No certainty what NAMA will bring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taoiseach forgets he’s in the driving seat

I am afraid it is not credible to say that by his statement at the weekend the Taoiseach has got himself into the driving seat. The Taoiseach has been in the driving seat for 18 months in this country.

Prior to that, he was in the seat beside the driver as he was in the Department of Finance for an extended period. I am not prepared to go along with the notion that the Taoiseach now has credibility on public sector reform. He just does not have that credibility. There is a cabinet sub-committee that is supposed to be meeting on this issue for the last year and a half, but the Taoiseach could not even answer the question yesterday on whether that committee had met. I understood from his response that it has not met. It is no use saying the Taoiseach has now put himself into the driving seat. The Taoiseach has had every opportunity for 18 months and more to address these issues, but he has failed to do so, along with his Government.

It is perfectly legitimate for people to criticise the public service and to call for reform, as I have. The problem is that the debate has become suffused with anecdote, prejudice and worse. Everybody has their story about the public service and what should happen. However, the Government gets to do more than what we get to do, which is to come in here and call for things to happen. It is ludicrous for RTE to report the Taoiseach as “calling” for public service reform. That is what we do in here. We call for things but unfortunately we have little or no power to deliver them. The Taoiseach does not get to call for things. He gets to do things. That is why he is the Taoiseach.

We should forget about calling for things and expressing wishes. Let us have a balanced review of the problems that exist and of the issues in the public service that require reform. That can be done in a relatively short period. Let us then have some action on the issue. People who are marching on the streets are being told they are the problem, but they are not the problem. Cuts do not amount to reform. If people are serious about reform, let us have a balanced assessment on what needs to be done and then let us have some action.

More :: Cowen calls for ‘fundamental reform’: RTE

Alex on the radio

I featured as a guest on Today FM’s Sunday Supplement with Sam Smyth yesterday. The other panellists were Mary O’Rourke TD and Senator Shane Ross.

You can listen to the show in full by clicking here.

Closure of Care Unit yet another example of State’s failure to protect children

The revelation that the leading children’s Special Care Unit in Ireland must close is yet another example of the State failing children, according to Labour’s Spokesperson on Children, Senator Alex White.

“The Minister for Children must explain how conditions at the Special Care Unit in Ballydowd became so unacceptable that there was no option but to close. I would question why it took the HIQA inspection report to recommend ‘urgent action’, before this issue was raised with the Minister responsible.

“The report highlights the ‘serious difficulties of trust’ between management and staff. This was taking place at what was meant to be the leading care unit in the State. It appears that the failure began when the €13 million facility opened only nine years ago.

“There must be immediate assurances that the children currently in the care unit are transferred in a dignified and safe manner.

“It is another addition to the catalogue of this government’s failures on children. Following the publication of the Ryan Report, the Minister promised that ‘the State must now and in the future, deliver care services that nurture and support children.’ The closure of this facility is another striking example of the government’s lamentable failure to deliver such care services.”

More :: Click here to read the HIQA Inspection Report (PDF)

Union members perfectly entitled to protest

In respect of the day of protest scheduled for this Friday and the general issues pertaining to the trade union response to events, members of trade unions are perfectly entitled to take a day of action and to protest on the streets of their capital city. Not only are they so entitled but they are perfectly justified in so doing. Every time one makes a point about, for example, NAMA or some other issue pertaining to the economy, Members on the Government side ask, perhaps justifiably, what is one’s alternative. Practically five minutes into a discussion on the subject, the refrain from Members on the other side is what is one’s alternative.

I ask those who criticise trade union members who are taking to the streets and considering industrial action what alternative do they propose. What alternative do they propose to people who can see their living standards have dropped and who can see no real stake in the future? The problem people have is there is no clarity and they can see absolutely no stake into the future regarding how these issues should be dealt with in budgetary terms. What alternative is proposed by those people who fill the airwaves with criticisms of trade unions being lunatics and everything else?

NAMA Seanad debate to be only three days

I refer to next week’s business dealing with the NAMA legislation. The Government has already made it clear publicly that it intends to curtail debate in this House. It announced the legislation would return to the Dáil on Thursday week, 12 November. It has already made it very clear that the debate will finish here on Wednesday night. That will amount to the guts of three days’ debate in the House. We know that decision has already been made. It is intended to finish the debate on Wednesday night or Thursday morning next week.

It is odd to read in the newspapers today that the Minister for Finance intends to introduce further amendments, amendments that are so complex – I understand this is the way in which it has been reported in the newspapers today – that he is not in a position to introduce them this week. He requires more time and will not be able to introduce them until next week and he will do so in the Seanad. If he must take a further week to devise and deal with the amendments, how are we expected to deal with such complex matters in a period of one day or one day and a half? We will do our best to do so but it is extraordinary, since there have been months of preparations for this legislation.

