MISCELLANEOUS
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Ministers’ Travel for St. Patrick’s Day (12/03/08)
Literature (06/12/07)
Public Servants and Oireachtas Members (04/12/07)
Seanad Reform (28/11/07)
Taoiseach's Salary Increase (20/11/07)
Taoiseach's Salary Increase (07/11/07)
Seanad Reform (13/09/07)
Seanad Reform (03/07/07)
Seanad Éireann (01/05/07)
Petitions Committee (04/10/06)
Taoiseach’s €50,000 “Loan” (27/09/06)
Bureau of Military History (17/05/06)
Máire Buckley (09/05/06)
1916 Rising Commemoration (26/04/06)
Shot at Dawn Campaign (28/03/06)
E-Government (23/02/06)
1916 Rising Commemoration (15/02/06)
1916 Rising (02/02/06)
Back to top of the page
Ministers’ Travel for St. Patrick’s Day
12/03/08 - In terms of the cost of travel, there were two items on “RTE News” this morning. One was the cost of sending Ministers abroad and the exorbitant cost of hiring a full aeroplane and canvassing all over Europe to send a few asylum seekers back to Africa. The latter cost double the price of sending the Ministers abroad. RTE should get its act together on the relative importance of issues, if it believes the second item on the news should be about Ministers going abroad for St. Patrick’s Day. I am a disinterested party in this. I would not want to waste my St. Patrick’s Day by watching a parade in a distant city and drinking green beer afterwards with the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, or whatever. I am grateful to those Ministers who give their time to doing that. It is crucially important work that goes with the ministerial portfolio. It is important culturally and in terms of diplomacy, business, the national profile, tourism development and connecting to our diaspora, including emigrant groups, around the world. This work should and must be done by Ministers and I offer them my full support. RTE should consider this and ask whether the money is well spent — I certainly believe it is.
Back to top of the page
Literature
06/12/07 - Members of both Houses received by post recently a book called Best of Irish Poetry 2007, from the Munster Literature Centre. I draw Members’ attention to that because accompanying it was the startling information that literature is the only aspect of the arts which does not have a permanent home in Dublin city. There is one in Cork, in fairness to Cork County Council or Cork City Council, whichever it is, but whereas the visual arts have theatres, galleries, houses, etc., there is no permanently owned, rent-free or secure home for places such as the Irish Writers Centre or the Dublin Writers Museum. We should ask the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to discuss that issue with us to allow us plead a case in that regard. It is an issue we should raise.
Back to top of the page
Public Servants and Oireachtas Members
04/12/07 - I am rarely stuck for words in this House but Senator Jim Walsh, on the Government benches, last week demonised public servants, including teachers, nurses, gardaí, civil servants and a range of others, with disparaging comments. It struck me as incredible that a Member of this House could speak of modernisation and progression while representing a party that has, for 30 years, refused to allow this House modernise and change to meet the will of the people. The Senator made comments on prison officers but, while we might have personal opinions of them, there was outrage some years ago when a Minister for the public service suggested politicians should check in every morning. He was blown out of the water because we would not do such a thing. The same goes for matters relating to information technology, IT, and modernisation; every primary school and every office of the public service uses IT. Should we keep it a secret that 50% of Members of the Oireachtas cannot send and receive e-mails? People in this House who make comments such as those made by Senator Walsh last week should check they are not throwing stones inside a glasshouse. I would be happy to have a debate on this. Senator Walsh can bring a supporting Minister with him and I will stand toe to toe with both. For every problem they find in the public service I will find one in this House and I guarantee I will be the last man standing.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Reform
28/11/07 - I am firmly committed to an upper house. At present the Seanad is unrepresentative, undemocratic, anachronistic and unfair in the way it is put together. The point raised by Senator Alex White is right in that a university electorate is elitist, a cadre, exclusive and unacceptable in a democracy. However, it is not the only thing which is unacceptable. The only reason I am on the university panel is that I would not have got a vote on the cultural and educational panel despite the fact I was the boss of the largest, oldest and most widespread educational organisation in the country, nor would I have got a vote on the labour panel despite the fact I was president of the largest labour organisation on this island. The only way I could have a voice in the second House of Parliament was to be on the university panel. That is why it needs reform.
If we worked on the basis of one person, one vote I would not have a difficulty with maintaining the university panel. My view since I became a Member — I have been on every reform group for 20 years — is that if it comes down to that, farmers and fishermen should vote for those on the agricultural panel, education partners should vote for those on the cultural and educational panel, registered members of trade unions should vote for those on to the labour panel and business people should vote for those on the administrative panel. The nominating bodies should have votes. It is disgraceful that they have no impact beyond nominating people. These are some of the gaps in the system. In such a structure, there would be a strong case for maintaining the university panel.
