2009 PRESS RELEASES & STATEMENTS
Credit Union
3rd March 2009 (Press Release)
Seanad reform Statement
9th March 2009 (Press Release)
NAMA
25th August 2009 (Press Release)
Yes to Lisbon
10th September 2009 (Press Release)
Back to top of page.
Lisbon Referendum
10th September 2009 - IF JAMES CONNOLLY WERE ALIVE TODAY HE WOULD BE OUT THERE KNOCKING ON THE DOORS OF IRELAND ADMONISHING THE CITIZENS TO VOTE YES FOR LISBON.
In the Public Debate on the Lisbon Treaty there is a lot of bunkum being talked about the various Threats to Trade Union Rights, The National Minimum Wage and the Privatisation of Public Services.
Trade Union Rights
The misinformed and misleading argumentation being put forward to frighten Trade Union members and other workers away from supporting the Lisbon Treaty needs to be outed for the nonsense that it is.
In truth the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives us the opportunity to enshrine with legal status many of the issues which the Irish Trade Union Movement from Connolly to Larkin and to the present have fought to achieve for over a century.
Consider for instance those aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which address Workers’ Rights and the guarantees and commitments. What does it do?
It unambiguously puts on a legal basis
The right to Organise and to Form and Join Trade Unions
The right to Collective Bargaining, Assembly, Protest and the Right to take Strike action.
The Right to Working conditions which respect Workers’ Health, Safety and Dignity
The Right to Protection against Unjust Dismissal
Any consideration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights would lead any fair minded Trade Unionist to the inevitable conclusion that were James Connolly alive today he would be out there knocking on the doors of Ireland canvassing people to vote YES for the Lisbon Treaty. For workers to vote NO would be to miss an open goal. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a prize to be won. We’ll never have a better opportunity!
THE NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
Time too to dissect the debate regarding the Minimum wage, including the blatant dishonesty of groups implying that the Minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84 by Europe.
The introduction of the National Minimum Wage in this country was a creature of Social Partnership. I was myself centrally involved when it was proposed by the ICTU at the PESP [Programme for Economic and Social Prosperity] talks in 1998 and was finally conceded in the Partnership Negotiations of the year 2000. The National Minimum Wage came into force in April 2000 following the passing of the Minimum Wage Act 2000 by Dail and Seanad.
So lets stick with the facts then. Europe has no role and had no role whatever in setting or changing the National Minimum Wage. That is a matter completely under Irish legislation and our own control and those who suggest otherwise or who claim a European involvement in our national Minimum Wage are completely wrong and I call on them to take the honest course by publicly admitting the error of their argumentation.
I note with also with some cynicism that some of that small group of Trade Union Members who are opposing the Lisbon Treaty were also among those who ten years ago, opposed the two National Partnership Agreements which delivered the Minimum Wage in the first place
They were wrong then and they’re still wrong now trying to sell a pup to the Irish people !!
THE PRIVATISATION SCARE.
This argument about Lisbon facilitating Privatisation of Public Services is a total red herring and is specious and irrelevant. Those of us who have spent our careers fighting for improved Education Health and other Public services know only too well that the impetus for Privatisation and Co-Location and the rest was home grown and not initiated in Europe. On the contrary if we look across the water to our nearest Continental Neighbour France we see the kinds of Health and Education Services which we in Ireland can only dream about. What we need is more rather than less of the European model of Health and Education Services.
Voting YES to Lisbon is an investment in Jobs, The Economy and Our Future
Voting YES is a WIN WIN vote for Ireland and her People
Back to top of page.
NAMA
25th August 2009 - Ordinary folk continue to be confused and angry as they watch and listen to the Political parties score political points off each other as they debate the merits and demerits of NAMA in the twilight zone of economic jargon.
