The fact that all on this side of the House are complaining that this is, as Senator Quinn stated, “rushed legislation of the worst kind”, are criticising the legislation and the manner in which it has been introduced, and the speed with which it is being forced through both Houses, can not be taken for one minute as indicating any less of a concern on the part of those of us on this side of the House who would make that point with addressing this issue.

The question really is; does it address the issue? Dr. Holmes, in his report, wrote of the need for a comprehensive approach to this problem right across society but that is not what is in this Bill. The Bill contains a number of welcome provisions, but this is not the comprehensive attack on a serious social problem that we all know is needed. It is not consistent with debate, analysis, careful scrutiny of the problem and then the bringing forward of solutions to have legislation in this House, for the first time in my relatively short period here, where the deadline for amendments on Committee Stage came before the Second Stage, although there was some flexibility indicated for later today. It is ludicrous for us who are expected, as I stated on the Order of Business, to carry out the important constitutional function, to scrutinise legislation and to decide whether it is appropriate that it should be passed, to be faced with such a situation.

I heard one of my colleagues state that he was lobbied by one of the associated bodies, I think it was the nightclub association. I have not had time to be lobbied by them. There is not enough time to meet the people who have expressed an interest and an involvement. Certainly, people who are involved in it are just as entitled as anybody else to raise their concerns with legislators. What we do about that is another matter, but we should have an opportunity to listen to them and to think and consider carefully what they have to say.

Seamus Brennan

9th July 2008

On behalf of the Labour Party, I express deepest sympathy to the family of Séamus Brennan and to the Fianna Fáil Party on the sad and untimely death of Séamus this morning. As others have pointed out - although it is an understatement - Séamus was an exceptionally successfully politician over 30 years. To die at such an early age of 60 years having achieved so much in life is extraordinary. I have no doubt his family and colleagues will hold this thought dear in the years ahead.

I first came across Séamus Brennan when I was a current affairs producer in RTE many years ago. I always found Séamus to be a most amiable, personable and likeable man. Although politicians are not performing a charity when appearing on radio and television programmes because they benefit from such appearances I always found Séamus, of all his colleagues across all parties, to be immensely approachable and very careful and considerate in terms of acquaintance with and knowledge of individual journalists and people around him. Many people from across the political spectrum ascribed this attribute to him. He was a most decent and personable man.

More recently, when I became a constituency colleague of Séamus, I found the same level of kindness and I appreciated very much the genuine interest he showed in persons of an opposing political point of view. It has been noted the extraordinary number of votes Séamus Brennan won in Dublin South. Even in this period of success and endurance for the Fianna Fáil Party, it is an extraordinary achievement to have obtained more than 13,000 votes in a constituency in which other party colleagues were also successful. One must get up very early in the morning to take on that formidable operation in the Dublin South constituency. It was a testament to Séamus that he was such a success and so well liked in the constituency.

I join the heartfelt sympathies which have been extended to the family of Séamus Brennan. Séamus’s family are uppermost in all of our minds. We have lost someone who made a major contribution to public service. We should not forget the noble opportunity we all have to give public service and Séamus Brennan did that to a very considerable extent.

More :: Safe pair of hands exercised quiet influence (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)

Mugabe has no respect for rule of law in Zimbabwe

2nd July 2008

Yesterday, a debate took place in the Seanad on the current situation in Zimbabwe. Below is my own contribution to the proceedings:

On behalf of the Labour Party in this House I join my colleagues in what has been said. I especially welcome the clarity of the Minister’s address to the House when he rightly described the election as an obscene charade and stated clearly and without equivocation the Government’s rejection of this sham election. He correctly stated that the Members of the Oireachtas and the Irish people are rightly appalled by what has happened in Zimbabwe and the Government’s unequivocal position is that the results of last Friday’s vote cannot be regarded as legitimate or in any way constituting the democratic and free expression of the Zimbabwean people’s will. This is important point for us as politicians giving leadership.

The Minister also correctly said the principle of free and fair elections is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. That is true, but another cornerstone of democracy is the rule of law. For years we have known that Robert Mugabe and his Government have no respect for the rule of law. I was in a privileged position this weekend. I have just returned from Belfast where I attended the World Bar Conference of the International Council of Advocates and Barristers, ICAB, which was held jointly in Belfast and Dublin. We had the great privilege of hearing from a Zimbabwean lawyer, Ms Beatrice Mtetwa, as reported in today’s newspapers. She informed the lawyers gathered from all over the common law world of the insanity and complete breakdown of any sense of respect for rule of law throughout the court system and the absence of respect for even remnants of an independent media. She gave an astonishing sense of a society which has completely disintegrated in terms of any recognisable features of a democracy as we understand it.

I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to allow me the indulgence to tell my colleagues of a unanimous resolution passed yesterday afternoon by lawyers gathered at this conference representing the bars of Australia, England, Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Namibia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Africa and Zimbabwe, being member bars of ICAB. I will briefly read the resolution because it isolates and identifies the key issues in Zimbabwe and points to something positive that can be done. Despite the despair there are some actions. The question we all asked our colleague from Zimbabwe at the weekend was whether there is anything lawyers, politicians, citizens and media people can do. There is a despair regarding the response that was forthcoming.

The resolution includes a number of points. First, as we have done here, is “to deplore the defiance by the Government of Zimbabwe of its human rights obligations under domestic and international law”. The second resolution is “to call upon the secretariats of the Southern African Development Community, the African Union [most importantly] and the United Nations to initiate all steps necessary to procure the return of the rule of law to Zimbabwe and respect by the Government of Zimbabwe for the rule of law”. This is a crucial point which the Minister’s speech touched on and he is correct. It is unusual to have to call on a government to respect the rule of law, but that is the case in Zimbabwe with a complete breakdown of the courts system and any respect for the rule of law.

The third point in the resolution is “to condemn the detention without trial of our colleague [lawyer and politician] Eric Matinenga, Member of Parliament of Zimbabwe and leader of the Harare Bar and the defiance [by the regime] of the order for his release granted on an urgent basis by the High Court”. The High Court ultimately released him but not before a major struggle to achieve it. Again there is complete defiance by the Government of Zimbabwe.

The fourth point is “to call upon the members and secretariat of the Southern African Development Community to ensure that independent legal observers are permitted to be present at all courts in Zimbabwe throughout the trials of members of the legal profession who are being prosecuted for alleged offences”. These are people who are representing clients in the courts of Zimbabwe and who are being prosecuted for criminal offences literally comprising the defence of citizens of Zimbabwe before the courts of Zimbabwe.

The fifth resolution is “to demand that the lawyers of Zimbabwe be permitted without intimidation or penalty to perform their duty to represent and defend their clients in accordance with the rule of law and ensure the entitlement of their clients to basic human rights”. This is not a cry for special privileges for lawyers. When lawyers are being intimidated and prevented from doing the job they are supposed to do, society suffers.

The sixth point is “to demand that the magistrates of Zimbabwe be allowed to adjudicate impartially and without intimidation on the cases which come before them”. We asked Ms Mtetwa whether she would suggest we include the wider judiciary in Zimbabwe and demand that all the judges in Zimbabwe be allowed to adjudicate impartially, but she said there would be no point because people who know in Zimbabwe have given up on the judges. The judges of the higher courts in Zimbabwe are so locked into this rotten regime that there is no point in asking for an independent approach by them. There is some hope in the lower courts and the magistrates and she agreed that we include this point. However, she said it would be a waste of time to ask for the higher courts of the Zimbabwean judiciary to exercise independence. This is a sad testament to what is happening there. The seventh resolution is “to demand that the Attorney-General of Zimbabwe independently and impartially exercise his powers to uphold the rule of law”.

The Minister made the point that the Government will do what it can through the EU, and I am sure it will, but is vital the maximum amount of pressure is brought to bear on those countries that can have an influence. South Africa has been mentioned many times by my colleagues. While we cannot presume to interfere with the African Union, our views must be made known to it. It must cease being a trade union for African presidents and act as a real organisation in defence of the democratic rights of the people of Zimbabwe.

More :: Read the full debate by clicking here

Children’s Ombudsman concerns must be heeded

1st July 2008

Children's Ombudsman's concerns must be heeded Concerns raised by the Ombudsman for Children in her Annual Report, over the state’s failure to properly protect vulnerable children and to support families with additional needs, must be heeded and acted on.

The 43 per cent increase in demand for the services of the agency is testament to the high regard in which Ms Logan and her Office are held, but alas, also provides a clear indication that the state, through its various departments and agencies is failing to deliver on the services that children and their families deserve, and to which they are entitled.

The fact that education-related complaints form the bulk of concerns raised, should be of particular concern, but it is hardly surprising given the dismal performance of Fianna Fail in making provision for children with special needs.

Over a quarter of complaints handled referred to health-related matters, such as child protection, access and adequacy of HSE services, and decisions regarding children in care.

We already know that social work teams are considerably under-resourced, and thanks to the HSE staff recruitment embargo, just about every one of them is operating well below full staff complement. Local child protection teams simply don’t have the resources they require to make early interventions, in order to prevent a problem in a family escalating into a crisis.

When you consider the massive backlogs in many areas of the country, the lack of an out-of-hours service, and the lack of specialist residential places for children with challenging behaviour, the scale of the problem is massive.

When Brian Cowen was elected as Taoiseach he told the Dail that the particular responsibility of the Govt was to “represent the interests of our young”. It’s now time for him to act on that worthy sentiment by ensuring that the concerns raised by Emily Logan are addressed and resolved immediately.