I have no problem with the concept of indirect elections, which works in France, the USA and in many countries. It is a distillation of democracy in that one layer elects the other. The only problem I have with it at present is that the preponderance of people elected that way is unacceptable. My view is that the Seanad should become slightly larger and that the number of Members should be increased to approximately 70 and that the number elected indirectly would not be reduced to 20 but should be perhaps 30. The idea of a national list, a national panel, to elect people indirectly makes much more sense than this nonsense of knowledge and experience of education, etc.
We need to make changes and implement the proposals. There is a roadmap for implementation and milestones and targets are included in the report. If we do not agree to the amendment, I will co-operate with the Government motion. The business could be done in two months and we could move forward. Let us make people put up or shut up. We must be conscious of people who have been elected by county councillors. People should be given time to adjust and make changes to what is proposed.
Back to top of the page
Taoiseach's Salary Increase
20/11/07 - I raised last week the importance of having a debate on the report of the review body on higher remuneration. I raised that in the context of where stands accountability and responsibility. I have listened carefully to the Taoiseach getting it wrong every time he stands up. I support the decision of the review body in the case of the Taoiseach’s salary. I think I am the only person in either House who does, or certainly who has said so. I do not have any difficulty with it, but I have a real difficulty with the way he is handling it.
From a constitutional perspective, the only place to consider the Taoiseach’s position is in the context of the separation of the Legislature and the Executive. We have guarded that every step of the way since the foundation of the State and everybody agrees with it. The point is that since the foundation of the State in 1922, the head of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice, has been paid exactly the same as the Taoiseach. It is worthwhile for people to note that before we get into the debate because if one cannot find an external comparator and we do not agree with any of the private sector comparators, that is the one to which we should refer. While one might not have read it in any newspaper, the salary increase the Chief Justice got, to which he was entitled and earned, was exactly the same as that which the Taoiseach got. The Chief Justice is paid, to the penny, the same as the Taoiseach.
I want a debate here because I want to hear the different points of view. I am not here to defend the Taoiseach, but I am defending the system under which we took responsibility for this out of the hands of politicians and set up a review body, the members of which do a thankless job and in the main do not even draw a salary for it.
Back to top of the page
Taoiseach's Salary Increase
07/11/07 - I call for a debate on the report of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. The body produced an excellent report, works for little pay and examines something that must be addressed. It exists because people would not trust politicians to do its work. The Taoiseach was 100% correct to accept his pay increase. He would have been a laughing stock in the country’s pubs and elsewhere had he turned it down.
What should the Taoiseach be paid? I am regularly involved in negotiations. The body looked after our salaries five years and ten years ago. The Taoiseach is paid less than one tenth of the amount paid to someone running a bank, one half of the amount paid to a consultant and somewhat less than the only published figure for an amount paid to a daily newspaper editor.
I have examined the matter and there is no fair international comparison. Has anyone examined how much Members of other Parliaments receive in expenses? Peter Robinson and Gerry Adams, Westminster MPs, claimed expenses of nearly €250,000 each last year. We should compare like with like, read the information and discuss the issues. If we do not like who is the Taoiseach, we should get rid of him or her, which is a different ball game.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Reform
13/09/07 - There are eight different reports on Seanad reform. In my time as a Member of the House, I have worked on and been a signatory to at least four of them. I was also, on behalf of our group, a member of the committee that worked on the issue in the previous Dáil and Seanad.
The Members of this House are effective and hard-working; that is not the issue. The method of election, however, is undemocratic, unrepresentative, elitist and has no place in a modern democracy. It is no reflection on the elected Members because we must work the current system. However, it is in our hands to change it. We can no longer live with an anachronistic system, and that includes the university seats.
We do not want is the soft option of changing the university representation and making no other changes, which I know those on the Government benches would do in the morning. We need to be creative in making changes which do not reduce the representation produced by the distilled form of democracy whereby the people elected to local government elect another tier. There is nothing wrong with that, it is acceptable and the Seanad report recognises that. If the outcome is to continue to elect the same number through that process, that is fine, but it should not be the same percentage. That would not be correct. In a modern democracy, we must ensure there is as near as possible universal franchise in the election of a House of Parliament. It is not acceptable that election to the Seanad continues in the current way. It is an embarrassment in a modern democracy and is unacceptable to that extent.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Reform
03/07/07 - I wish to state, now that we are in the middle of this embarrassing, unrepresentative, undemocratic, anachronistic, elitist Seanad election process that we do not want any more committees, any more reports, any more discussions. Let us grasp the nettle and put into play change. I would like the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who has strong views on this matter, to be invited to the Seanad to give an outline of how he intends to implement the recommendations of the Seanad Reform report to give every citizen a say in the election of the second House of Parliament. Is náireach an rud é go bhfuil próiséas den sórt sin againn faoi láthair. Everywhere I go I hear nothing but complaints about the current process. It is an embarrassment and it is time to change it.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Éireann
01/05/07 - The Seanad has been extraordinarily enriched by the contributions of people who were defeated in standing for election to the other House. All I ask is that Members coming into the Seanad make the contribution they can make. ….. In the case of this particular Seanad, my greatest regret is that once again we have failed to achieve reform of the House as we set out to do. I am potentially one of the greatest losers, since no primary teachers who graduated since 1995 can vote for me. This is a matter of great personal interest, I can assure the House. Even if I were never to profit from reform of the House, it is something of a failure that we have not managed to do it.