Maybe there are more effective measures than NAMA but in the meantime If NAMA is to get off first base in gaining the confidence of ordinary taxpayers here are some of the early amendments which need to be made to the published draft Bill
1. NAMA legislation must include a section which debars any former owners, directors or executives of development companies, financial institutions or banks connected with the toxic debts from owning, buying or having any beneficial interest whatever in the assets being sold by NAMA
2. The NAMA legislation must contain provision for the protection of those defaulting mortgage holders who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to meet the repayments to those Financial Institutions whom we are about to support
3. While the thrust of NAMA and its spending of Taxpayers’ money should be to kickstart the banking system the Legislation must clearly state that the protection of existing Bank shareholders or Bondholders must not be a consideration.
4. NAMA legislation must be cleansed of all those sections which give the Minister for Finance the power to intervene and meddle in its operations.
But while removing it from political control NAMA should come under Democratic control and be answerable and accountable on a continuing and constant basis to the Oireachtas.
5. The objectives of the NAMA legislation should include a social dimension. In this regard land bank assets which will come under the control and ownership of NAMA should be used to facilitate for instance, the provision of locations and sites for social infrastructure such as Schools, Health Centres, Leisure Centres, etc.
The fact is that the majority of Taxpayers and not just the Green Party, have views that must be heard and their genuine concerns must be taken on board by the Government. Of course people understand that expensive measures will be required but as currently published the draft NAMA Bill is deliberately vague with more gaps and holes than the Malahide Viaduct. It is written in such a form as to defy understanding and to allow wriggle room for an uncertain Government. In case anyone doubts the draft nature of this Legislation it is relevant to note that the NAMA Bill is the first one in my twenty plus years in Leinster House that has ever been published without a Bill number.
NAMA proposes to purchase the assets and toxic debt at what they call their economic value. Nobody knows what this means except that it will be more than the current market value. The intention is that sometime later those assets will be put back on the market many of them probably at a price less than was paid by NAMA for them. It would be a grotesque insult and a travesty of justice were the originals owners and perpetrators of this whole disaster able to buy back their assets at bargain basement prices. In that regard the NAMA legislation must include a section which debars any former owners, directors or executives of development companies, financial institutions or banks connected with the toxic debts from owning, buying or having any beneficial interest whatever in the assets being sold by NAMA
The NAMA Legislation will establish a method of putting what is termed an Economic value on those assets it proposes to take under its control. Nobody understands exactly what is meant by the Economic value except that it will be higher than the Market value. This is a worrying thought and this worry is exacerbated by the fact that under the current Bill the Minister is giving himself the power to intervene in the powers of NAMA to set a valuation or to recover guaranteed assets. Whatever chance NAMA has of being successful the last thing it or the people of Ireland need now is to see a NAMA hamstrung and subject to the whims of a Minister.
NAMA legislation must be cleansed of all those sections which give the Minister for Finance the power to intervene and meddle in its operations.On the other hand while removing it from political control NAMA cannot be completely independent and in that regard should come under Democratic control and be answerable and accountable on a continuing and constant basis to the Oireachtas.
Taxpayers resent the fact that diligent ordinary people who scrimped and saved and did everything honestly and by the book now find themselves at risk of losing the Homes they have bought while those irresponsible and greedy banks who caused our financial problems are the object of our rescue operation.
The NAMA legislation must contain provision for the protection of those defaulting mortgage holders who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to meet the repayments to those Financial Institutions whom we are about to support.People are not supportive of the idea of bailing out the banks but do know that the banking system must be operational in order to maintain the economy. So while the thrust of NAMA and its spending of Taxpayers’ money should be to kickstart the banking system the Legislation must clearly state that the protection of existing Bank shareholders or Bondholders must not be a consideration.
Every unit of NAMA expenditure is Taxpayers Euros consequently Ordinary citizens and communities, apart from economic matters should also have a practical stake in NAMA project.
The objectives of NAMA should include a social dimension. In this regard land bank assets which will come under the control and ownership of NAMA should be used to facilitate for instance, the provision of locations and sites for social infrastructure such as Schools, Health Centres, Leisure Centres, etc.