More :: Download the Ombudsman for Children’s Annual Report by clicking here (PDF)

It’s now clear - we blew the boom

24th June 2008

From today’s Order of Business:

In order to have any relevance at all, this House needs to debate the ESRI’s recently published quarterly economic commentary. We are talking about the first recession in this country for 25 years. We are not talking about speculation but about a clear forecast of an increase in unemployment and emigration. Two significant aspects of the current situation emerge from the ESRI report. First, the current recession is almost entirely home-grown. That is the factual position as outlined by the authors of the ESRI report. The alibi, explanation or excuse that is sometimes given in this House - that it concerns external, overseas factors - is not true. Therefore we must leave that aside because it has been proven to be incorrect.

We are talking about factual material which we need to understand before we can have the debate. The factual material, which is not speculative, points without question to the reality that this is a home-grown recession caused by developments over which this country, and the Government in particular, have substantial power to change. Members on the Government side may not like it but we need to face the facts first and then have the debate.

Second, the ESRI report’s commentary makes demonstrably clear that we blew the boom.

We had an opportunity to do otherwise. We had years of self-satisfied, smug commentary from the Government, including the then Taoiseach, about cranes in the sky, saying that everything was going to be great. We missed the opportunity, however. I want a debate on this report.

We blew it in this sense that we passed up the opportunity we had in this country to set down the basis for dealing with a downturn when it came. We did not do that. We simply decided not to do it. We did not fix the roof of the house when the weather was good and now we must face the bad times. Clearly we need an opportunity to debate it in this House.

If I can reflect back on what is sometimes regarded as the Taoiseach’s Angola moment when he was upset about having to deal with the Department of Health and Children, it would appear now that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is having an Angola moment about having to deal with the challenges in the Department of Finance. They need to get together quite lively to put together a clear proposal on how we will proceed in the matter. They first need to face up to the fact that it would be unthinkable for them to go ahead and take pay increases in the face of a situation where they demand that people face pay cuts. Clearly, we need a debate on the matter.

More :: ESRI warns of recession, job losses and renewed emigration (Irish Times)

Alex on The Sunday Supplement

24th June 2008

I joined Sam Smyth on Today FM’s Sunday Supplement last Sunday where we talked about the latest opinion poll results, the economy and the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty result among other things. The other guests on the show were Prime Time journalist Katie Hannon and Irish Times Economics Editor Paul Tansey.

To listen to the show, click here.

Imperative that will of Irish people is accepted

18th June 2008

From this morning’s Order of Business in the Seanad:

It is not a matter of discretion or opinion as to whether the view of the Irish people should be respected or accepted, it is a constitutional imperative that it be so. I regard it as almost something that goes without saying, but I will say it just in case there is any doubt. Of course, one must respect and accept the result of the referendum last week. If it requires to be said, I am happy to do so. It does not end there because there is no question that the Lisbon treaty is finished and is dead in the eyes of the Irish people. The treaty that was put to them last week is dead, but by voting as we did we have not necessarily rendered it dead in the eyes of our European partners.

While we cannot ratify it that does not mean that our decision does not have implications and consequences throughout Europe and with our partners in Europe. We can feel good about the fact that the treaty is finished and is dead in our eyes but we cannot make it finished and dead in the eyes of others. These are the consequences we and the Government, in particular, have to face. I do not underestimate the task and the seriousness and the depth of the challenge that faces the Government in the context of the economic challenges to which Senators Fitzgerald and O’Toole have referred.

I am glad we have ordered an initial debate this afternoon on this issue. I support that call. Sometimes eyes glaze over when this point is made but it is important to make it at this juncture. What is the nature of the debate we need to have? It cannot be just a squabble over who did what when, where there were posters and where there were none, who was out on the street and who was not. By all means, let us have that debate if people feel it is necessary but a much more fundamental debate is needed which has to do with the question of trust in democratic institutions and trust in the very practice of politics in this country. By that I do not mean I am frustrated that the people would not do what the politicians suggested they do.

Senator de Búrca made the point in the newspapers at some stage during the campaign that it must be asked why, in such serious issues, we should expect people to handle a complex issue presented to them for decision four weeks before a referendum, in circumstances where we do not have a real continuing debate about these issues. We have such debates here but we do not have them in the community. That is the level at which the debate has to be had. The question of trust and the question of democratic institutions are all bound up in the result last week. Some of the innovations contained in the Broadcasting Bill might assist in that regard.

There should be a public forum on television and in the media where people can have an opportunity to tease out these issues in great detail rather than simply presenting them with a complex document a few weeks before the referendum. As Senator Fitzgerald and others have said it will be difficult, although necessary, to analyse the reasons people voted “No”. In many cases they are directly contradictory. There are people who thought the charter of fundamental rights did not go far enough and there are those who thought we should not have it. There are directly conflicting views.

It is all very well for people to come forward with a wish list, whether it is Sinn Féin, Libertas or anybody else. I have a wish list. We can all have one. The question is whether we can deliver it. By all means, let us have a debate about the aftermath but let us have a more fundamental debate about what it means and how we can improve the quality of our public discourse on issues such as this.

The Seanad will discuss the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty referendum this afternoon.

No gets you….?

11th June 2008

It’s the final day of canvassing on my part in Dublin South. Over the past number of nights my team and I have been knocking on doors in Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Ballyboden and I have to say that generally we have had a very positive response.

Tomorrow we go to the polls, and I sincerely hope that there will be a high turnout - and that is something that both the Yes and No side agree on. I urge anyone who has the opportunity to vote.

Polling stations will be open from 7am tomorrow morning and will stay open until 10pm that evening. Remember to bring your voting card and some sort of identification. I have had some concerned residents say that they had not received their polling card at the beginning of this week. If this is still the case, check you are on the register by clicking here and if you are then bring identification (driving licence, passport, etc.) to your local polling station.

I sincerely hope that people will fully consider what is at stake in this referendum, and I believe that the above advertisement (carried in some national newspapers this morning) should drive home the reasons to vote Yes tomorrow. Those campaigning for a No vote have said that this Treaty can be easily sent back to be renegotiated.

This is a totally naive position.

This Treaty which we vote on tomorrow is the culmination of hours, months, years of hard work by all 27 states in the EU, at some stages chaired by Ireland. If we were to ‘send it back’ there is no guarantee that we will get a better deal. In fact, we may become worse off. A Yes vote will mean that Ireland will continue to be an equal in the democratic process of the European Union. It will increase the say of the Oireachtas. It will enshrine workers rights. It will help protect trafficked women and children. It will promote public services. It will make the EU work more efficiently.

A vote No is a vote for the unknown.

Right now, for Ireland and for Europe, in this current economic climate, it is not a time for a step into the unknown, and as party leader Eamon Gilmore said, not the time to ‘throw a wobbly’.

Vote Yes.

How Lisbon affects democracy

10th June 2008

During canvassing for a Yes vote in Dublin South, I have heard some people say that they are considering voting no in Thursday’s referendum because they do not wish to see the powers of the Oireachtas ‘handed over to Brussels’. As a senator, I must respectfully disagree with this claim.

Of the 60 Senators, I know of only four who are advocating a No vote, and in the Dáil, all the major political parties bar one are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. The reasons for this outlook are simple.

While there are many reasons to vote Yes on Thursday, as a legislator, I must put forward two reasons on why the Treaty will actually provide more power to the Oireachtas, contrary to what many on the No side believe.

Increasing the role of National Parliaments
For the first time, the Oireachtas will have the powers to examine proposed legislation coming from the EU. If TDs and Senators have objections to that legislation, they can raise their concerns and have the legislation re-examined.

Yet, if Ireland still feels that proposed legislation is contrary to our interests, it can be struck down with the support of a majority of our EU colleagues. As I pointed out yesterday, the majority of what comes from the EU is technical and more important issues such as justice and home affairs are not dealt with in this way.

This is the first time that national parliaments have the opportunity to fully examine the legislation produced by the EU. It is something the Labour party have sought for some time and it can only lead to an enhancement of democracy in the European Union.

Citizens Initiative
Furthermore, the Treaty for the first time allows citizens to get involved in the inner workings of the Union. Where one million European citizens petition the European Parliament regarding a particular subject, it is the duty of the EU to respond.

This is a significant step forward towards opening the European Union up to citizens. I have no doubt that this ‘Citizens Initiative’ will lead to further initiatives in the policy-making process.

While these are just two reasons to vote Yes on Thursday, any suggestion that the Lisbon Treaty will erode Irish democracy should be rejected. If the Treaty is passed, the EU will be more accountable to the Oireachtas and to the citizens of Europe. That can only be a good thing. Vote Yes on Thursday.

Time for a reality check

9th June 2008

I am continuing on the canvass trail as Labour seeks a Yes vote in Thursday’s referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. While many people I am meeting have views contrary to my own and my party’s, I’ve still found a majority that are in favour of the Treaty and look forward to a positive result.

However, I have still found that some of the fears peddled by the No campaigners have many ordinary voters confused about what is and is not in the Treaty. In order to make an informed decision, I feel it necessary to clear up what exactly are the facts.

The Treaty will lead to a Superstate
The opposite is the case. The Treaty explicitly states that the EU is given its power by the member states, and it can only operate in traditional areas (such as defence) by unanimity.

EU Law will be superior to Irish Law
This has actually been the case since we joined the EEC - but only with regard to matters upon which we have agreed to pool our sovereignty. The EU could not operate if this were not the case.

It will lead to privatisation of Health and Education
Nowhere in the Treaty is privatisation mentioned. In fact, the EU has no position on privatisation. Nothing changes with the Lisbon Treaty.

It will lead to taxes from Brussels
There is no change in Ireland’s taxation laws and any changes at EU level will require unanimity. The EU may try to negotiate a consolidated tax base but Ireland can have the option to opt out.

We will lose a Commissioner
We will lose a Commissioner for five out of every 15 years and this applies to all 27 countries equally. There are simply not enough positions to warrant 27 Commissioners and each commissioner is bound to represent the EU, rahter than their home State.