Looking back on this Seanad, it will be seen to have been an influential period and a Seanad that has been increasingly relevant, with more legislation initiated perhaps than in any of its predecessors since the foundation of the State. It is worth noting that particular Ministers have chosen to initiate legislation in this House. The contributions by spokespersons on all sides have been very important and I want to recognise that. … In terms of the relevance of the House, from the perspective outside Leinster House, this has been strengthened.
Back to top of the page
Petitions Committee
04/10/06 - The concept of a petitions system is important because it involves the engagement between people and parliament. I was a member of the Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform with Senators O’Rourke, Brian Hayes, Dardis and Ryan. It was on this committee that this issue was first raised. When considering Seanad reform, I examined the process in other Parliaments. I was interested in the New Zealand model because it moved from a bicameral to a unicameral system. As it was a Westminster, Anglophone style Parliament, I was curious how it managed this change. In its Bills procedure, it had a five Stages system similar to our own. When it moved over to a unicameral system, extra Stages were simply added. In effect, there were three different forms of Second Stage. The last form of Second Stage allowed for amendments made by a special committee to examine that Stage. This part of the Stage required the New Zealand Parliament to invite civic groups to make representations on the legislation.
Such a system can work well, even in a country like New Zealand which presents geographical difficulties, being a long, narrow country. The parliamentarians employed various strategies. If they believed a group had genuine locus standi and relevant insight on a particular issue, they would pay its expenses to come to Wellington and make a presentation. At other times, the special Second Stage committee went out to meet people in their localities. This worked well and it is something I recommend in our case.
We should also look to some of the existing Oireachtas committees. I made a propsal to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs that it should visit Gaeltacht areas to listen to and talk with people there, but it could not find its way to do this. The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, on the other hand, is already engaged in such activity.
These meetings are attended by a wide range of people, from business, labour, chamber of commerce and educational backgrounds. In addition, the committee always invites local post-primary school pupils to make a brief presentation. I believed this element to be ground breaking.
Although it is cumbersome, I have seen how well the consultative process works in the New Zealand Parliament. At a time when there is such a lack of respect for the political world, we must encourage people to engage in the work we do and we must be seen to be listening and taking on board their views. People understand when they cannot get their way and when others disagree with them. Allowing interested persons to engage in such a consultative process is akin to giving them a day in court. People want to make their case, engage in argumentation and discussions, and listen to and make proposals. Such a process can be only valuable.
Back to top of the page
Taoiseach’s €50,000 “Loan”
27/09/07 - The issue being discussed in the media and elsewhere today is one where we are inclined to rush to judgment while we all seek further information. We have tried to deal with this situation over the past ten years on a legislative basis. There is legislation in place to deal with tax law and ethics which is difficult legislation with which to deal.
I will suspend judgment until such time as I get a clear indication on the question of Revenue law and ethics legislation. I would like to hear from the Revenue Commissioners and the ethics commission. Once these matters have been clarified we will know where we stand. If the bar of what is politically correct needs to be raised, as regards the conduct of taoisigh or Ministers, we will have to address that matter also. There has been much discussion but the fundamental facts boil down to whether the law of the land has been broken. If so, that brings us to a clear conclusion. If it has not been broken — and I do not know whether it has or not — then we must park the issue. That is the way to proceed.
Back to top of the page
Bureau of Military History
17/05/06 - The Minister for Defence made a proposal to the Government, which was accepted, to increase the pensions of survivors of the 1916 Rising and nobody would have a problem with that but would welcome it. To reiterate a point I made here some months ago, with the increased interest around the 90th anniversary of the Rising, many people are trying to do research into that area. Most of the information is available from the Bureau of Military History, which is unable to deal with the demand. I have spoken to the staff there. There are fewer than 20 chairs and there is a two month wait to get a space for a number of hours in a day. The staff is superb and enthusiastic about the work and has had assurances from everybody right up to the Taoiseach. It would be useful for the Minister for Defence to come here and tell us the plans he has to give public access to the records available in the Bureau of Military History, including statements taken in the 1940s and 1950s from survivors of those times, which give vital information on local and national history. It is the least he could do and would be more useful and helpful than some of the commemorative events.