Back to top of page.
Seanad Reform
9th March 2009 - The Seanad, though a viable, vital and effective legislative chamber is also exclusive, undemocratic and unrepresentative and its anachronistic and opaque system of election, in particular, is in urgent need of reform.
One of the few times when the Seanad attracts attention from the media is during the Seanad General election immediately following the Dáil General Election. My intention here is to focus attention right now on the issue of Seanad reform while there is still time for Government to introduce changes.
It is fair to say that over the past few years the Seanad has improved out of all recognition in the legislative area and certainly on long and difficult Bills like the Broadcasting Bill, The Charities Bill, the Adoption Bill and others is probably doing a far more effective job of scrutiny and amendment than the Dáil but as regards the composition of the Seanad and its method of election we are in the dark ages.
The Seanad must be more than a creature of the political parties. It is past time for the Government to take a serious look at its electoral system and its operation. During the Seanad election there is always great interest and discussion on the need for Seanad reform most of these views are shelved and forgotten after the election to be dusted down again in due course for the next electoral joust. The first priority of the Seanad must be the reform of the institution itself. This is a responsibility both for the Government and for the Seanad itself. Currently this is in the hands of Minister for the Environment John Gormley who is chairing a Joint Committee which is to report to Government on Seanad Reform. All the answers and all the recommendations are to be found in the Report on Seanad Reform but there seems little likelihood of significant reform being introduced anytime soon.
We could begin by acknowledging that the Seanad is exclusive, undemocratic and unrepresentative and that in particular its anachronistic and opaque system of election is in urgent need of reform.
The system of election is daft. It is a sobering and unacceptable fact that only 0.03% of the population have a vote in the election of 43 members of the second house of parliament. Even more sobering is the fact that some of us among that tiny percentage have not one but six votes each. The whole operation fails to inspire confidence or attract trust in the political process among the general population. It’s the kind of thing that would raise eyebrows in North Korea, Zimbabwe or Albania of old and it justifiably leaves the Seanad open to allegations of rotten boroughs, gerrymandering and exclusive club.
It is self evident that the current method of election fails to capture the spirit of vocational nature of Seanad Éireann as contemplated in the Constitution. Take my own case as a prospective Seanad candidate with a background in education and labour as CEO of Ireland’s largest education organisation and later as President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I would appear, on paper, to be ideally qualified and suitable to seek election on the EDUCATION or the LABOUR panels. Unfortunately, because I am Independent and Non-Party I would hardly have received five votes on either panel so the only option for me was the University Graduates Panel which by its name alone sounds both exclusive and superior, two attributes which should be anathema to any democrat. Undoubtedly the University Constituency has made a superb contribution to the Seanad but in fairness its only justification nowadays can only be within a system whereby every citizen also has a vote in some panel or other. In that context a revived and extended University Constituency has much more to offer. It is embarrassing to think that our society would restrict access to the ballot box to graduates. That might have been understandable a century ago but is philosophically and intellectually offensive today.
In 1979 the Irish people by referendum amended the Constitution to allow the Government to include additional Third level graduates as voters for the University seats. The fact that no action has ever been taken to implement that decision is perverse in the extreme and seems on the face of it a callous disregard for the will of the people. Giving voting rights to the graduates of every third level college would be a good start and the Government should do that immediately.
Then we should set about giving voting rights to members of all vocational groups in the Seanad elections. The problem with the Seanad is that it has so few stakeholders. But there is no constitutional reason why farmers and fishermen should not vote on the Agricultural panel, musicians on the Cultural panel, trade unionists on the Labour panel, industrialists on the Industrial panel, teachers and parents on the Educational panel etc. But these changes, radical as they might seem are only elastoplast. Ultimately, however, there can be no denying but that the Seanad, the second house of Parliament, should be elected by Universal Franchise.