Our neutrality will be gone
There is no change in this aspect. Ireland has a triple lock in respect of getting involved militarily - it must be agreed by the government, by the Oireachtas, and must also have a UN mandate. The lack of a UN mandate meant that Ireland did not get involved in peacekeeping in FYR Macedonia. The UN supports our mission in Chad, which is specifically to protect refugees.

It’s too complex
There is no doubt that the Treaty is complex. But it needs to be in order to protect it from constant legal challenges. It is similar to complex legal documents, banking documents and everyday bills in the Oireachtas. We must rely on the summaries we are offered. The consolidated version of the Treaties by the IIEA is a relatively easy way of reading the Treaty, and failing this the Referendum Commission is an impartial organisation that seeks to inform.

The Treaty can be renegotiated
The negotiations around the Lisbon Treaty have been ongoing for eight years. There is no doubt that if we vote against the Treaty, Ireland will not get a better deal and our hand will be dealt a severe blow.

The Treaty will bring in abortion
Not true. Our abortion laws remain unchanged under Lisbon.

This is the same as the Constitution
Much of the Treaty is the same as the EU Constitution, but with some contentious aspects removed such as a common flag, common anthem, etc. Although the Constitution was voted down in France and the Netherlands, many seem to forget that it was favoured by the people of Spain and Luxembourg.

I hope this clears up a lot of the fears that have been raised by the No campaigners. For more on this, the Labour Party have a ‘Reality Check’ section of their website. It is extremely important that everyone knows exactly what is in this Treaty, and what the facts are.

More :: Visit Reality Check on the Labour Website

Treaty Yes vote can only be positive for citizens

6th June 2008

With only days to go until the Lisbon Treaty Referendum, the Seanad had a timely debate on how the Treaty would effect national parliaments yesterday. In the course of this campaign, we have heard numerous accusations that passing the Treaty would be taking away our sovereignty and result in the virtual redundancy of the Oireachtas. This is simply untrue. Below, you will find my own contribution to the debate.

It is important that we have a debate and hear all voices and points of view on this vital proposal before the Irish people on 12 June. It is easy to assert that one respects other points of view but I do so sincerely. We must respect the viewpoints of those who urge the Irish people to vote “No”. Senator Norris complained, perhaps with justification, about name calling and people being blackguarded. I am not looking for a paper medal but I have not engaged in any of that. I am not aware of Members engaging in abuse or comments about people who take a different view - certainly not in this House.

We have debated the treaty on a number of occasions and are now debating the report of the joint committee and the enhancement of the role of parliaments across the EU arising from the reform treaty. The democratic deficit is a serious issue for the EU. We refer to a democratic deficit in our domestic political situation, an argument that can be made, but there is a major problem at the heart of the European project. It may be one that, because of the sheer scale of it, is impossible ultimately to redress. If there is a way of doing it, the drafters of the Lisbon treaty have attacked this problem. There are serious and substantive changes to the way the EU does its business. This will have a positive effect on citizen participation, citizen information and the citizen’s stake in the EU through the national parliaments. There is no doubt the treaty does that. It cannot be gainsaid by anyone that this is not one of the things the treaty does in terms of consultation with parliaments on policy matters, allowing them a real role in upholding the principle of subsidiarity and placing the parliaments in the position of watchdogs on behalf of the people they represent.

I have never claimed that the treaty is a manifesto for workers’ rights or that it achieves all that those of us on the left wish to achieve for workers’ rights, equality and social justice. I say this to all my colleagues but particularly Sinn Féin, a party that has demonstrated a commitment to the principles of equality and social justice. I believe it is the case but also that Sinn Féin is seriously mistaken in the view it takes on the Lisbon treaty as a possible means to advance those principles in Europe. In a recent article, Mr. Fintan O’Toole made the interesting point that this is about having a playing pitch on which we can advance these goals. Politics, struggles and battles are what we must engage in now. I hope Sinn Féin will be part of this in Europe to advance and uphold workers’ rights. That is where Sinn Féin should be instead of seeking to have this treaty rejected, which would have a negative impact on those we represent.

More :: Read the Report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny regarding the Role for National Parliaments in the Lisbon Treaty
More :: Read the piece by Fintan O’Toole which I mentioned in my speech (*registration required)
More :: For more information on the Treaty, please visit Labour’s Treaty Website or the Referendum Commission

Canvassing for a Yes vote in Dundrum

30th May 2008

Alex (Right) speaks with Taoiseach Brian Cowen (Left) and Labour Leader Eamon Gilmore (Centre) at Dundrum

Last evening, I joined the Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, the Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Olivia Mitchell of Fine Gael in a visit to Dundrum Town Centre to advocate a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

There is no doubt that while the Labour party has been very vocal in the past number of months regarding the referendum, a joint canvass by ourselves, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael can only serve to show the Irish public how strongly we all believe in a Yes vote.

As we enter the final straight in terms of the campaign, it’s time to focus on getting people out to vote. It’s not too late to get up-to-date with what the Treaty is all about. There is still time to make an informed decision - and not to get caught up in many of the myths being pushed regarding the Treaty.

More :: You can view more photos from the Dundrum canvass by clicking here
More :: Watch the RTE report from Dundrum
More :: For more information on the Lisbon Treaty and to download a copy of the full text, visit the Labour Lisbon Treaty website. Alternatively visit the Referendum Commission website.

Government parties vote against Labour’s HSE proposals

29th May 2008

Labour's HSE proposals voted down Last night, Labour’s motion to reform the HSE were voted down by Fianna Fáil, the Greens and the PDs. Minister Harney was present for most of the debate and defended the HSE’s slow moving reforms by explaining that it was merely in its infancy.

The proposals would have sought to establish clear lines of authority in the HSE, made the Minister for Health and Children more accountable to the Oireachtas and implemented parts of the HIQA report into the Rebecca O’Malley case.

The health service is a subject which is brought up again and again in the Seanad, with members complaining of bureaucracy and that the HSE is an impenetrable organisation. It was a pity, therefore, that the government side of the house voted against the Labour proposals. I have no doubt that the complaints about the HSE from government senators will continue.

Below, you will find my speech from last night.

It is my pleasure to second this motion and welcome again the Minister for Health and Children to the House. I am interested to hear her response and those of our colleagues opposite in respect of the proposals we are bringing forward.

I will repeat a challenge I threw down to the colleagues opposite yesterday. Hardly a day or week passes without one or other of our colleagues opposite coming into this House and quite correctly criticising an aspect of the health services that has come to their attention. Time and again they make the point about the system being dysfunctional and there being a lack of clarity in terms of responsibilities and management lines. They express their frustration in this House in respect of particular problems that arise and, more seriously, the inability to obtain clarity and answers to genuine issues which arise.

The picture inevitably painted by colleagues on all sides of the House is of an almost Kafkaesque system which is impenetrable to public representatives, to say nothing of members of the public or citizens who seek to make sense of it. The frustration people have in trying to make sense of it has been echoed at the highest level in Government, as we know. A number of the Minister’s colleagues have reflected this in recent months.

Read More

Listener and viewer must be central to our broadcasting regime

28th May 2008

Today, the much anticipated Broadcasting Bill 2008 was at Second Stage in the Seanad. Below is my speech on the Bill.

I welcome the Bill’s publication. As the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources stated last week, it is detailed and comprehensive legislation that proposes to amend and repeal broadcasting legislation dating back more than 50 years. It is a significant and unprecedented achievement and I congratulate the Minister and his officials on putting together in one Bill all of these initiatives and regulations in respect of the independent and public broadcasting sectors.

I agree that the listener and the viewer should be central to the debate and our broadcasting regime, an aspect of the Bill that the Minister emphasised. It must not be a matter of the promotion of individual interests, including those of public or private sector broadcasters. I will revert to this issue when I address the Sound and Vision Fund referred to in the Bill. It is a question of putting the listener and the viewer centre stage in determining what type of broadcasting regime we desire.

The Bill contains a number of welcome innovative provisions. For example, section 8 proposes to involve the joint committee in the appointment of members of the authority’s board and the RTE board. The Minister stated that some Members - he seemed to refer to Fine Gael Members, but they can speak for themselves - may have favoured a procedure for vetting proposed board members as opposed to a formal proposing role. He indicated his preference for the latter, in respect of which I support him. The committee should have a more proactive role in the appointment of board members of the authority and RTE and its involvement should have substance.

As well as addressing the broad sweep of requirements in a broadcasting regime, the legislation maintains RTE and TG4 but deals with them separately. The relevant sections seem faithfully to repeat what has gone before while also seeking to modernise and streamline many of the provisions relating to public broadcasters. The legislation includes several significant and innovative changes. The Minister referred to the introduction of an Oireachtas channel. This is something we have raised in the House on previous occasions. It is an important development and I hope it will be operational sooner rather than later. There was a suggestion that it would be launched next year. I urge the Minister to do what he can to expedite it.

I reflected on the Minister’s statement on the last occasion that one of his objectives in bringing forward this legislation is to shift the legislative basis of the television licence regime from wireless telegraphy to broadcasting legislation. One may wonder what that means. For many years, we have had an anachronistic approach to broadcasting, although there has been some change in this regard in the last ten or 20 years. For a long time, however, the attitude of the Government, Civil Service and of many politicians was proprietorial.

