Labour raises concerns over snip plans on Children’s Ombudsman

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

Alex on RTE News

I was featured during the report on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill in the Seanad on RTE’s Nine O’Clock News last night.

You can view the clip by clicking here.

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 was debated in the Seanad for over eight hours yesterday and ultimately passed without amendment late last night. Below you will find my Second Stage speech.

Before I deal with the substance of the issue before us, I wish to deal briefly with two matters. There may well be confusion in some quarters in terms of the debate about the Garda evidence and as to the issue that this is covered in the Act, but I do not believe there is any confusion in that respect in this House. As we do not have a great deal of time within the next few hours to deal with this legislation, we can leave that issue aside. I do not believe anybody is confused in this House as to what the Bill proposes in regard to Garda evidence. That is clear. We can debate whether it is right or wrong, but it is clear in the Act. We should leave the issue of confusion aside.

The second matter relates to the debate on this legislation. We are here to participate in this debate and we want to do so for as long as it takes. I made the point on the Order of Business earlier that, unfortunately and regrettably, there did not seem to be much point in debating this legislation because the Government was clearly intent on not accepting any amendments, which would render this debate somewhat irrelevant. The Leader, Senator Donie Cassidy shook his head in response to my comment, which I took to be an indication that he disagreed with me. Senator Terry Leyden then indicated to the House that if amendments were brought before the House that the matter could be dealt with during the course of the summer. The Minister has now put that issue at rest and has made it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that no amendments to this legislation will be accepted by the Government and that, to use his words, “we need this legislation now”. Let us be clear about this, there is no intention on the part of Government to permit this House to amend this legislation in any respect today or on any other day.

Notwithstanding the Government’s view as to whether we should be listened to in this House on this legislation, we still have to reflect on our role as legislators. We are paid to come here by the people to deal with legislation. As to what is our role, I accept that the Government has a very particular role, perhaps an enhanced one in the sense that it has the expertise and advice of the Garda available to it and it is dealing on a day to day basis, operationally and in policy terms, with the management of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, it is in a position of expertise far greater than anything available to any of us. I accept that. That is how the system works.

Let us examine our role. I do not wish to oversimplify it but it appears to be the case that a Minister comes to the House to inform us of the changes that need to be made to the law because there is a problem that needs to be addressed and he outlines the changes he proposes we should make. It is our role to ask him to tell us why that is the case and to demonstrate it to us. We then consider whether that explanation is adequate and we either vote for or against the proposals brought by the Minister. I accept that is an oversimplification but it is not an unreasonable description of our role.

If I am correct in that are we not entitled to ask the Minister to do more than simply assert the need for certain legislation? The Minister must demonstrate the need for it to us. He must show us why it is necessary, not just simply by anecdote, the expression of his opinion or the communication to us indirectly of an opinion given to him by the Garda. He must give us some evidence on which we can take the rest of the argument in trust that what he says is necessary. I cannot, and do not, exclude the possibility – I say this genuinely – that these measures are necessary, but I am not prepared to agree to them simply by it being asserted to me without any evidence or convincing argument – in some cases without any argument at all – as to why they are necessary.

This is very serious legislation. We are dealing with the curtailment of rights and the liberty of the citizen, irrespective of what he or she is accused of, and in view of this we are under a bounden duty to exercise the strictest possible scrutiny of any such proposal. That is all I am interested in doing. Senator Quinn, and to some extent Senator Boyle, have expressed the hope that the Minister will return with responses to some of the questions that have been raised. I do not know whether the Minister will do so when he replies to Second Stage. However, he has made it clear that he does not intend moving from his position. That puts us in a very odd position in terms of trying to debate the issue, or any expectation we might have that the Minister might address any of the difficulties we have.

Govt not entitled to seek congratulations after IMF report

It is true that the reports from the IMF and the OECD are neither a ringing endorsement of the Government’s stewardship nor handy crib sheets for the Opposition to attack the Government. But the problem is that when the reports were published, particularly the IMF report, they were accompanied by the sort of press releases the Government issues at such times suggesting that they constitute a ringing endorsement of Government policy.

That was exactly what we got when the IMF report was published. In the Minister of State’s speech in the Seanad, he welcomed the opportunity to have this debate because it gives an opportunity to put on record the endorsement of the Government’s policies and the endorsement it provides for the action it is taking. It includes some endorsements of what the Government is doing but the extent to which we should fall to our knees and thank the Government for taking action in this unprecedented crisis is another matter. The Government is not entitled to come into this House and seek congratulations for doing the job it is paid by the people to do, for taking steps to turn around this crisis that is partly of their making.

I am adhering to the call for restraint in this debate by saying the crisis was only partly of the Government’s making but it was of its making to a considerable extent. This was pointed out in the IMF report, which the government is so quick to characterise as an endorsement of the Government’s position. The Minister asked that while we debate the IMF report, we refer to it, and I propose to do so. I do not intend to paraphrase the report at all but will quote directly from it lest I am accused, as others have been and as some have done, of spinning it.

