Tag: rights

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

16th February 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour raises concerns over snip plans on Children’s Ombudsman

16th July 2009

I would like to add my voice to concerns being raised by Emily Logan, Ombudsman for Children, regarding the Bord Snip recommendations to subsume her Office, along with others, into office of the Ombudsman.

Quite what the point of such a merger would be is not at all clear. According to the McCarthy Report, the move would save at best a couple of hundred thousand Euro. This is less than a drop in the ocean in terms of the €5.3b cuts that are outlined in the document.

The proposal would effectively abolish the distinct and independent nature of the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, the only agency expressly charged by law to listen to children and to advocate on their behalf.

McCarthy also seems to be suggesting that investigations by the new Ombudsman’s office would be carried out by staff at lower grades, which would almost certainly compromise its capacity to adequately deliver the service.

It is astounding that this proposal has emerged just weeks after the publication of the Ryan Report. While that report was universally greeted with shock and dismay, we are now being asked to reduce the level of protection and support we will be offering children.

Earlier this month, the Ombudsman for Children’s Office published its annual report highlighting a 10 per cent year-on-year increase in demand for the services of the agency. To merge the Ombudsman for Children’s Office with bodies that have no express powers or functions relating to children would be entirely wrong and mis-guided.

The Minister for Finance has referred to pressure from sectional interests in the context of the proposed cuts and savings. Children, however, are not a sectional interest.

More :: Read the McCarthy ‘An Bord Snip Nua’ report by clicking the links: Volume 1, Volume 2

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

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.”

‘A Real and Practical Measure to protect Agency Workers’

13th March 2008

SIPTU ProtestSIPTU ProtestSIPTU ProtestLast 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