It is not so long ago that the Taoiseach’s hero, Mr. Seán Lemass, declared that RTE had been set up by legislation as an instrument of public policy and, as such, was responsible to the Government. He further stated that the Government rejected the view that “RTE should be, either in general or in regard to its current affairs and news programmes, completely independent of Government supervision”. Mr. Lemass made that statement in the 1960s in reference to the 1960 legislation which will be repealed by this Bill. There are echoes of this attitude from time to time in this Chamber when Members are upset by something they see on RTE. However, in general, the view put forward by Mr. Lemass is no longer part of our culture. It is important that we have put our view of broadcasting onto a new plane, one that is more intelligent and more faithful to the purpose of broadcasting. Public service broadcasting should not be an instrument of public policy - and especially not of Government policy - but rather a vital aspect of our democratic system and culture in the broadest possible sense.

‘Let’s move on from this nonsensical sideshow’

28th May 2008

Signatures on Lisbon Treaty There has been a sideshow skirmish revolving around the question of who is doing more in terms of the Lisbon treaty debate. I appeal to all sides of this House and elsewhere to move on from this nonsensical sideshow.

This is the first reference made by myself or my colleagues in the House and we make it in a positive sense, something with which colleagues on the other side of the House might not be familiar.

The Taoiseach made an ill-judged remark at the weekend and appears to want to move on. Yesterday, the Leader did not sound like he wanted to move on.

If the treaty is to be passed, as desired by most Senators, engaging in a sad, sorry skirmish as to who is doing more in the midlands or elsewhere will not get anyone anywhere.

What needs to be focused now is getting people to vote Yes, no matter what political creed they subscribe to. Let us get the facts out there. And let us resist the temptation we feel, as Eamon Gilmore said yesterday, to give each other a kicking.

More :: Opposition anger over Cassidy’s accusations (The Irish Times) *Subscription required
More :: Remember to visit Labour’s Lisbon Website

Seanad to discuss Labour motion on HSE

27th May 2008

HSE Logo Tomorrow evening, the Labour party in the Seanad will raise an issue that has been talked about ad nauseam in the House.

I refer to the future of the HSE. I invite all my colleagues on the opposite side of the House, who have expressed their frustration regarding the operations of the HSE on many occasions, to support the motion the Labour Party will be tabling.

I invite the Leader of the Seanad and the Deputy Leader not to put forward the usual amendment that is tabled in respect of such a motion and which essentially involves deleting everything after the term “Seanad Éireann” and replacing it with something anodyne. I call on them to genuinely support what we are proposing, namely, a serious set of reforms regarding the HSE.

The motion is not a personal attack on the Minister, the Government or anyone else, nor is it a retreading of old arguments; it is comprised of a positive set of proposals regarding how the HSE can be reformed. This issue has been raised on numerous occasions by Senators on the opposite side of the House and I invite them to support the Labour Party motion.

More :: The Seanad debate on the HSE will take place at 5 p.m. on Wednesday May 28. You can view the proceedings live by clicking here.
More :: You can read the wording of the Labour Private Members Motion by clicking here.
More :: Learn more about Labour’s plans for reforming the HSE by clicking here.

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)

Debate heats up in Mount Merrion sunshine

16th May 2008

Last night was the last in our series of meetings on the Lisbon Treaty. The series really has worked out very well for myself and the constituency of Dublin South. I opened the meeting last night by saying that the most important thing about the Treaty was to publicise information on the Treaty.

My guests were Peadar O Broin author of ‘The Consolidated Version of the Treaties’ and Blair Horan of the CPSU. Peadar told the audience that the Lisbon Treaty was about making the EU work more efficiently and transparently.

“We have to remember that when this project started they were working from a model that suited six countries. In 2008, we have 27 countries working under that same project. The Treaty aims to tidy up and clarify the workings of the EU,” he said.

Blair told the audience that the Treaty would result in the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally enforceable.

“People are right to say that the rights contained in this are nothing new, but what is new is the fact that the Treaty will guarantee those rights for every citizen. I think that that is important to stress. What we are dealing with is not just an economic market but a social market, too.”

An interesting and comprehensive Q&A took place following the addresses. There were some very strong and passionate views brought forward from members of the audience, with both the Yes and No sides represented.

One thing that struck me was the concern that some in the audience had regarding the Treaty, and the element of fear associated with it. I believe Peadar dealt very well with the crux of some of the arguments.

In response to questions on our neutrality, all three speakers stated that the ‘Triple Lock’ mechanism stays in place, whereby any military participation needs to be accepted by the Government, the Oireachtas and there needs to be a UN Mandate allowing us to enter. Peadar gave an example of the EU peacekeeping presence in FYR Macedonia and said that Ireland could not get involved because there was no UN Mandate for such peacekeeping.

Concern was also raised about the fact that only one mainstream party was against the Treaty and what this meant for democracy. I was quick to point out that the Labour Party had gone through the entire document and weighed up the pros and cons. If the party were to decide against the Treaty it would be dishonest to the people of the country.

Nonetheless, the beauty of Irish democracy is that it is a peoples’ vote and not a political vote.

More :: Please take some time to go to the Labour Party’s website on the Lisbon Treaty by clicking here

Information Meeting on Lisbon Tonight in Mount Merrion

15th May 2008

Lisbon Treaty Meeting Tonight, Mount Merrion Our final Information Meeting on the Lisbon Treaty will take place tonight.

After two successful meetings in Dundrum and Nutgrove over the past two weeks, I will be speaking on the Treaty and what it’s all about at Kiely’s in Mount Merrion. My guests tonight will be Blair Horan of the CPSU and Peadar O Broin, author.

The meetings have been designed for both those who have concerns about the Lisbon Treaty and those who feel uninformed thus far. We have had excellent attendances at our meetings in Dundrum and Nutgrove and I would encourage everyone to come along and take part in the informed debate.

There is still confusion out there regarding what Lisbon really deals with. We have heard arguments regarding such issues as Ireland’s neutrality, taxes, and what it means for workers in Ireland in terms of rights.

I feel that those who have come to the meetings have gone home with a clearer understanding of the Treaty and have the information they need in order to make an informed decision.

Literature will be available at the door to take home.

It is a public meeting and everyone is welcome. I hope to see you there.

Wondering what the Lisbon Treaty is all about? Information Meeting, Kiely’s Mount Merrion, Tonight, Thursday 15 May, 8 pm.

More :: Click here for directions to Kiely’s, Mount Merrion.

‘Cé mhéad abhcóidí a bhfuil na scileanna sin acu, dairíre?’

15th May 2008

Trathnóna inné, thosaigh an Bhille na nDlí-Chleachtóirí (An Ghaeilge) 2007. Yesterday evening, the Legal Practitioners (Irish Language) Bill 2007 began. My second stage speech is below:

Is ceart an-thábhachtach, atá ag gach duine sa tír, an cheart an Gaeilge a úsáid in imeachtaí os comhair na cúirte. Is fiú mórán an cheart sin. Caithfimid a bheith cinnte go bhfuil an tseirbhís sin le fáil sna cúirteanna ag gach éinne a theastaíonn uathu tairbhe a bhaint as. Ba chóir dúinn córas éifeachtach a chur i bhfeidhm. Caithfidh an chóras sin a bheith macánta freisin. Luaigh an Aire an Acht Lucht Cleachtuithe Dlí (Cáilíocht) 1929, a fhorálann gur chóir d’abhcóidí “leor-eolas” ar an dteanga a bheith acu. Mínítear “leor-eolas” san Acht sin mar an méid sin oilteachta i labhairt agus i scríobh na Gaeilge agus is leor chun a chur ar chumas cleachtóra dlí, le héifeacht, treoracha a ghlacadh, comhairle a thabhairt do chliaint, finnéithe a cheistiú agus imeachtaí sa Ghaeilge a thuiscint. Is abhcóide mé le blianta fada anuas agus dá bhrí sin, is féidir liom an cheist a chur - cé mhéad abhcóidí a bhfuil na scileanna sin acu, go macánta?

Tá suim ag a lán abhcóidí sa Leabharlann Dlí sa Ghaeilge. Níl siad in ann cásanna a dhéanamh sna cúirteanna trí Ghaeilge mar níl an caighdeán oiriúnach acu. Tá sé ag roinnt abhcóidí, ach níl sé ag formhór dóibh. We must be honest about having a system in place that allows and provides for an efficient and reliable system to be available for people who wish to have their business in court conducted in Irish. There is little point in continuing with what in reality has been a fiction. The fiction goes back to the 1929 Act where that system was put in place. For 80 years it simply has not been the reality at the level that was contemplated in 1929.

Rinne mé an scrúdú seo i 1987, nuair a bhí mé in Óstaí an Rí. Bhí olltoghchán ar siúl ag an am céanna. Bhí mé ag obair i RTE ag an am sin. Tháinig na torthaí amach an lá tar éis an toghchán. Ní raibh mórán ullmhúcháin déanta agam don scrúdú Gaeilge an lá chéanna. Chuaigh me isteach go dtí Óstaí an Rí ar mo rothar chun bualadh leis an scrúdaitheoir. Bhí an-suim aige sna torthaí ó Chontae Maigh Eo. D’éirigh liom sa scrúdú Gaeilge.

I was delighted to pass the test but somewhat miffed to discover that my friend, who had never learned a single word of Irish ever because he had been given some sort of dispensation or exemption in school, passed with equally flying colours ten minutes later. This was the sort of fiction that was evident. Admittedly, this has improved in recent years. I agree very strongly with my colleagues’ point that we need to put in place a system that does justice to the language and makes presumptions about people’s knowledge thereof. As Senator McDonald rightly said, the system should encourage professional lawyers to learn Irish and reach a certain level of proficiency while at the same time favouring those who make an effort to reach a higher level.

There was some debate on a number of amendments tabled by my colleague, Deputy Brian O’Shea, in the Dáil. The then Minister of State, Deputy Carey, said that during Committee Stage in this House, he would return to some of the matters raised. Nuair a bheidh an díospóireacht againn, b’fhéidir go mbeidh further discussion againn on individuals who are already in the system. I refer also to those who went through the system 30 or 40 years ago but who did not pass the test and were deprived of their qualification. I do not know why they did not have the same outcome as my friend who did not have a word of Irish. Perhaps they did not have the same examiner.