I will talk about the future, because that is what we are all interested in, but we cannot look to the future unless we are honest about how we got to where we are. Senator MacSharry is a good colleague in this House who often uses the phrase: “We are where we are.” That covers a multitude. It is easy for a Minister or someone else to say it, but how did we get to where we are? This is part of the analysis required to see how we get away from where we are. In addition, it is not a matter of where we are in the sense of spreading the blame; it is about where the Government has brought us. We must reword that handy little catch-all phrase which is used mainly by Government spokespersons and apologists in an effort to dissuade us from considering how we got to the state we are in.

The IMF report states:

Dazzling growth and buoyant public revenues prompted tax reductions and expansion of public expenditures that have proved unsustainable. Various commentators and the IMF in its Article IV consultations did warn that the seemingly-unstoppable growth masked serious imbalances, including the fragility of public finances.

This is a direct quote and not an attempt to paraphrase or put a spin on anything. The report states that the IMF analysis “shows that after strong growth between 1987 and 2001, which earned Ireland the moniker of the ’Celtic Tiger,’ potential growth had steadily eroded”. Here, the IMF is telling the Government that growth had started to erode from 2001. This is the report the Government is so anxious to tell us constitutes an endorsement of its policies. The report goes on to state: “Analysis by OECD staff, consistent with the results from the Kalman-filtering approach, concludes that Ireland was perhaps the most overheated of all advanced economies.” I will not burden people with the detail of the Kalman filtering approach which is an econometric model. Again, these are the words of the IMF report itself.

No excuses for rushing important legislation

Why is it that for many weeks there is little or legislation before the House but in the two or three weeks before the end of the session there is an extraordinary flurry of activity with measures being introduced and pushed through both Houses as is happening again now? Why is it that the Minister, the Department or those who manage the flow of business to the Houses cannot pace themselves a little better throughout the year? Why can legislation not be introduced in the House periodically in a manner that will allow it to breathe, as it were?

The Leader of the Seanad often says he does not guillotine legislation and that is true, but that misses the point. It is not a question of saying we can have an hour or two to read the legislation but of allowing the public to consider important legislation over a period of weeks. I am not suggesting that the Government never makes an effort to do that. In fairness, it does. However, that should be the universal approach to legislation, unless it is genuinely emergency legislation which must be put through the Houses in a period of days.

I have in mind some of the criminal justice legislation we are dealing with this week. There are two Bills this week and I presume the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill will be introduced in the House next week. The latter includes proposals for the considerable curtailment of the liberty of the citizen. It may well be that this is justified and that Members of the House support it but it is one of the most serious actions a parliament can take. The guarantee of last September is probably the most serious action a parliament can take in that it mortgages the future and future generations. However, in terms of the liberty of the citizen the proposed legislation provides for the expansion of the use of the Special Criminal Court and removing the important protection that juries provide.

I disagree regarding any further restriction on the use of juries. In the criminal context, in particular, it is a further restriction on the liberty of the individual, as is the introduction of secret hearings in the District Court regarding detentions and so forth. I appeal to the Leader to ensure, especially with legislation of this nature, that the public and the Houses be given an opportunity to consider such legislation over a longer time span. It should certainly be over a period of weeks and not days, as is now being proposed.

Govt financial records are public property

It appears from reports yesterday that decisions relating to the budget and the economy generally are being postponed to the autumn and no decisions will be made by the Government until after the referendum on the Lisbon treaty in early October. The Taoiseach indicated in the Dáil yesterday that the Minister for Finance is only beginning the budgetary process at this stage. On that basis, it will take some months. I presume that the calls by a number of colleagues for detailed debate and the presentation by Opposition parties of their budgetary priorities will go off the agenda of the House given that the Government is only beginning the budgetary process and will not be in a position to present any of its proposals to either House until well into autumn. The calls by colleagues such as Senator John Hanafin and others, therefore, presumably cannot be met in those circumstances. If the Government is only getting going on its proposals, one can hardly expect the Opposition to put forward proposals until the Government at least indicates what it intends to do.

It would assist all the Opposition parties and the general public if the Government would come clean and publish all the information available to it regarding the budgetary position and proposals that have been made by expert groups retained by the Government for that purpose. What basis can there be for a delay in the publication by the Government of the documents prepared by Professor McCarthy’s committee? Why should there be a delay? They are public property. They are not the property of either the committee, because the Government has been given the report, or the Minister or Government. These are grave matters. One newspaper today describes our economy as being in an “historic slump” while others report the economy being in the “worst ever state”. What excuse can there be for the public and the Opposition parties not to be told or given all the information available to the Government? I have always believed this with regard to the banking situation as well, notwithstanding that some arguments can be made from time to time about confidentiality. However, those arguments have faded, particularly in the case of nationalised banks.

All of the information that is available to the Government is public property; it is the property of the people. The Government only holds that information in trust for the people and it should be published for the people. If the Government Senators seek any measure of consensus or co-operation from Opposition parties, they will have to come clean on the basic information that is known to the Government. If that detailed information is shared with us, we can have the type of meaningful debate the Irish public expects in this and the other House.