Back to top of the page
Máire Buckley
09/05/06 - It is appropriate for the House to note the extraordinary and unfortunate death of Ms Máire Buckley, who contributed so much to Dublin’s inner city educational development and battling the effects of social exclusion and underprivilege. Over the weekend, she was unfortunately killed by that tearaway bus. The House has often debated the need to recognise the work of those involved in inner city schools, hospitals and other social services. It is great, even under these unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances, that Máire Buckley’s contribution is well recognised. She worked tirelessly in the area over the years. Anyone involved in education, politics or community work in Dublin inner city could not but know her. The circumstances of her death raise one’s anger and hackles but that is for another day.
Back to top of the page
1916 Rising Commemoration
26/04/06 - I wish to refer to the Easter Sunday commemoration. For the first time ever, Sinn Féin was on the reviewing platform outside the GPO on Easter Sunday acknowledging the members of the Irish Army marching down O’Connell Street, wearing their cap and lapel badges, as Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is the first time since 1926 that Sinn Féin acknowledged Óglaigh na hÉireann as being the Irish Army. That is the truly significant issue.
I also agree that the second parade of balaclavas, black berets and so forth looked tired and very yesterday, as it were, and that is how it should be seen. That day has passed and we have moved on. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin acknowledged Óglaigh na hÉireann on O’Connell Street on Easter Sunday as the true and absolute successors of the patriots of 1916. I speak as somebody who also wanted the parade to involve more than the Army.
Back to top of the page
Shot at Dawn Campaign
28/03/06 - It is important for the sake of the memory of these soldiers that we recognise what they went through. We are learning much about our past. Many people who lost family members this way have been forgotten. They have had to live with memories. Many families often had to cover it up. They were afraid to explain what had happened as it was a matter of shame, despite the fact these soldiers had done no wrong. They were not guilty of any crime and tried in the absence of due process without a prisoner’s friend or military lawyer to put forward their cases.
Last night when I watched the woman speaking of her father on the BBC, it hit me how close historically it was to us. She was speaking about her mother living into her 90s, fighting her husband’s case that he was never a coward or a traitor. People were ordered at gunpoint out of the trenches to run without bullet-proof vests into machine gun fire. If there were people to be dragged before the courts, it was certainly not the victims.
A space must be found at one of our war memorials to give recognition to those shot at dawn. It was not just those from the British army who were written out of the history of the time but also RIC personnel. Those soldiers in the Great War did their best. Many were there as an escape from hunger at home or they were urged to enlist by John Redmond. They did what they thought was right. To call them cowards or traitors utterly wrongs their memories. To their families and their descendants we must reach out with a memorial to them. Under the authority of the Westminster Acts, do we have the power to pass legislation to grant pardons to these soldiers?
Back to top of the page
E-Government
23/02/06 - Members may not have noticed that the final item on today’s Order Paper is a proposal for a Council regulation to encourage silkworm rearing, together with an explanatory note. I draw attention to this nugget for the following reason. The Whips of each House have been asked to consider how e-Government might work at parliamentary and Chamber level. I do not know if Members have recently tried to get access to the papers listed daily on the Order Paper. Whereas older statutory papers are easily found, usually on the Attorney General’s website, it is difficult to get access to the current papers, which are placed in the Oireachtas Library in hard copy. It is an example of information that could be available electronically for Members to access.
Back to top of the page
1916 Rising Commemoration
15/02/06 - I support the idea of using the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising in 1916 to discuss important issues but wonder what the Government plans as a commemoration on the day. The Army is entitled to be involved in the commemoration. Whatever we do after 90 years, however, should reflect what has happened in Ireland during that time, and the Ireland of today. It should not be confined to a military demonstration or march. That is precisely what would detract from a good idea because the event has a wider significance. The commemoration should be open and reflect modern Ireland.
Back to top of the page
1916 Rising
02/02/06 - As this year is the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, it is worth discussing it. The year 1916 was a time of extraordinary change but there has been no acknowledgement of it. People are afraid of their past in that regard. There were decent people in the Royal Irish Constabulary as well as in the various volunteer forces. There was Tom Kettle as well as Tom Clark. Some people gave much to make this country what it is. It is only in recent years that I have read the statements taken by the State in 1946 from people who lived through that period. Those statements were taken in confidence and were locked away in the military history archives in Beggars Bush. When one reads them, one sees it was about ordinary people.
This is the year in which we should grow up, acknowledge our past and welcome the Queen of a neighbouring country. We should be grown up and developed enough to do that without trying to justify physical force or argue about who are the true successors of 1916. That is irrelevant. The successors of 1916 are all the people.