I welcome the basic thrust of the Bill. There is no question that it is progressive although there are a few issues I would like to revisit on Committee and Remaining Stages.

Níos Mó :: Léamh an Bhille na nDlí-Chleachtóirí (An Ghaeilge) 2007 anseo. Read the Legal Practitioners (Irish Language) Bill 2007 here.

Alex on The Late Debate

14th May 2008

I was on RTE Radio 1’s The Late Debate last night. On the panel with me was Mary O’Rourke TD, Fionnan Sheehan of the Irish Independent and Harry McGee of the Irish Times.

The topics discussed included the announcement of the new Ministers of State, Brian Cowen and the media and a good discussion on the Dublin South constituency.

More :: To listen to the show, click here.

Children being failed by our social service system

13th May 2008

Last night’s Prime Time Investigates programme on child protection services, showed the alarming extent to which children at risk of abuse or neglect are being failed by our social service system.

Perhaps the most shocking disclosure was that children regarded as Priority One cases - those most at risk of sexual or physical abuse - did not have a social worker allocated to them. We also saw where filing cabinets packed with documents relating to numerous cases, had not yet even been examined.

The programme drew attention to a particularly outrageous case where a foster parent reported evidence of sexual abuse of a child in her care, only for her warnings to be ignored. There seemed to be no action taken by the HSE and the suspected parents were allowed ongoing regular access to the child. It is quite clear that children in such cases are not being afforded the full protection to which they are entitled under the Children Act 2001.

It is little wonder that doctors and teachers who have to refer cases to social services have become so frustrated and disillusioned, when they discover that in all liklelihood, nothing will be done.

It was very disappointing to hear the response of new Minister of State Barry Andrews on Morning Ireland this morning. One might have expected that a new Minister would bring a new perspective and a new enthusiasm to the job. Instead what we got was a new voice, trotting out the same old excuses and offloading responsibility to the HSE. Where was Minister Andrews’ anger? Where was his determination to get this problem sorted out?

The reality is that children are being placed at unacceptable risk and that unless our child protection services are properly resourced many will face continued abuse or even death.

Just last week the newly-elected Taoiseach Brian Cowen told the Dail that the particular responsibility of the Govt was to “represent the interests of our young”. It’s now time for him to act on that worthy sentiment by ensuring that the HSE recruitment embargo is lifted and that an emergency programme of recruitment of social workers gets under way immediately.

More :: You can watch the ‘Prime Time Investigates’ programme on Child Protection by clicking here

‘Lisbon information meeting in Loreto, Rathfarnham’

13th May 2008

Last night, the second in our series of three meetings on the Lisbon Treaty took place at Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove. I was extremely impressed with the turnout, which resulted in extra chairs having to be found so that everyone had a seat!

I was joined by Blair Horan of the CPSU and by Holly Kilroy, International Officer of Labour Youth.

I began the meeting by telling the audience that a vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty will mean a strong Ireland on the European stage and a strong EU on the world stage.

“The Lisbon Treaty is not going to sort everything. But there is enough in this document for people to vote Yes on June 12th.

“The No side are rolling out arguments that have been rehashed from debates we’ve had since we voted to join the EEC in 1972. Any arguments that the EU has left items out of this treaty in order to push it through is plain wrong.”

Holly admitted to the audience that she had come to the meeting the day after her Final Exams in College; such is the strength of her support for the Lisbon Treaty.

“Passing this Treaty will guarantee the rights that Labour has fought for,” she said. “The Charter of Fundamental Rights contains some vital rights that will only become legally enforceable if Ireland votes Yes. This even includes a prohibition on discrimination, which is a massive step for the EU to take.”

Blair told the crowd that any fears that Ireland is ‘surrendering’ to a United States of Europe should be dismissed.

“We live in a different century now. If one looks at the history of Europe, the 20th Century saw the absolute devastation of Europe through two World Wars, genocide and instability. The EU is a guarantee of stability. If Ireland was on its own in the current economic climate, our unemployment would be through the roof and our currency would be devastated.”

In a Question and Answer session at the end of the meeting there was a surprising number of questions on the Lisbon Treaty and its possible link to abortion and euthanasia being brought in to Ireland.

“It is untrue to say that Ireland will be forced to bring in abortion and euthanasia” I said.

“There are many untruths out in the public mind and it is our job to separate the truth from the myth.”

The final Information meeting on the Lisbon Treaty takes place this Thursday, 15 May in Kiely’s, Mount Merrion. It is a public meeting and begins at 8pm. Everyone is welcome.

Media Room now open

12th May 2008

Today, we open a new part of the blog - the Media Room. Here, you will find links to my appearances on television and radio, as well as where I have appeared in the papers.

You will also find links to YouTube videos of my speeches in the Seanad.

Feel free to take a look. Click here or on the link on the top right of the page.

Quips make it to print!

12th May 2008

It’s usually a good day when the media makes reference to events in the Seanad. In Saturday’s Irish Times, both Senator Hannigan and I made an appearance in Miriam Lord’s colour column.

Click here to see the article (Subscription Required).

Senator encourages the undecided to attend meeting on Lisbon Treaty

9th May 2008

Senator Alex White will continue his series of public information meetings on the Lisbon Treaty this week.

After a successful start in Dundrum last week, Senator White invites the public to join him in Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove on Monday May 12th and Kiely’s, Mount Merrion on Thursday May 15th.

Confirmed guests for the meetings include Blair Horan of the CPSU and Holly Kilroy of Labour Youth, with more to be announced.

“I encourage anyone who wishes to learn more about the upcoming referendum to join us this week,” Senator White said. “So far there has been a lot of talk from both sides of the debate. What my colleagues and I hope to do is to dispel a lot of the myths surrounding this Treaty and explain it in plain English.”

“The referendum is an opportunity for those of us who want to promote a social Europe, to fight for that at the heart of Europe and the only way we can fight at that heart is by voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

Senator White also said that he was encouraged by the attendance and quality of debate at the previous meeting.

“Our meeting in Dundrum was very successful. The audience was a good mix of people who were curious about the Treaty, those concerned about its consequences and those who sought more detail on its contents.

“I believe that it satisfied the needs of all those people.”

Information Seminars on the Lisbon Treaty, organised by Senator Alex White will take place on Monday 12th May in Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove and on Thursday 15th May in Kiely’s, Mount Merrion. Both meetings begin at 8 pm and all are welcome.

High Court judgment unlikely to have significant impact on work of tribunal

8th May 2008

Four Courts, Dublin Labour always believed that the former Taoiseach’s High Court action challenging the Mahon Tribunal’s right to question him about certain statements he made in the Dail was more about delaying the work of the Tribunal than upholding the constitutional right to privilege of members of the Oireachtas.

The tactic worked in terms of delaying the Tribunal from questioning him on matters of relevant public interest. However, it could not prevent his exit from office much earlier than he had planned, which was largely due to the determination of Labour and other opposition parties to hold him to account politically.

At the time the action was initiated we acknowledged that there were serious legal and constitutional issues surrounding the privilege of members of the Oireachtas. A number of the issues raised by Mr. Ahern’s legal team were conceded by the Tribunal early in the hearing. The High Court judgement on the outstanding matters will now have to be studied to establish the extent to which the questions relating to privilege have now been further clarified.

Given that the Tribunal has access to its own information and the fact that many of the statements made by the Taoiseach in the Dail were also repeated outside, I do not believe that this judgment will have a significant impact on the Tribunal’s further inquiries into Mr. Ahern’s financial affairs.

‘No more curtain calls’

8th May 2008

Seanad Chamber There have been many congratulations for the former Taoiseach and we now have had a month of praise and thanksgiving. Much of it has been deserved, some of it less so, and some of it has been bordering on the nauseating. It is now time to get down to business. I wondered at one stage over the last few weeks whether the former Taoiseach would outdo Luciano Pavarotti, who has the world record of 165 curtain calls in a single performance. The former Taoiseach went close to that record.

While it is a matter for debate whether this is a new Government, it is an opportune moment for us to have that wider discussion. I ask the Leader to arrange for the new Taoiseach to come into this House and to set out his ideas, his proposals and his vision for the post-Celtic tiger Ireland into which we are facing. Before we can get down to the important debates with individual Ministers, I would echo the call to bring in the Taoiseach to the Seanad for that type of debate. We can then grapple with the challenges that exist in the economy, such as the deepening inequalities that have characterised the last decade of growth, the spectacle of 190,000 children at risk of poverty in a country with such enormous wealth held by so few people.

If we had that debate, we could consider the sort of public service we want to have in this country, how we fund it, how we use the taxation system in order to bring about a fairer society, and whether we want one health service for the well off and one for everybody else. I would like to hear the Taoiseach set out his stall on these issues in this House. The Opposition parties are also under a duty to put forward their ideas and their vision, and this would provide an excellent opportunity to do that. I join with my colleagues in congratulating the new Taoiseach, but I hope we get down to business today. I would welcome the opportunity to have such a debate at the earliest possible occasion.

“Lisbon is not a raid on our sovereignty”

2nd May 2008

EU flags in Brussels Senator Alex White has asked the public not to approach the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty with fear.

The Labour representative in Dublin South was speaking during a debate in the Seanad on Thursday.

“There is almost a ‘Little Ireland’ approach from the No Campaign, who say that if it is out there in Europe, we must resist it and put the brake on because it can only go against us,” he said. “Those arguments have been heard repeatedly.

“We make a decision to give up or share sovereignty. It is not taken from us. The Treaty is not a raid on our sovereignty by this big faceless body. We will make any judgment ourselves.”

