Tag: government

Appointments to Public Bodies should be based on merit, not political connections

29th October 2009

Last night in the Seanad, Senator Shane Ross put forward his Appointments to Public Bodies Bill 2009 for discussion. The Bill is the same Bill that was introduced by Senator Dan Boyle in the Dail in 2007, when the Green Party were in Opposition but Senator Boyle said that he could not vote for the Bill without the support of Fianna Fáil - something he failed to get. I spoke on the issue and below is my contribution:

As I listened to Senator Dan Boyle speaking on this topic, it occurred to me that greater love for, or adherence to, a Government hath no man than to vote against a Bill he authored. That is the position the Senator finds himself in this evening. I have previously heard him try to spread the blame for this problem by saying that everybody has engaged in these practices since time immemorial. While I do not accept that is true, for the sake of argument I will accept for the moment that abuses of this nature have been perpetrated by parties other than the Fianna Fáil Party. Even if that were the case, Senator Boyle must admit he is in a position to address it. He has told us this evening, in a roundabout sort of way, that he cannot get the Fianna Fáil Party to agree to support the Bill proposed by Senator Shane Ross. That is manifest. Senator Boyle has told us that he continues to agree with the contents of the legislation, but cannot persuade his colleagues to agree to it. That is precisely what has occurred. The Senator has pointed to the marginal references to this issue in the programme for Government, but unfortunately that does not meet the point he made when he correctly advocated this legislation some years ago. Senator Ross and others have quoted liberally from what Senator Boyle said on that occasion.

I agree with and welcome this Bill. I congratulate Senator Ross on pursuing this important initiative. He is right when he says there needs to be far greater accountability at the heart of our system. I distinguish to some extent between accountability and transparency. We certainly need much more of the former. It would probably be more difficult for us to achieve accountability although we should strive for it, but transparency can be achieved much more quickly and very easily. Even if there is no measure requiring an appointee to a public body to account for himself to an Oireachtas committee, although this should be an objective, there should at least be some transparency so as to find out who are the candidates. We should find out their qualifications and the basis on which they are appointed to any given public body.

I do not believe political participation or involvement in a political party, irrespective of which party, should operate as a bar to selfless and honourable service on a public body in the public interest. It clearly does not do so. The problem, suspicion and, in many cases, the reality is that people are appointed to public bodies not because of their merit, which may exist, but because of their political connections. That is the difficulty that arises. If Members on the opposite side of the House believe this is more a perception than a reality, they are incorrect because there are so many examples of patronage in public appointments. I have witnessed many cases personally, as have colleagues.

Read More

Government cannot articulate hope for the future

30th April 2009

Senator Joe O’Toole, when he was speculating in the Seanad yesterday, about whether one of our current problems is that the Government is trying to censor debate, may have been right, but it is more likely that the Government does not know what it would say if such a debate took place.

It manifestly has no plan and no basis for hope. That is the problem. It could outline that there will be pain, which we all know must be borne, but it could also present the possible gains. That should be a part of the role of politics and leadership. People need to take pain because of economic mismanagement and there is also the international context, but there must be hope that there will be gain in the future.

The Government appears incapable or paralysed in some way. It has been unable to articulate any sense of hope for the future. It is punctured with division and paralysed in terms of policy or offering leadership. That is why there has been no debate in this House. I do not expect we will have such a debate.

We have been calling for it for months and I expect some response from the Leader but I doubt we will get the sort of debate we are seeking. I am beginning to think we are wasting our breath in calling for that sort of debate.

More :: Click here to view an outline of the latest ESRI Quarterly Bulletin

We are where the Government brought us

6th February 2009

Yesterday there was an all-day debate on the latest Government proposals on the Economy. I had a chance to speak and below is a transcript of what I said.

I begin by making a technical point. The Seanad is, of course, not being asked to vote on the measures introduced by the Government this week. I understand the Seanad’s constitutional position in respect of financial matters. It gives a slightly different focus to our debate. We are responding to the statement made by the Minister of State at the beginning of the debate. The advantage of that is that it gives us an opportunity to make more general remarks and give a more general account of where we are coming from on these issues. It is important to remind ourselves that we are not being asked to vote for or against the Government’s measures, which were passed by the other House a couple of hours ago.

I do not disagree with Senator Brady’s remarks, which are fresh in my mind, about the importance of not wallowing in a sense of blame. I agree that we will not make much progress on the grave issues before the House by wallowing in the past or immersing ourselves in petty finger-pointing. Having said that, it would be absurd to suggest that there is no room in this debate for an analysis or assessment of how we got here. I often hear Senators on the Government side using the phrase, “We are where we are.” I even heard Senator O’Toole use it today. That, and nothing more than that, is supposed to be the basis for discussion. It is suggested that we should confine ourselves to proposing how we should get ourselves out of where we are. I would amend the phrase slightly - “We are where the Government brought us.” That is where we are, and it should be the starting point. If we do not honestly analyse what has occurred, I do not think we can hope to achieve the public or social solidarity that will be needed to address these issues in the future. When one asks people to make sacrifices, one needs to have their support and confidence. If one is entirely silent on what has happened, that is not possible. People are not stupid. They are discussing among themselves how we got to where we are. The Government has to be clear on that.

