Tag: Seanad

‘No more curtain calls’

8th May 2008

Seanad ChamberThere 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.

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 HouseLabour 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.

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.

‘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

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. “

123