Senator White is seeking a Yes vote on June 12 and he told the Seanad that the Lisbon Treaty will mean more transparency in the EU and will increase the strength of the country in any future negotiations.

“The No Campaign have stated that we will not have a Commissioner sitting at the table for five out of the 15 years after 2014. Comparisons are made with TDs. People elect TDs to a sovereign Parliament. We must understand that the European Union appoints Commissioners in a different context. They are not there to fly the flag for their country. That is not what they are appointed to do,” he told the Seanad.

Senator White also dismissed claims that a No vote would send politicians back to renegotiate, saying that “the opportunity to negotiate a deal has been taken”.

“It is clear that an opportunity is available for those of us who want to promote a social Europe, to fight for that at the heart of Europe and the only way we can fight at that heart is by voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

“A Yes vote on June 12 will mean that Ireland will go to the EU in the future with a strong hand. It is about having the self-confidence, and the people should have enough confidence to vote Yes.”

Senator White continues his series of public information meetings on the Lisbon Treaty in Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove on Monday May 12th and Kielys, Mount Merrion on Thursday May 15th. Both meetings begin at 8pm and include some special guests. All are welcome.

Labour Bill on FOI voted down by government parties

1st May 2008

Last night, the Seanad debated the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2008 brought forward by the Labour party. After a debate of nearly two hours, with some interesting input from both sides of the house, the Bill was voted down by the government parties.

The Bill would have gone some way to redeem the Freedom of Information Act from the bruising it received due to amendments by the Fianna Fáil/PD government in 2003. Those amendments added fees of between €10 and €150 to FOI requests which has resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of requests received, from a peak of almost 18,500 in 2003 to just over 10,500 in 2007.

The Bill would have also extended the remit of FOI to groups such as an Garda Síochána. Ireland is the only country of 27 in Europe which does not include its police force in FOI, and this is something that the Information Commissioner, Ms. Emily O’Reilly has sought as well as Mr. Conor Brady, a member of the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Below is my own speech to the Seanad last night. I spoke at the very end of the debate.

I represent something of an unreconstructed approach to freedom of information, namely, that the presumption should be precisely that freedom of information. The case should be made for the exception and not the other way around. The rationale behind the 2003 amendments was, and much of the opposition to what we are proposing is, motivated by a completely different approach to freedom of information. The latter is, in part, grudging.

At the very least, it can be characterised by a sense that the individual must make a case for obtaining particular information rather than it being presumed that the information should be freely available, but with reasonable and rational exceptions. The starting point should be to have the widest possible latitude and freedom while a case can be made in legislation and administrative rules for where the exceptions should apply. It has as much to do with our culture and approach to the issue as it has with the individual legislative provisions.

I am sorry to say that the Minister of State’s contribution is from the old school. We know the Act was introduced in 1997 and that extra bodies have been added. We know all these things, which have been set out in the Minister of State’s speech.

To take the fees issue, however, it is difficult to see how the change in fees in 2003 was motivated by anything other than a desire to deter people from making freedom of information applications. Why else was it done? The Minister of State ought to be more direct with us as to why that was done. It comes through in his speech which quotes the extreme but interesting example of a request for access to the diaries of a number of civil servants and Ministers - the very idea of it. It involved reading through thousands of pages of documentation. At least that particular application had the advantage of only ever having to be done once as regards the diaries of civil servants and Ministers.

We understand that there is a burden on the State and the public service in respect of freedom of information. By introducing legislation in 1997 and believing in freedom of information, as Senator Callely said, we must be prepared to accept that a burden goes with the freedom we want to provide. It is no use taking the approach that it is so onerous and requires so many hours of work that we must restrict it. The presumption in any democratic society, especially a modern democracy such as ours, should be to make the information available, accept the burden and live with the cost to the State. I accept there is a cost to the public purse in providing freedom of information, but most entitlements we introduce come with a price tag. We must be prepared to accept that price tag within reason. It is not good enough for a Minister to point to the extraordinary cost or how onerous it is on us.

Read More

Seanad to debate Labour Freedom of Information Bill

28th April 2008

Leinster House Labour Senators will introduce the party’s the Freedom of Information Bill in the Senate next Wednesday during Labour Party Private Members Time.

Senator White said: “This Bill is designed to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to a number of key bodies including the Garda Siochana and to repeal the regime of charges for access to information introduced by the Fianna Fail/PD government in 2003.

“The Freedom of Information legislation enacted by the Rainbow government was grounded in the belief that public bodies must be accountable to the ordinary public they are there to serve and that accountability requires openness. Freedom of information overturns the presumption of official secrecy set out in the Official Secrets Act and replaces it with the legal presumption that the public has a right to know.

Senator Hannigan said: “Freedom of information, everywhere it has been introduced, has brought about more open government and better administration of public services. Doing business in the open is the best guarantee of efficiency.

“However, this government has always been hostile the concept of freedom of information and has done its best to undermine the original Act by introducing legislation in 2003 that severely restricted categories of information that could be applied for and by imposing a series of heavy charges designed to discourage people from using the Act.

“This Bill seeks to undo some of that damage and to extend the scope of the Act to key public bodies that this government has so far refused to have included.”

More :: View the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2008 by clicking here.

A lively start to debates on Lisbon Treaty

25th April 2008

We had the first of four planned information meetings on the Lisbon Treaty, on Thursday, April 24th at the Taney Parish Centre, Dundrum. All of these meetings are open to the public and we hope that people come along to inform themselves and debate the issues.

Liz McManus T.D. and Blair Horan of the Civil and Public Services Union got the ball rolling on Thursday night. Liz pointed out that the core values of the Treaty are in alignment with the core values of the Labour Party emphasising as they do equality, democracy and social justice. The Treaty will make the European political process more transparent. It will also allow for a Citizenship Initiative, whereby European citizens can mobilise to put an issue of concern to them on the political agenda.

Blair focused more on the role of the Lisbon treaty in fleshing the social and economic rights of European citizens. The Lisbon Treaty, he said, introduces for the first time the prospect that citizens can look to the European Union to vindicate social and economic rights. He said he was optimistic about the potential benefits of this for European workers into the future. A lively discussion ensued.

Barry Desmond, former T.D. and M.E.P. expressed his concern about the changing political landscape in Europe, particularly the possibility of an emerging right-wing bloc lead by Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Nicolas “Starkozy” in France, and potentially supported by euro-sceptics in Poland, and the U.K. Desmond said that Ireland and other European countries needed to remain vigilant as the EU has the potential to fragment politically.

The meeting also discussed Ireland’s role within the EU peace keeping initiatives, the arguments being put forward by Libertas and the tardiness of the government in getting out and joining in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

The next information meeting will take place at the Community Centre, Nutgrove Avenue, Rathfarnham on Tuesday, May 12th. I hope to see you there.

White expresses frustration at slow progress of Knocklyon School

23rd April 2008

[youtube=”http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDTMbnOgBE”]
Senator Alex White has expressed his frustration and disappointment with the lack of progress of extension plans for St Colmcille’s Junior School and Senior School in Knocklyon.

Senator White was speaking in the Seanad yesterday where he highlighted the situation the staff and pupils now find themselves in.

“The difficulty is that the schools wish to apply for planning permission but so far the Minister has not seen fit to permit the school to proceed with this application,” Senator White told the Seanad. “The schools have slightly fewer than 500 pupils in prefabricated accommodation with a total of 16 prefab classrooms and 14 prefab resource teacher rooms. Most of these prefabs were installed 20 to 25 years ago.

“It is vital that this project proceeds,” he explained. The School is awaiting permission to apply for planning permission since last November.

In response, Minister of State Máire Hoctor told Senator White that the school has “a significant amount of accommodation but still has a shortfall” and failed to set a date to allow the school to apply for planning permission.

Minister of State Hoctor cited the current economic situation of the country for the slow progress. She told the Seanad that “further announcements will be made as the budgetary position allows. This school project will be considered in that context.”

Senator Alex White said that describing the school’s accommodation problems as a ‘shortfall’ was “the greatest understatement I have heard for a long time” and was quick to point out to the Minister of State that allowing the school to apply for planning permission would not cost the Government a cent.

“I do not understand why, in circumstances where costs are not entailed, the Minister could not see her way to giving the green light to the schools. The momentum exists in the schools and in the local community which provides fantastic support for the schools,” he said.

More :: Read the full transcript of the debate here.

Welfare of children at risk thanks to penny-pinching HSE

22nd April 2008

Reports that the HSE is unable to respond adequately to hundreds of cases of vulnerable children because of staff shortages and under-resourcing is a further indication that our health services, and our child protection services in particular, are run on the basis of profit and loss accounts and balance sheets, rather than on the basis of the needs of vulnerable children.

The book-keeping culture that prevails in the HSE has led to a situation where the protection afforded to children is largely confined to emergency action. Local child protection teams simply don’t have the resources they require to make early interventions, in order to prevent a problem in a family escalating into a crisis.

Social work teams are hugely under-resourced, and thanks to the HSE staff recruitment embargo, just about every one of them is operating well below full staff complement.

In addition, it is unacceptable that the information which emerged today is three years old at this stage. Under the Child Care Act 1991, the HSE is obliged to report on their child care activities on an annual basis. There is little value to this requirement if the information they provide is not delivered in a timely basis, so that problems can be identified, addressed and resolved quickly.

It is also extraordinary that the report referred to in today’s Irish Times appears to have been sent to the Minister by the HSE in late February, but is only coming to public attention today. While the report was placed on the HSE web-site some weeks ago, both the Minister and the HSE must ensure that there is immediate publication of such reports in the future, especially where their contents are already years out of date.