Every citizen deserves to have a vote in the Seanad Election. This can be achieved by the simplest of Constitutional so that some Senators be elected by members of various vocational groups others by a LIST system based on geographical areas such as Euro Constituencies and others again perhaps by Graduates of Universities.
In that regard each citizen shall decide whether to register for a vote under the Vocational, Graduate or Geographical constituencies But always under the irrevocable rule that no citizen be entitled to more than ONE vote.
It just takes political will. Let's do it.
Back to top of page.
Credit Union
3rd March 2009-I wonder is there the slightest chance that the Irish League of Credit Unions [ILCU] and especially the Department of Finance will take their heads out of the sand anytime soon.
It is easy for the ILCU to issue reassuring statements but it really is time for them to get back to their knitting and ensure acceptable standards of governance and liquidity in all Credit Unions.
The Credit Union movement is hugely important and needs to be protected and developed but its current state is being ignored. Many Credit Unions are truggling with unprecedented bad debt, liquidity problems, investment losses and falling deposits, a combination which is driving them towards the eye of a perfect storm.
And spare a thought for the Credit Union Regulator. No doubt he will be made the whipping boy for the emerging problems but the truth is that he is a victim of the ‘light touch’ regulation which has caused the problems in the banking system. The Regulator is restricted to an advisory role in many cases for instance -
- even though the Regulator has issued guidelines on correct investment policy they have been ignored by many Credit Unions; and
- again though the Regulator has issued guidelines on Audit, Accounting and Reporting Standards he cannot insist on them being implemented and cannot take action against Credit Unions who ignore them.
This is the type of ‘light touch’ regulation which has so damaged the banks but it would appear that neither the Department of Finance nor the ILCU are prepared to respond. In fact the Credit Union Regulator is seriously restricted by out-of-date legislation and is further restricted by the fact that the Department of Finance is more inclined to listen to the League of Credit Unions than to the Regulator.
As late as a fortnight ago the Credit Union Regulator stated that 123 Credit Unions have not reported significant investment losses. In other words that they have hidden the investment losses of which the Regulator is aware.
The Credit Union Regulator has also stated that in a worst case scenario the bad debt write-off of Credit Unions would be of the order of 11% significantly higher than the 6% or 7% expected in AIB and Bank of Ireland.
The Credit Union Regulator has advised the Department that many Credit Unions are exposed to the decline in the property market but does not know the extent of this. Surely it is past time for the Minister to take action.
The facts are;-
• that loan impairments in some Credit Unions are running as high as 15-20%
• that almost 1/3 of Irish Credit Unions had First Quarter losses which on an annualised basis are between €100,000 and €1.2Million
• that many Credit Unions have been unable to pay dividends this year and that many other Credit Unions dipped into reserves to pay dividends
• that consequently liquidity has dried up completely in many Credit Unions
• that there have been huge investment losses in many Credit Unions arising from ill-advised investment in perpetual and treasury funds
• that the Irish League of Credit Unions is unable to or refusing to, provide liquidity support to many credit unions as the Savings Protection Scheme [SPS], originally set up to provide such a facility, is inadequately structured and has insufficient liquid funds to satisfy the day to day cash demands.
• that because of flawed legislation, unfortunately the Regulator cannot take action against or impose sanctions for reckless or bad directors
• that despite the Regulator’s attempts to impose Higher Audit Standards and Better Governance Standards, the reality is that the Regulator has no power to take action against them for non-compliance.
There is an urgent need for immediate Government action to -
1 - To make funds available to the credit union movement to give them liquidity and to make credit be available
2 - To amend the credit union legislation in a manner which will, inter alia,
(i) establish an independent deposit protection scheme;
(ii) confer additional power and authority on the Credit Union Regulator and
(iii) allow the Regulator act independently of the Department of Finance.
3 To establish a commission to examine and report on consolidation, liquidity, investment protocols, governance and amalgamations of credit unions.