We have all come from a generation where Irish history at school finished in 1916. It is time we acknowledged it happened and its rights and wrongs. People were in favour of it while others were opposed. That is what people want to say. For me, however, it is not about that but about reading the fourth paragraph of the proclamation and the vision therein and about seeing if we have reached it yet and where we go from here. It is not about the rights and wrongs. It would be completely wrong to try to apply the views of today to that time. We should openly discuss 1916.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Ministers’ Travel for St. Patrick’s Day (12/03/08)
Literature (06/12/07)
Public Servants and Oireachtas Members (04/12/07)
Seanad Reform (28/11/07)
Taoiseach's Salary Increase (20/11/07)
Taoiseach's Salary Increase (07/11/07)
Seanad Reform (13/09/07)
Seanad Reform (03/07/07)
Seanad Éireann (01/05/07)
Petitions Committee (04/10/06)
Taoiseach’s €50,000 “Loan” (27/09/06)
Bureau of Military History (17/05/06)
Máire Buckley (09/05/06)
1916 Rising Commemoration (26/04/06)
Shot at Dawn Campaign (28/03/06)
E-Government (23/02/06)
1916 Rising Commemoration (15/02/06)
1916 Rising (02/02/06)
Back to top of the page
Ministers’ Travel for St. Patrick’s Day
12/03/08 - In terms of the cost of travel, there were two items on “RTE News” this morning. One was the cost of sending Ministers abroad and the exorbitant cost of hiring a full aeroplane and canvassing all over Europe to send a few asylum seekers back to Africa. The latter cost double the price of sending the Ministers abroad. RTE should get its act together on the relative importance of issues, if it believes the second item on the news should be about Ministers going abroad for St. Patrick’s Day. I am a disinterested party in this. I would not want to waste my St. Patrick’s Day by watching a parade in a distant city and drinking green beer afterwards with the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, or whatever. I am grateful to those Ministers who give their time to doing that. It is crucially important work that goes with the ministerial portfolio. It is important culturally and in terms of diplomacy, business, the national profile, tourism development and connecting to our diaspora, including emigrant groups, around the world. This work should and must be done by Ministers and I offer them my full support. RTE should consider this and ask whether the money is well spent — I certainly believe it is.
Back to top of the page
Literature
06/12/07 - Members of both Houses received by post recently a book called Best of Irish Poetry 2007, from the Munster Literature Centre. I draw Members’ attention to that because accompanying it was the startling information that literature is the only aspect of the arts which does not have a permanent home in Dublin city. There is one in Cork, in fairness to Cork County Council or Cork City Council, whichever it is, but whereas the visual arts have theatres, galleries, houses, etc., there is no permanently owned, rent-free or secure home for places such as the Irish Writers Centre or the Dublin Writers Museum. We should ask the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to discuss that issue with us to allow us plead a case in that regard. It is an issue we should raise.
Back to top of the page
Public Servants and Oireachtas Members
04/12/07 - I am rarely stuck for words in this House but Senator Jim Walsh, on the Government benches, last week demonised public servants, including teachers, nurses, gardaí, civil servants and a range of others, with disparaging comments. It struck me as incredible that a Member of this House could speak of modernisation and progression while representing a party that has, for 30 years, refused to allow this House modernise and change to meet the will of the people. The Senator made comments on prison officers but, while we might have personal opinions of them, there was outrage some years ago when a Minister for the public service suggested politicians should check in every morning. He was blown out of the water because we would not do such a thing. The same goes for matters relating to information technology, IT, and modernisation; every primary school and every office of the public service uses IT. Should we keep it a secret that 50% of Members of the Oireachtas cannot send and receive e-mails? People in this House who make comments such as those made by Senator Walsh last week should check they are not throwing stones inside a glasshouse. I would be happy to have a debate on this. Senator Walsh can bring a supporting Minister with him and I will stand toe to toe with both. For every problem they find in the public service I will find one in this House and I guarantee I will be the last man standing.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Reform
28/11/07 - I am firmly committed to an upper house. At present the Seanad is unrepresentative, undemocratic, anachronistic and unfair in the way it is put together. The point raised by Senator Alex White is right in that a university electorate is elitist, a cadre, exclusive and unacceptable in a democracy. However, it is not the only thing which is unacceptable. The only reason I am on the university panel is that I would not have got a vote on the cultural and educational panel despite the fact I was the boss of the largest, oldest and most widespread educational organisation in the country, nor would I have got a vote on the labour panel despite the fact I was president of the largest labour organisation on this island. The only way I could have a voice in the second House of Parliament was to be on the university panel. That is why it needs reform.
If we worked on the basis of one person, one vote I would not have a difficulty with maintaining the university panel. My view since I became a Member — I have been on every reform group for 20 years — is that if it comes down to that, farmers and fishermen should vote for those on the agricultural panel, education partners should vote for those on the cultural and educational panel, registered members of trade unions should vote for those on to the labour panel and business people should vote for those on the administrative panel. The nominating bodies should have votes. It is disgraceful that they have no impact beyond nominating people. These are some of the gaps in the system. In such a structure, there would be a strong case for maintaining the university panel.