Discussion Session on Lisbon Reform Treaty

16th April 2008

The constituents of Dublin South and beyond will have an opportunity to discuss many of the issues surrounding the forthcoming referendum on the Lisbon Reform Treaty. Along with my colleague Liz McManus TD and Blair Horan, General Secretary of the Civil Public and Services Union (CPSU), I will be fielding questions on the Treaty and providing a forum for the general public to air their views on Thursday 24 April.

The venue will be Taney Parish Centre, Dundrum and the event starts at 8.15 p.m.

This event is a public meeting so everyone is welcome. I look forward to seeing you all then.

More :: Find out more on the Lisbon Reform Treaty by clicking here.

Athlone report raises serious questions about operation of child protection guidelines

15th April 2008

The report of the Independent Inquiry into how a lecturer in child care policy at the Athlone Institute of Technology was able to remain in his post two years after his conviction for serious sexual offences in Holland raises serious questions about the operation of child protection measures in this country.

Parents will find it hard to understand how no action was taken despite the then Midlands Health Board and the Gardai being notified of it within days of its occurrence in Holland in June 2004.
This was a serious incident involving violence and indecent acts.

Surely we should have accepted by now that when it comes to the welfare and protection of children no avoidable risks should be taken.

In this case it appears that proper procedures were followed and that the appropriate authorities were notified, but no action was taken but for reasons that were not entirely clear.

We must now learn the lessons of this affair and ensure that not only are appropriate procedures in place, but that they are acted upon when incidents like this occur.

The recommendations made by Mr. Devine in his report should now be placed for consideration before the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children.

More:: Read the full McElwee Report by clicking here

White pays tribute to Dr. Paddy Hillery

15th April 2008

From today’s Seanad sitting:

On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish to be associated with the tributes to the former President, Dr. Paddy Hillery. His death represents the passing of another member of an extraordinary generation of politicians, namely, those who were born immediately after independence and who came to prominence in the middle part of the previous century. Members of that generation are characterised by a particular kind of commitment to public service. Different generations have various ways of expressing the commitment to which I refer. The type of commitment displayed by Dr. Hillery could be almost described as a form of sacrifice.

This is a recurring theme with regard to Dr. Hillery. He said himself he felt he did many things out of a sense of duty. There was a sense of selflessness about it. It can absolutely be said of that generation, and particularly of him, that his commitment to politics and public service was motivated by nothing other than a sense of duty and of honour at serving one’s country. There was never any question of its being done for personal gain or opportunity. This is something that characterises that generation of politicians and public figures which, in a sense, is now passing. His passing is a particularly poignant example of that.

As others have said, Paddy Hillery distinguished himself in a number of different positions in Government. In particular, as Minister for Education, he laid the groundwork for much of the work that was done later. He was essentially a progressive Minister for Education and did a large amount of work in that position. For a short time he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, but he was particularly important in his post at the Department of Labour, introducing industrial legislation in the late 1960s which is still an important part of our industrial relations infrastructure.

Others have referred to Dr. Hillery’s work on Northern Ireland. I endorse the remarks of Senator Fitzgerald with regard to his contribution to the major issues of peace in this country and our involvement and commitments in Europe. I remember when he stood up to the Irish Government in respect of equal pay, which I welcomed. It was vitally important in those early years of our membership of the EEC that we did not see the benefits of our involvement as flowing in one direction but that we also made a commitment to a fundamental right to equal pay, which was then expressed in legislation in 1974. This was a vitally important, progressive move. He was clear that it had to be implemented and he did the country a great service in this regard.

I join with my colleagues in conveying my sympathy and condolences to Paddy Hillery’s family, Dr. Maeve Hillery and Dr. John Hillery, and recall his great personal warmth as a human being as much as a politician. His loss will be felt greatly in this country. I wish to be associated with today’s tributes.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

‘One cannot state the Government created the boom but has nothing to do with the issues we now face.’

9th April 2008

We have not yet begun to get our heads around what is happening in terms of the economic situation. Last week, the greatest increase in unemployment since records began was reported. We have a veritable collapse in the domestic property market in this city according to anecdotal evidence and what has been written. This morning, I saw a “sale agreed” sign on the south-side of Dublin. It was a bit like the first cuckoo of spring but I am not sure whether it will be followed by many more cuckoos. The construction industry will be seriously impacted by this.

According to comments made today by one commentator, David McWilliams, who is hardly a socialist firebrand, we have invested so much in property in recent years that we have exhausted the capital base in the country. We have a serious situation facing us. It is not an exaggeration to describe it as a crisis.

Again and again in the Seanad I have heard the Leader and others reeling off the achievements of the Government. The Government has had achievements but if it is correct to state, as I anticipate the Leader and others might, that the economic downturn is largely the result of international forces, it is incorrect to state the Government was responsible for the boom. As I pointed out before, one cannot have it both ways. One cannot state the Government created the boom but has nothing to do with the issues we now face.

In a compelling piece, David McWilliams also points out that at the heart of the job over which the new Taoiseach must preside is the stunning accumulation of wealth at the top of society. He recalls last year’s wealth of the nation report from Bank of Ireland. The top 1% in the country own 20% of the wealth. The top 5% own 40% of the wealth. Let us pause to consider the fact that 40% of the wealth of the country is owned by the top 5% of the population. This is one of the legacies of the boom and an issue with which we must wrestle as we consider future economic policy.

It is not enough to state we improved social welfare in line with or above inflation. We must consider the opportunities we will present, spread, foster and offer to the young people, whether in Limerick or elsewhere, caught up in social problems and crime. Will the weaker in society suffer with a downturn in the economy? This must not be the case. We must examine this splurge of wealth at the top, whether it is symbolised in the Galway tent or elsewhere. We need to turn this around and ensure economic policies develop the country.

Let us have all issues open, including this extraordinary inequality, which is one of the unfortunate legacies of the boom.

Taoiseach spoiled dignity of last week with despicable attack on tribunal

8th April 2008

The Seanad sat today for the first time since the news that the Taoiseach is to step down from office on May 6. It was a lively Order of Business full of comment on the Mr. Ahern’s decision with the general consensus being that the statement ‘a week is a long time in politics’ has never been more appropriate. In my contribution, I stated that the Taoiseach’s comments on the Mahon Tribunal had spoiled what was otherwise a dignified exit. Below is the full transcript of my contribution:

Senator Alex White: As Senator Fitzgerald stated, it has been a busy time since we were last here. Last week in particular was very eventful. When I entered the Chamber today, I was prompted to look across, with mounting concern, to ensure the Leader was still sitting in the place with which we associate him. I am glad he is still there today.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I am glad to see the Senator here also.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should speak on the Order of Business, please.

Senator Alex White: I noted the remarkable sense of relief that appeared on the Deputy Leader’s face after the events of last week. No doubt the developments came as a great relief to him and his party, or so we are led to believe.

Senator O’Toole and others have made the point that it is a pity that the Taoiseach has not had the opportunity to speak in the Chamber during the term of this Seanad. Senator O’Toole’s suggestion might be a way of addressing this.

The very significant achievements of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, must be acknowledged without question, particularly in the context of the historic events in Northern Ireland. When the history of these events is written - some of it has been - many players will be regarded as having made a significant contribution. It can probably be said that few, if any, made a more significant contribution to promoting peace and ensuring a resolution to the Troubles than the Taoiseach. I have no difficulty whatsoever acknowledging that.

We should also acknowledge that, in general, the Taoiseach has been an extremely successful politician. Somebody said to me that one of his characteristics is what is called the “likeability factor”. I agree with this but the Taoiseach has needed the likeability factor, particularly in the past year or two. I wonder whether he would have survived as long as he did had he not had it. It is a pity that the departure from public life and politics of somebody who achieved so much is tainted. There is no question about this.

I will seek a debate on an issue related to the Taoiseach’s departure which Senator MacSharry raised before the break. It was a pity that the Taoiseach spoiled the dignity of the occasion last week - he was backed up in doing so - by again refusing to pass up the opportunity to have a go at the tribunals.

Senator Geraldine Feeney: Rubbish.

An Cathaoirleach: I do not want any discussion on tribunals.

Senator Alex White: I do not know why he felt he had to launch what I can only describe as an unwarranted and despicable attack on people doing a professional job in a tribunal set up by the Oireachtas—-

(Interruptions).

Senator Geraldine Feeney: Rubbish.

Senator Alex White: —-in circumstances in which we need to purge all the anger felt, as expressed by Senator MacSharry on the last occasion on which he raised this matter. Perhaps we still need to purge this anger because, although the Taoiseach is going, the tribunals are not. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have a parade of people asking that matters be left to the tribunal while the Taoiseach and a queue of Ministers never miss the opportunity to attack it, particularly on an occasion such as that last week.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator Geraldine Feeney: The Senator has very little else to say—-

Senator Alex White: Either one approach or the other should be adopted. Either the tribunals are to be maintained and supported by this House, which set them up through the motion proposed by Senator Cassidy ten years ago, or they are not. Remarks such as “low-life stuff” are not worthy of a Taoiseach, be it a departing Taoiseach or a sitting one.

An Cathaoirleach: I am allowing a certain amount of latitude but we cannot discuss the tribunals.

Senator Alex White: In such circumstances, I ask that we have the debate Senator MacSharry called for before Easter. I hope he has not withdrawn his call therefor. Perhaps we can have the debate in calmer circumstances given that Deputy Bertie Ahern is to some extent out of the equation, at least as Taoiseach. Let us determine how much the Members opposite really support a tribunal investigating the matters that occurred so recently in our public life.

EU matters debated with President

8th April 2008

The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Hans-Gert Pottering addressed the Seanad this morning on his trip to Dublin. During his speech, Mr. Pottering praised the valuable work of Irishmen and Irishwomen in Europe, their contribution to the workings of the Union and the value of the Lisbon Reform Treaty.