I noticed a marginal reference in the Minister of State’s speech to mistakes having been made. It is like the first cuckoo in that it is the first acknowledgment of mistakes I have spotted in a Government speech over recent weeks. I may be wrong in that respect. The Minister of State touched on the construction issue in that section of his speech. The relevant section lasts just four or five words, but at least it is there. It is necessary. Perhaps the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, made some similar remarks in the other House last week. I am not entirely sure. The Government cannot expect people to come together in any serious way to support its decisions, or at least give it some space when making them, if it is not straight and honest about what has occurred.

Read More

Does the Minister think FÁS expenses are acceptable?

3rd December 2008

The series of revelations in relation to FÁS has been commented on in the media over the past 10 days. Yesterday, the Seanad called the Minister for Labour Affairs, Billy Kelleher to attend a debate on the body. Below is my own contribution.

We are all aware we are in a serious economic crisis. On 15 October the House had statements on unemployment. When I rose to make my contribution then, I complained that the Minister of State’s speech did not seek to address the jobs crisis and the growing problem of unemployment. I invited my colleagues on the other side of the House, and the Minister of State, to show me anything that was new in that speech. It was tacitly accepted there was nothing new.

I was listening with heightened interest to learn if there would be anything new in this speech. I accept the Minister of State is dealing with the specific area of FÁS and the question of job creation and the Government’s economic policy extends further than FÁS. However, the Minister of State claimed “the Government is putting measures in place to ensure those who become unemployed are provided with effective employment service and training supports.” He also referred to the increased budget allocations provided to FÁS, an additional €5 million for training the unemployed and an additional €4 million to subsidise redundant apprentices in 2009. Whereas I am not suggesting these points were made in the debate in October, they seem not to include anything new in the past six weeks.

The Taoiseach has said Ireland is in a dire crisis. The people look to the Government to come forward with proposals as to how we can address this. There is no sign of the Minister of State or the Government doing this. From his speech today, there is no evidence, with all respect to the Minister of State, of anything new being presented to us regarding the deepening employment crisis, which all commentators agree will get worse in early 2009. I accept the Minister of State can criticise me for not resisting the opportunity to make a political point. The Government announced last week some initiative on research and development. When can we expect a plan from the Government? When can we expect direction and policies from the Government to address the unemployment crisis? Will it be next week or in January? Will it ever come?

It is not just the case that unemployment is rising but the type of unemployment. A few days ago David Begg of the ICTU pointed out that unemployment is biting at the new services industries, such as financial services, legal and architecture, that have located in Ireland in the past 12 years and account for much of the expansion in employment. There are large numbers of young people in their 20s and 30s, highly trained and educated, who are losing their jobs. I am not arguing that the Minister of State can employ them all but what I am looking for is some sense of initiative, urgency and concrete proposals from the Government.

The Minister of State said the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is carrying out a review into the efficiency and effectiveness of labour market programmes delivered by FÁS and Skillnets from which a new labour market strategy will be completed by the middle of 2009. That is too far away - up to six months. It is not good enough. This issue does not appear to be treated with a sufficient level of urgency given the ferocity of the problem with unemployment.

I am sure there will be a measure of political co-operation across the board in the event of a serious economic crisis. However, we look to the Government in the first place to come forward with the proposals. It is not happening. I hope it will happen sooner rather than later.

Read More

Labour Seanad motion seeks reversal of cuts affecting children with disabilities

24th October 2008

The Labour Party will urge the Government to reverse the cuts affecting children with disabilities when it tables a motion in the Seanad next Wednesday.

The text of the motion reads:

  • Seanad Éireann notes that in addition to severe cuts in allowances for young persons with disabilities, the recent budget statement contains a significant number of measures affecting children with disabilities.
  • Seanad Éireann further notes that children with disabilities are more prone to hospital visits, and are therefore likely to be disproportionately affected by the increase in A&E charges, the increase in hospital bed fees and increases in medical insurance costs.
  • Seanad Éireann believes that it is essential that children with disabilities have access to mainstream education for as long as possible. In this regard, class size is an essential ingredient of success for both the teacher and student. The increase in permitted class size from 27 to 28 per teacher will adversely affect every child’s education, but most especially those with disabilities.
  • Seanad Éireann deplores the deferring of implementation of the “Education for Persons with Special Needs Act”, together with the 1% cut in funding for voluntary disability bodies which comes on top of an already implemented 1% cut to the same organisations by the HSE.
  • Accordingly, Seanad Éireann calls on the government to reverse these unacceptable cuts forthwith.

Despite not being referred to in the Budget, the Minister’s callous move to stop disability allowance for 16 and 17 year olds has caused great upset for those families affected.

The Minister told the Dáil he was looking out for those most vulnerable in society. Children with disabilities, and their families were not even considered. Instead we have an insensitive and unsympathetic Government whose cuts have been aimed at those they hoped would not complain.

Get in Touch :: I have already received numerous calls and emails in relation to this issue. If you are affected, or have any issues or concerns you would like us to raise in the Seanad, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Remember ::  Labour’s Private Member’s Business in the Seanad onchildren with disabilities takes place on Wednesday 29 October at 5.30pm. You can watch the proceedings live by clicking here.

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

2nd July 2008

Tax revenue down due to collapse of 'holy grail' of constructionA 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)

Government parties vote against Labour’s HSE proposals

29th May 2008

Labour's HSE proposals voted downLast 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