I have no problem with the concept of indirect elections, which works in France, the USA and in many countries. It is a distillation of democracy in that one layer elects the other. The only problem I have with it at present is that the preponderance of people elected that way is unacceptable. My view is that the Seanad should become slightly larger and that the number of Members should be increased to approximately 70 and that the number elected indirectly would not be reduced to 20 but should be perhaps 30. The idea of a national list, a national panel, to elect people indirectly makes much more sense than this nonsense of knowledge and experience of education, etc.
We need to make changes and implement the proposals. There is a roadmap for implementation and milestones and targets are included in the report. If we do not agree to the amendment, I will co-operate with the Government motion. The business could be done in two months and we could move forward. Let us make people put up or shut up. We must be conscious of people who have been elected by county councillors. People should be given time to adjust and make changes to what is proposed.
Back to top of the page
Taoiseach's Salary Increase
20/11/07 - I raised last week the importance of having a debate on the report of the review body on higher remuneration. I raised that in the context of where stands accountability and responsibility. I have listened carefully to the Taoiseach getting it wrong every time he stands up. I support the decision of the review body in the case of the Taoiseach’s salary. I think I am the only person in either House who does, or certainly who has said so. I do not have any difficulty with it, but I have a real difficulty with the way he is handling it.
From a constitutional perspective, the only place to consider the Taoiseach’s position is in the context of the separation of the Legislature and the Executive. We have guarded that every step of the way since the foundation of the State and everybody agrees with it. The point is that since the foundation of the State in 1922, the head of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice, has been paid exactly the same as the Taoiseach. It is worthwhile for people to note that before we get into the debate because if one cannot find an external comparator and we do not agree with any of the private sector comparators, that is the one to which we should refer. While one might not have read it in any newspaper, the salary increase the Chief Justice got, to which he was entitled and earned, was exactly the same as that which the Taoiseach got. The Chief Justice is paid, to the penny, the same as the Taoiseach.
I want a debate here because I want to hear the different points of view. I am not here to defend the Taoiseach, but I am defending the system under which we took responsibility for this out of the hands of politicians and set up a review body, the members of which do a thankless job and in the main do not even draw a salary for it.
Back to top of the page
Taoiseach's Salary Increase
07/11/07 - I call for a debate on the report of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. The body produced an excellent report, works for little pay and examines something that must be addressed. It exists because people would not trust politicians to do its work. The Taoiseach was 100% correct to accept his pay increase. He would have been a laughing stock in the country’s pubs and elsewhere had he turned it down.
What should the Taoiseach be paid? I am regularly involved in negotiations. The body looked after our salaries five years and ten years ago. The Taoiseach is paid less than one tenth of the amount paid to someone running a bank, one half of the amount paid to a consultant and somewhat less than the only published figure for an amount paid to a daily newspaper editor.
I have examined the matter and there is no fair international comparison. Has anyone examined how much Members of other Parliaments receive in expenses? Peter Robinson and Gerry Adams, Westminster MPs, claimed expenses of nearly €250,000 each last year. We should compare like with like, read the information and discuss the issues. If we do not like who is the Taoiseach, we should get rid of him or her, which is a different ball game.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Reform
13/09/07 - There are eight different reports on Seanad reform. In my time as a Member of the House, I have worked on and been a signatory to at least four of them. I was also, on behalf of our group, a member of the committee that worked on the issue in the previous Dáil and Seanad.
The Members of this House are effective and hard-working; that is not the issue. The method of election, however, is undemocratic, unrepresentative, elitist and has no place in a modern democracy. It is no reflection on the elected Members because we must work the current system. However, it is in our hands to change it. We can no longer live with an anachronistic system, and that includes the university seats.
We do not want is the soft option of changing the university representation and making no other changes, which I know those on the Government benches would do in the morning. We need to be creative in making changes which do not reduce the representation produced by the distilled form of democracy whereby the people elected to local government elect another tier. There is nothing wrong with that, it is acceptable and the Seanad report recognises that. If the outcome is to continue to elect the same number through that process, that is fine, but it should not be the same percentage. That would not be correct. In a modern democracy, we must ensure there is as near as possible universal franchise in the election of a House of Parliament. It is not acceptable that election to the Seanad continues in the current way. It is an embarrassment in a modern democracy and is unacceptable to that extent.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Reform
03/07/07 - I wish to state, now that we are in the middle of this embarrassing, unrepresentative, undemocratic, anachronistic, elitist Seanad election process that we do not want any more committees, any more reports, any more discussions. Let us grasp the nettle and put into play change. I would like the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who has strong views on this matter, to be invited to the Seanad to give an outline of how he intends to implement the recommendations of the Seanad Reform report to give every citizen a say in the election of the second House of Parliament. Is náireach an rud é go bhfuil próiséas den sórt sin againn faoi láthair. Everywhere I go I hear nothing but complaints about the current process. It is an embarrassment and it is time to change it.