“I trust in the wisdom of the Irish electorate, which perhaps is the best-informed electorate in the EU about European matters,” he said.

I got a chance to to say a few words following Mr. Pottering’s address. He are some extracts from that speech:

I am delighted on behalf of the Labour Party to welcome the President to the House. We are affiliated to the socialist group in the European Parliament, which vies with the President’s group for largest group.We do not have the largest group currently but we hope to before too long. I had the pleasure of meeting the President last night and he said something to me that very much resonated in the context in which we are speaking.

The President stated that being in Berlin in 1962 or 1963 and seeing the wall being constructed represented the single biggest motivating factor for his entry into politics. All of us, whether left, right, centre, red, green or blue, celebrated the removal of this abomination at the heart of our continent. It was extraordinary to see the division it constituted in the continent of Europe removed so quickly in the end. It was also an enormous moment historically for Europe to see it go. It seems that in the context in which we are discussing the Lisbon treaty and having this debate we should not forget that this was an enormous symbolic occasion for Europe and the importance of a united Europe.

Unity in Europe cannot be founded only on symbols, important as they are. My party will support the Lisbon treaty enthusiastically and will actively canvass and campaign throughout the country for a “yes” vote. This morning’s discussion is an interesting and useful occasion. However, while it is not so much that storm clouds are gathering, in any debate we must address the serious economic issues we have on a worldwide scale at present. We have seen what happened in the United States and Europe.

What serious role can the European Union take to address the concerns of many millions of workers throughout the Union that at a time of economic downturn, the first to suffer are those on low pay and low wages? These are people already affected by the impact of the various inequalities which still have not been removed throughout the continent. We still have a 15% gender gap in pay, despite all we achieved. We still have a gap between rich and poor in all countries of Europe and between the security of employment many of us have and the precarious situation many workers face.

An issue I am especially concerned about is the question of the draft directive on agency workers, which we have debated in this House. I am sorry to state the Government has not seen fit to support it, at least at this stage. Does the President agree with me that it is vital a measure such as this is brought forward quickly? If it is not brought forward during this Presidency, it should be brought forward in the next. People who quite rightly are asked to vote in support of the Lisbon treaty would see they have a stake in it and that it has a real impact on their lives.

Something which often amuses me, and I saw it arise again in recent days, is the notion of red tape. I would like to reflect on this idea. People rail against red tape and no one likes unnecessary bureaucracy. When we criticise red tape we forget that in many cases this so-called “red tape” represents a major achievement. People speak about the burden of regulation. I would like to speak more about the achievements of regulation such as the fixed-term work directive and basic minimum holidays and hours of work which came from European directives. We also have the equality directives, including the new equality framework directive. All of these were initiated in the Commission, debated and passed at European level. I do not regard any of these issues as red tape or a burden. I regard them as real achievements for workers throughout Europe.

It is unfortunate that during the debate in the European Parliament in recent days, it was suggested by some Members that the new framework directive brought forward by the Commission, of which I am sure the President is aware, represents more red tape. If what is needed to combat income, gender and race discrimination is called red tape then I embrace red tape. If this is what it is let us have more of it. Of course, this is not what it is. It is a pejorative way of describing it.

It is a real achievement of Europe and if the workers of Ireland are to be asked to support the Lisbon treaty, and we will ask them to do so, they must see that ratifying the treaty will have a real impact on their lives.

In response to my concerns, Mr. Pottering stated that the EU needed to find a “middle ground” in relation to red tape.

“If we introduce too much regulation, then parts of the political spectrum will not want anything to do with Brussels,” he said. “Those who prefer regulation will, if left alone, do too much. We must take all people along with us on the European project.”

Importance of the 21st Century Commission

3rd April 2008

I attended the 21st Century Labour Commission last Saturday, along with a number of other Labour representatives and staff. The Commission was set up following the Party Conference in Wexford last November. As the party comes towards the one hundreth anniversary of its birth, the time is now right to re-examine what Labour means to both those in the party as well as the people of Ireland and to forward the party into the new century.

At the opening of the Commission, our party leader Eamon Gilmore made an address. Below are some sample comments:

As the name implies, your task is nothing less than developing a blueprint for a 21st century Labour Party. A party that is relevant to, and successful in, contemporary Ireland. Successful in motivating people to join us, successful in winning elections, and successful in improving Ireland.

Before embarking on your work, it is worth pausing to reflect on the significance of the task - on the goals that a 21st century Labour Party must achieve.

Why does 21st Century Ireland need a 21st century Labour Party?

Our party must once again find that coherence of expression. All of us have come into the party for different reasons, motivated by different moments in our lives, or in the life of our country. We could, all of us, give a passionate and valid statement of what Labour means to us. The passion and commitment of our members is the core of our strength as a party. But we must go beyond individual stories. We must, as a party, bring together those individual voices into a common chorus. We must be ready to present the Irish people with a clear and understandable statement of what our party, Labour, stands for in modern Ireland. Not just pertaining to the immediate concerns of today, but to Ireland as it will be between now and 2020 - and indeed beyond.

There is a need for us, in particular, to expand the meaning of the term ‘Labour’ in the way we speak and are spoken of. We must go beyond old images of a downtrodden proletariat and smokestack industries - beyond the idea of Labour as an interest group representing a particular form of paid manual employment. Yes, those are our origins, and we are proud of them. But the context of Labour today relates to work in a much wider sense.

Labour is not a description of work - or simply a label for a political movement. Labour is a set of values.

Modern Ireland needs Labour’s vision, but it needs all of that vision. We cannot, as individual members, or as a party, confine ourselves to the part of it that we find most comfortable. Labour’s values are, of their essence, confident and assertive, and we must have the confidence to assert them in their fullest form.

We are not seeking change for its own sake, but transformative change, rooted in Labour’s values. It is vital that we as a party, give clear and united expression to what those values mean in modern Ireland. To be clear, with one another, and with the Irish people, about what Labour is for. Giving our country a New Purpose, and creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to flourish.

More :: Read the full address by Eamon Gilmore TD

Freedom of expression protects us all

18th March 2008

My opinion piece on the Defamation Bill was published in the Sunday Independent on Sunday 16 March.

“The quality of public discourse should be a concern for all of us, especially for politicians. When we debate our defamation laws, as we did last week in Seanad Eireann, we have a responsibility that extends beyond self-interest and special pleading — whether by politicians or others offended by harsh criticism in the media, or by newspaper proprietors concerned with maximising sales and profits.”

To read the full article, click here.

Alex on The Late Debate

14th March 2008

Committee Room I was part of the panel last night for Radio 1’s The Late Debate, where there was discussion on the work of the Oireachtas. You can listen to the debate by clicking here.

More :: The Late Debate (RTÉ)

‘A Real and Practical Measure to protect Agency Workers’

13th March 2008

SIPTU Protest Last night, the Seanad had a lively debate on the Protection of Employees (Agency Workers) (No. 2) Bill. This particular Bill was introduced by the Labour Party and was taken in our own time slot. After hearing the speech by the Minister of State, Michael Ahern TD - which you can view by clicking here - I spoke in support of the Bill, its merits and what it would mean for those Agency Workers. Here is some of what I said:

“Despite the talk of people being in favour of the spirit of the Bill, of everybody singing from the same hymn sheet and of the Bill being premature and not thought through, the Labour Party, with the support of others, is proposing a real and practical measure to protect agency workers which is being opposed by the Government.

It is being rejected by the Government which will vote against it. I suggest we cut through the waffle and all the nonsense about everyone singing from the same hymn sheet. When someone presents a practical proposal which has been well thought through and is clear in describing the impact of the measure, the Government informs them this proposal will be rejected and that it might do something in the future and it will discuss it with the social partners.

“I refer to the contribution by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, which lists at least five or six reasons. He referred to the reason the Irish Government did not support the EU directive on temporary agency work. He spoke a nonsense about the fact there are different industrial regimes across Europe, something we all know is the case. Everyone knows there is a long history of collective agreements at national level in Germany and other European countries. This is not a new discovery. There is employment legislation going back 30 years which applies in equal measure across the European Union in circumstances where different employment law and industrial relations regimes are in existence in those countries, such as the fixed-term work legislation and the equality directives. Much legislation and many directives that have been introduced and implemented in different member states are implemented in countries that have different regimes and different industrial relations regimes. The Minister of State’s argument is a nonsense and an excuse.

Read More

Increasing English lessons for Newcomer Students would help integration in schools

12th March 2008

While at the Order of Business yesterday, I made some points regarding teaching resources available for newcomer students in this country, after hearing about the latest report from the ASTI.

“We have had debates on integration and the Minister of State came to the House for an interesting preliminary debate on integration. However, it is time we moved away from speeches, from essentially theorising about what integration is and from discussing the experiences of other countries and so on, and considered practical measures which could be taken by the Government to ensure a higher degree of integration in respect of students and young people, particularly in our education system.

A timely statement was made by the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland. It pointed out that at the very heart of any integration policy must be language support in schools. It correctly criticised the Department for failing to properly resource the teaching of English to young students in schools to help counter racism which, of course, is a much more complex question. However, nothing is more important than language and the teaching of language. It pointed out that newcomer students get two hours of English lessons per week. Notwithstanding that they get two hours of English lessons per week, they must spend the rest of the day struggling to understand what teachers are saying in science class and elsewhere. This statement came from teachers involved in schools and who know what they are talking about.It is entirely inadequate that the teachers who provide these lessons get only one day’s training. We do not have adequate provision of English language teaching in our schools. Far more work needs to be done in that regard and we need more resources. Let us have another debate on integration but not at a theoretical level discussing the experiences of other countries, interesting and all as that is. It should focus on how we can practically support the teaching of English to newcomer students in our schools. “

« First ‹ Previous 9 1011