4 To allow credit unions to benefit from the proposed Government Support Fund for Viable but Vulnerable companies.”
Back to top of page.
Credit Union
3rd March 2009 (Press Release)
Seanad reform Statement
9th March 2009 (Press Release)
NAMA
25th August 2009 (Press Release)
Yes to Lisbon
10th September 2009 (Press Release)
Back to top of page.
Lisbon Referendum
10th September 2009 - IF JAMES CONNOLLY WERE ALIVE TODAY HE WOULD BE OUT THERE KNOCKING ON THE DOORS OF IRELAND ADMONISHING THE CITIZENS TO VOTE YES FOR LISBON.
In the Public Debate on the Lisbon Treaty there is a lot of bunkum being talked about the various Threats to Trade Union Rights, The National Minimum Wage and the Privatisation of Public Services.
Trade Union Rights
The misinformed and misleading argumentation being put forward to frighten Trade Union members and other workers away from supporting the Lisbon Treaty needs to be outed for the nonsense that it is.
In truth the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives us the opportunity to enshrine with legal status many of the issues which the Irish Trade Union Movement from Connolly to Larkin and to the present have fought to achieve for over a century.
Consider for instance those aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which address Workers’ Rights and the guarantees and commitments. What does it do?
It unambiguously puts on a legal basis
The right to Organise and to Form and Join Trade Unions
The right to Collective Bargaining, Assembly, Protest and the Right to take Strike action.
The Right to Working conditions which respect Workers’ Health, Safety and Dignity
The Right to Protection against Unjust Dismissal
Any consideration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights would lead any fair minded Trade Unionist to the inevitable conclusion that were James Connolly alive today he would be out there knocking on the doors of Ireland canvassing people to vote YES for the Lisbon Treaty. For workers to vote NO would be to miss an open goal. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a prize to be won. We’ll never have a better opportunity!
THE NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
Time too to dissect the debate regarding the Minimum wage, including the blatant dishonesty of groups implying that the Minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84 by Europe.
The introduction of the National Minimum Wage in this country was a creature of Social Partnership. I was myself centrally involved when it was proposed by the ICTU at the PESP [Programme for Economic and Social Prosperity] talks in 1998 and was finally conceded in the Partnership Negotiations of the year 2000. The National Minimum Wage came into force in April 2000 following the passing of the Minimum Wage Act 2000 by Dail and Seanad.
So lets stick with the facts then. Europe has no role and had no role whatever in setting or changing the National Minimum Wage. That is a matter completely under Irish legislation and our own control and those who suggest otherwise or who claim a European involvement in our national Minimum Wage are completely wrong and I call on them to take the honest course by publicly admitting the error of their argumentation.
I note with also with some cynicism that some of that small group of Trade Union Members who are opposing the Lisbon Treaty were also among those who ten years ago, opposed the two National Partnership Agreements which delivered the Minimum Wage in the first place
They were wrong then and they’re still wrong now trying to sell a pup to the Irish people !!
THE PRIVATISATION SCARE.
This argument about Lisbon facilitating Privatisation of Public Services is a total red herring and is specious and irrelevant. Those of us who have spent our careers fighting for improved Education Health and other Public services know only too well that the impetus for Privatisation and Co-Location and the rest was home grown and not initiated in Europe. On the contrary if we look across the water to our nearest Continental Neighbour France we see the kinds of Health and Education Services which we in Ireland can only dream about. What we need is more rather than less of the European model of Health and Education Services.
Voting YES to Lisbon is an investment in Jobs, The Economy and Our Future
Voting YES is a WIN WIN vote for Ireland and her People
Back to top of page.
NAMA
25th August 2009 - Ordinary folk continue to be confused and angry as they watch and listen to the Political parties score political points off each other as they debate the merits and demerits of NAMA in the twilight zone of economic jargon.