Back to top of the page
Seanad Éireann
01/05/07 - The Seanad has been extraordinarily enriched by the contributions of people who were defeated in standing for election to the other House. All I ask is that Members coming into the Seanad make the contribution they can make. ….. In the case of this particular Seanad, my greatest regret is that once again we have failed to achieve reform of the House as we set out to do. I am potentially one of the greatest losers, since no primary teachers who graduated since 1995 can vote for me. This is a matter of great personal interest, I can assure the House. Even if I were never to profit from reform of the House, it is something of a failure that we have not managed to do it.
Looking back on this Seanad, it will be seen to have been an influential period and a Seanad that has been increasingly relevant, with more legislation initiated perhaps than in any of its predecessors since the foundation of the State. It is worth noting that particular Ministers have chosen to initiate legislation in this House. The contributions by spokespersons on all sides have been very important and I want to recognise that. … In terms of the relevance of the House, from the perspective outside Leinster House, this has been strengthened.
Back to top of the page
Petitions Committee
04/10/06 - The concept of a petitions system is important because it involves the engagement between people and parliament. I was a member of the Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform with Senators O’Rourke, Brian Hayes, Dardis and Ryan. It was on this committee that this issue was first raised. When considering Seanad reform, I examined the process in other Parliaments. I was interested in the New Zealand model because it moved from a bicameral to a unicameral system. As it was a Westminster, Anglophone style Parliament, I was curious how it managed this change. In its Bills procedure, it had a five Stages system similar to our own. When it moved over to a unicameral system, extra Stages were simply added. In effect, there were three different forms of Second Stage. The last form of Second Stage allowed for amendments made by a special committee to examine that Stage. This part of the Stage required the New Zealand Parliament to invite civic groups to make representations on the legislation.
Such a system can work well, even in a country like New Zealand which presents geographical difficulties, being a long, narrow country. The parliamentarians employed various strategies. If they believed a group had genuine locus standi and relevant insight on a particular issue, they would pay its expenses to come to Wellington and make a presentation. At other times, the special Second Stage committee went out to meet people in their localities. This worked well and it is something I recommend in our case.
We should also look to some of the existing Oireachtas committees. I made a propsal to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs that it should visit Gaeltacht areas to listen to and talk with people there, but it could not find its way to do this. The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, on the other hand, is already engaged in such activity.
These meetings are attended by a wide range of people, from business, labour, chamber of commerce and educational backgrounds. In addition, the committee always invites local post-primary school pupils to make a brief presentation. I believed this element to be ground breaking.
Although it is cumbersome, I have seen how well the consultative process works in the New Zealand Parliament. At a time when there is such a lack of respect for the political world, we must encourage people to engage in the work we do and we must be seen to be listening and taking on board their views. People understand when they cannot get their way and when others disagree with them. Allowing interested persons to engage in such a consultative process is akin to giving them a day in court. People want to make their case, engage in argumentation and discussions, and listen to and make proposals. Such a process can be only valuable.
Back to top of the page
Taoiseach’s €50,000 “Loan”
27/09/07 - The issue being discussed in the media and elsewhere today is one where we are inclined to rush to judgment while we all seek further information. We have tried to deal with this situation over the past ten years on a legislative basis. There is legislation in place to deal with tax law and ethics which is difficult legislation with which to deal.
I will suspend judgment until such time as I get a clear indication on the question of Revenue law and ethics legislation. I would like to hear from the Revenue Commissioners and the ethics commission. Once these matters have been clarified we will know where we stand. If the bar of what is politically correct needs to be raised, as regards the conduct of taoisigh or Ministers, we will have to address that matter also. There has been much discussion but the fundamental facts boil down to whether the law of the land has been broken. If so, that brings us to a clear conclusion. If it has not been broken — and I do not know whether it has or not — then we must park the issue. That is the way to proceed.
Back to top of the page
Bureau of Military History
17/05/06 - The Minister for Defence made a proposal to the Government, which was accepted, to increase the pensions of survivors of the 1916 Rising and nobody would have a problem with that but would welcome it. To reiterate a point I made here some months ago, with the increased interest around the 90th anniversary of the Rising, many people are trying to do research into that area. Most of the information is available from the Bureau of Military History, which is unable to deal with the demand. I have spoken to the staff there. There are fewer than 20 chairs and there is a two month wait to get a space for a number of hours in a day. The staff is superb and enthusiastic about the work and has had assurances from everybody right up to the Taoiseach. It would be useful for the Minister for Defence to come here and tell us the plans he has to give public access to the records available in the Bureau of Military History, including statements taken in the 1940s and 1950s from survivors of those times, which give vital information on local and national history. It is the least he could do and would be more useful and helpful than some of the commemorative events.