Time to talk with childcare providers regarding free pre-school

Many will be aware that in the recent supplementary budget, the Minister for Finance indicated the Government intends to introduce a scheme of free child care places throughout the State. That announcement was partly welcome. It is proposed that the scheme will be rolled out over the next year or two. The question of how precisely the scheme will work is the subject of serious uncertainty. Although it may have gone against the grain, I was happy to welcome the principle underpinning the announcement that was made in the recent supplementary budget.

I reiterate that my party supports the concept of providing free preschool child care places to children across the State. We need to have clarity about how precisely it will be implemented. Will it be implemented at all? There are many concerns in this regard.

Our only concern relates to the need to ensure that an efficient and accessible childcare scheme is available to children, through their parents. Many child care providers will be expected to step up to the plate, for example by providing sessional care. They have serious concerns about how this scheme will be implemented. The providers’ concerns relate to the level of the subsidy, for example. One might well say that people who are running businesses will always have a concern about subsidies, and that our job is not to bolster individual businesses.

If our objective is to provide childcare places, our job is to talk candidly to the providers and listen carefully to what they are saying about whether it will be possible to implement the scheme that was so enthusiastically announced by the Minister for Finance in the supplementary budget.

Care system needs immediate attention

The Government implementation plan in response to the Ryan Report, due to be completed next month, must contain concrete commitments to make changes to our current care system so that no children are put at risk again.

The situation as highlighted in today’s Irish Examiner is clearly in need of urgent need of the attention from the Government.

The care system is badly flawed in a number of significant respects. For instance, while HIQA is responsible for inspecting the various centres, including High Support Units and Special Care Units, there are only seven inspectors in place.

The work that HIQA does is very valuable, but their resources are stretched too thinly. In addition, in the absence of the commencement of the relevant section of the 2007 Health Act, they do not have any powers of sanction in relation to centres that fail to meet requirements and standards.

There are also serious problems with the implementation of vetting procedures that are in place and while lip service is paid to the need for a substantial Garda vetting system, the fact of the matter is that it is failing to meet requirements.

The failure of the Government to provide for a formal inspection process for residential facilities for children with special needs is inexcusable, and must be addressed in any implementation plan that the Government publishes.

The most important lesson the Ryan Report teaches us is accountability, and this must be at the heart of any future reforms. No institution is above the law. Every institution must be examined, inspected and held to account for what it does.

Solving literacy problems key to addressing social exclusion

The National Economic and Social Forum has reported that one in three children in disadvantaged areas has severe literacy problems.

Literacy levels among children are very closely linked to outcomes later in life, and children who do not read or write effectively are far more likely to end up leaving school early, becoming unemployed, or being drawn into crime and anti-social behaviour.

I agree with the NESF conclusion that a national literacy strategy is now needed. In fact it is astounding that there is no such strategy already in place. Any such plan can only work if it has input and commitment from a wide range of Government Departments and other public agencies

Labour has proposed a number of substantial and workable proposals that should be included in any national plan to tackle poor levels of literacy. We should:

• Give every encouragement to primary school teachers to undertake more intensive training in literacy and education, with additional training available to teachers in disadvantaged schools.
• Encourage public libraries to increase their opening hours and to have outreach programmes aimed at maximising community literacy.
• Provide all possible funding and training support for family literacy schemes.
• Work with local authorities to incorporate educational facilities, such as space for homework clubs, into local authority housing developments.
• Require schools to develop whole school literacy policies and target outcomes for class groups and individuals.
• Make provision for homework clubs run by trained tutors in schools with low achievement in literacy and numeracy.

Archbishop ahead of debate on future of education

Once again, today, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has taken what can only be described as a leadership role in the debate on the future of education, particularly of primary school education. He appears to be ahead of the debate in many cases, certainly ahead of many people who purport to speak on behalf of church interests in this vital area. The Archbishop has described the situation with regard to primary school education as a near monopoly of control by the Catholic church and has said that it does not reflect current realities. He has called for a debate, the kind of debate for which many Members have been calling for two years.

When Deputy Mary Hanafin was Minister for Education and Science, she declined in this House to set up a national forum to consider these questions. The subject was raised last week in the House. Has the Minister for Education and Science been persuaded to come to facilitate a debate on this crucial issue? The matter arose again in the context of the recent developments on the Ryan commission report. However, I have no difficulty in decoupling those two issues if that would make people feel more comfortable in debating the matter. The issue of the church’s control and management of primary schools throughout the State requires debate in its own right, with or without the Ryan commission report.

There have been some developments in this regard, for example, a development with regard to VEC involvement in primary schools in Dublin city. The issue arises again and again. Can we now have a full and comprehensive debate on the issue that takes note of the fact that the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has said that the current position is a historical hangover and is, essentially, a monopoly. To his credit, he said the position is detrimental to the possibility of maintaining a true Catholic identity in Catholic schools. That is the Roman Catholic view on the issue.

When this question is debated in the Seanad, on radio programmes and elsewhere, people always say it is a question of choice. We are all in favour of the maximum amount of choice being afforded to citizens, parents and children, but resources must also be considered.

In any country or economy, scarce resources will dictate what level of choice we can provide or can vindicate for parents, whether religious, non-religious or multidenominational education.