However, the Government seems to take the view that when legislation goes to the Dáil and to Seanad in particular, this constitutes the end rather than the beginning of the debate, and that the real work is done by the Executive, not by the Parliament. The Government has taken this position and if I am wrong in this regard, I ask the Leader of the Seanad to disprove my point. The Deputy Leader also might agree to my proposal, which is to publish the amendments at the end of this week. The Leader should not wait until Tuesday morning to publish them but should enable Members to see them. This at least would give Members a couple of days to consider these complex amendments and an opportunity to deal with them when they come before this House. The Government should consider this not unreasonable request.

Alex on NAMA

Today, the Seanad got an opportunity to speak on the business plan for NAMA in advance on the Bill coming before the House late next week. Minister Martin Mansergh was in the chamber to listen to the contributions from Senators on all sides. Above is my own contribution.

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

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.

Taoiseach’s ‘my way or the highway’ approach to budget cuts

I never received an answer to my question to the Leader of the Seanad some weeks ago as to when and why the decision was made to move from a policy of securing savings of €4 billion in public spending through a combination of €2.5 billion in spending cuts and €1.5 billion in taxation measures to a position where the entire €4 billion is apparently to be achieved by way of cuts alone. Reports in today’s newspapers say the Taoiseach has put forward another version of his “my way or the highway” approach to the debate on the forthcoming budget with an indication that what he envisages will occur come hell or high water.

Will the Leader facilitate a debate on the fundamental issues associated with the desirability and advisability of instituting such radical spending cuts? The question is whether our economy will be able to withstand such deep cuts in public services and the associated impact for the entire economy. No other country in the OECD is engaging in these types of radical cuts as a matter of policy in the midst of a severe recession. The conventional wisdom has always been that governments should wait until the economy shows some signs of improvement before engaging in such draconian reductions in public spending. The Government apparently shared this view earlier in the year but it seems there has been a change of mind in the interim. No explanation has been given in this House or elsewhere as to whether such a decision was made and, if so, why or when it was taken. When I put this question to the Leader on a previous occasion he replied that we must wait to see what is done in the budget.

There must be a debate on how increases in taxation can contribute to making up the required saving of €4 billion in public expenditure. Why was the Commission on Taxation tasked with setting out the various options in this regard if its findings were to be jettisoned?

I am not saying that anybody in the Labour Party or elsewhere would feel particularly comfortable standing up and advocating tax increases. Nobody likes to do that, but it is part of the picture and we have to deal with the balance between cuts and taxation measures. It is simply not good enough to spend money and effort on these reports during a serious recession and do nothing. There is a need for serious public debate in places like this House. I second the proposal on the Order of Business that we have a debate here in advance of the budget on what ought to occur.

On Seanad Abolition Proposals…

Yesterday, the Seanad met for the first time since Fine Gael Leader Enda Kenny proposed the abolition of the Upper House. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, I only got to put forward my view at this morning’s Order of Business. Below is a transcript of my contribution:

Senator Alex White: I wish to comment briefly on the issues which exercised Members yesterday. I listened to the proceedings on the radio in my car and what I heard was quite bleak. It pains me to say it.

Senator David Norris: We missed the Senator.

Senator Alex White: Over and over again, Members were exploding with indignation. I include in that the Senator who has just—–

Senator Paschal Donohoe: Exploded.

Senator Alex White: Yes.

Senator David Norris: If that was an explosion—–

An Cathaoirleach: Members should cease interrupting. There should not be a repeat of what occurred yesterday.

Senator Alex White: There is a serious point to be made in respect of this matter. It was stated on the radio a few moments ago that in the eyes of many members of the public, the show was over for the Seanad.
It may seem I am adopting a holier-than-thou attitude. However, I accept that I am sometimes not behind the door in interrupting other Members.

Senator Terry Leyden: Why was the Senator not present yesterday?

Senator Alex White: Members of Parliament should have a better sense of what—–

Senator Terry Leyden: The Senator should have been here.

Senator Alex White: This is another example of that to which I am referring.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden should not interrupt. This type of behaviour marked yesterday’s proceedings.

Senator Alex White: People who have been Members of Parliament for 20 years or more do not appear to be able to act with a basic level of decorum.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: At least we were here.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Yes, we were.

A Senator: Please allow the Senator to finish.

Senator Alex White: During yesterday’s proceedings Senator Regan took the opportunity to misquote me. I never stated this House served no useful purpose. I am not a supporter or member of the Fine Gael Party. However, for Senator O’Toole to describe what seems to be a genuine proposal that we consider the concept of institutional reform – including as it relates to this House – as harking back to the 1930s is so absurd as to draw the level of debate so far down that said debate is almost not worth having.

More :: Read the full transcript of yesterday’s Order of Business by clicking here
More :: See RTE’s report on the proceedings