Back to top of the page
Máire Buckley
09/05/06 - It is appropriate for the House to note the extraordinary and unfortunate death of Ms Máire Buckley, who contributed so much to Dublin’s inner city educational development and battling the effects of social exclusion and underprivilege. Over the weekend, she was unfortunately killed by that tearaway bus. The House has often debated the need to recognise the work of those involved in inner city schools, hospitals and other social services. It is great, even under these unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances, that Máire Buckley’s contribution is well recognised. She worked tirelessly in the area over the years. Anyone involved in education, politics or community work in Dublin inner city could not but know her. The circumstances of her death raise one’s anger and hackles but that is for another day.
Back to top of the page
1916 Rising Commemoration
26/04/06 - I wish to refer to the Easter Sunday commemoration. For the first time ever, Sinn Féin was on the reviewing platform outside the GPO on Easter Sunday acknowledging the members of the Irish Army marching down O’Connell Street, wearing their cap and lapel badges, as Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is the first time since 1926 that Sinn Féin acknowledged Óglaigh na hÉireann as being the Irish Army. That is the truly significant issue.
I also agree that the second parade of balaclavas, black berets and so forth looked tired and very yesterday, as it were, and that is how it should be seen. That day has passed and we have moved on. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin acknowledged Óglaigh na hÉireann on O’Connell Street on Easter Sunday as the true and absolute successors of the patriots of 1916. I speak as somebody who also wanted the parade to involve more than the Army.
Back to top of the page
Shot at Dawn Campaign
28/03/06 - It is important for the sake of the memory of these soldiers that we recognise what they went through. We are learning much about our past. Many people who lost family members this way have been forgotten. They have had to live with memories. Many families often had to cover it up. They were afraid to explain what had happened as it was a matter of shame, despite the fact these soldiers had done no wrong. They were not guilty of any crime and tried in the absence of due process without a prisoner’s friend or military lawyer to put forward their cases.
Last night when I watched the woman speaking of her father on the BBC, it hit me how close historically it was to us. She was speaking about her mother living into her 90s, fighting her husband’s case that he was never a coward or a traitor. People were ordered at gunpoint out of the trenches to run without bullet-proof vests into machine gun fire. If there were people to be dragged before the courts, it was certainly not the victims.
A space must be found at one of our war memorials to give recognition to those shot at dawn. It was not just those from the British army who were written out of the history of the time but also RIC personnel. Those soldiers in the Great War did their best. Many were there as an escape from hunger at home or they were urged to enlist by John Redmond. They did what they thought was right. To call them cowards or traitors utterly wrongs their memories. To their families and their descendants we must reach out with a memorial to them. Under the authority of the Westminster Acts, do we have the power to pass legislation to grant pardons to these soldiers?
Back to top of the page
E-Government
23/02/06 - Members may not have noticed that the final item on today’s Order Paper is a proposal for a Council regulation to encourage silkworm rearing, together with an explanatory note. I draw attention to this nugget for the following reason. The Whips of each House have been asked to consider how e-Government might work at parliamentary and Chamber level. I do not know if Members have recently tried to get access to the papers listed daily on the Order Paper. Whereas older statutory papers are easily found, usually on the Attorney General’s website, it is difficult to get access to the current papers, which are placed in the Oireachtas Library in hard copy. It is an example of information that could be available electronically for Members to access.
Back to top of the page
1916 Rising Commemoration
15/02/06 - I support the idea of using the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising in 1916 to discuss important issues but wonder what the Government plans as a commemoration on the day. The Army is entitled to be involved in the commemoration. Whatever we do after 90 years, however, should reflect what has happened in Ireland during that time, and the Ireland of today. It should not be confined to a military demonstration or march. That is precisely what would detract from a good idea because the event has a wider significance. The commemoration should be open and reflect modern Ireland.
Back to top of the page
1916 Rising
02/02/06 - As this year is the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, it is worth discussing it. The year 1916 was a time of extraordinary change but there has been no acknowledgement of it. People are afraid of their past in that regard. There were decent people in the Royal Irish Constabulary as well as in the various volunteer forces. There was Tom Kettle as well as Tom Clark. Some people gave much to make this country what it is. It is only in recent years that I have read the statements taken by the State in 1946 from people who lived through that period. Those statements were taken in confidence and were locked away in the military history archives in Beggars Bush. When one reads them, one sees it was about ordinary people.
This is the year in which we should grow up, acknowledge our past and welcome the Queen of a neighbouring country. We should be grown up and developed enough to do that without trying to justify physical force or argue about who are the true successors of 1916. That is irrelevant. The successors of 1916 are all the people.
We have all come from a generation where Irish history at school finished in 1916. It is time we acknowledged it happened and its rights and wrongs. People were in favour of it while others were opposed. That is what people want to say. For me, however, it is not about that but about reading the fourth paragraph of the proclamation and the vision therein and about seeing if we have reached it yet and where we go from here. It is not about the rights and wrongs. It would be completely wrong to try to apply the views of today to that time. We should openly discuss 1916.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website