Maybe there are more effective measures than NAMA but in the meantime If NAMA is to get off first base in gaining the confidence of ordinary taxpayers here are some of the early amendments which need to be made to the published draft Bill
1. NAMA legislation must include a section which debars any former owners, directors or executives of development companies, financial institutions or banks connected with the toxic debts from owning, buying or having any beneficial interest whatever in the assets being sold by NAMA
2. The NAMA legislation must contain provision for the protection of those defaulting mortgage holders who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to meet the repayments to those Financial Institutions whom we are about to support
3. While the thrust of NAMA and its spending of Taxpayers’ money should be to kickstart the banking system the Legislation must clearly state that the protection of existing Bank shareholders or Bondholders must not be a consideration.
4. NAMA legislation must be cleansed of all those sections which give the Minister for Finance the power to intervene and meddle in its operations.
But while removing it from political control NAMA should come under Democratic control and be answerable and accountable on a continuing and constant basis to the Oireachtas.
5. The objectives of the NAMA legislation should include a social dimension. In this regard land bank assets which will come under the control and ownership of NAMA should be used to facilitate for instance, the provision of locations and sites for social infrastructure such as Schools, Health Centres, Leisure Centres, etc.
The fact is that the majority of Taxpayers and not just the Green Party, have views that must be heard and their genuine concerns must be taken on board by the Government. Of course people understand that expensive measures will be required but as currently published the draft NAMA Bill is deliberately vague with more gaps and holes than the Malahide Viaduct. It is written in such a form as to defy understanding and to allow wriggle room for an uncertain Government. In case anyone doubts the draft nature of this Legislation it is relevant to note that the NAMA Bill is the first one in my twenty plus years in Leinster House that has ever been published without a Bill number.
NAMA proposes to purchase the assets and toxic debt at what they call their economic value. Nobody knows what this means except that it will be more than the current market value. The intention is that sometime later those assets will be put back on the market many of them probably at a price less than was paid by NAMA for them. It would be a grotesque insult and a travesty of justice were the originals owners and perpetrators of this whole disaster able to buy back their assets at bargain basement prices. In that regard the NAMA legislation must include a section which debars any former owners, directors or executives of development companies, financial institutions or banks connected with the toxic debts from owning, buying or having any beneficial interest whatever in the assets being sold by NAMA
The NAMA Legislation will establish a method of putting what is termed an Economic value on those assets it proposes to take under its control. Nobody understands exactly what is meant by the Economic value except that it will be higher than the Market value. This is a worrying thought and this worry is exacerbated by the fact that under the current Bill the Minister is giving himself the power to intervene in the powers of NAMA to set a valuation or to recover guaranteed assets. Whatever chance NAMA has of being successful the last thing it or the people of Ireland need now is to see a NAMA hamstrung and subject to the whims of a Minister.
NAMA legislation must be cleansed of all those sections which give the Minister for Finance the power to intervene and meddle in its operations.On the other hand while removing it from political control NAMA cannot be completely independent and in that regard should come under Democratic control and be answerable and accountable on a continuing and constant basis to the Oireachtas.
Taxpayers resent the fact that diligent ordinary people who scrimped and saved and did everything honestly and by the book now find themselves at risk of losing the Homes they have bought while those irresponsible and greedy banks who caused our financial problems are the object of our rescue operation.
The NAMA legislation must contain provision for the protection of those defaulting mortgage holders who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to meet the repayments to those Financial Institutions whom we are about to support.People are not supportive of the idea of bailing out the banks but do know that the banking system must be operational in order to maintain the economy. So while the thrust of NAMA and its spending of Taxpayers’ money should be to kickstart the banking system the Legislation must clearly state that the protection of existing Bank shareholders or Bondholders must not be a consideration.
Every unit of NAMA expenditure is Taxpayers Euros consequently Ordinary citizens and communities, apart from economic matters should also have a practical stake in NAMA project.
The objectives of NAMA should include a social dimension. In this regard land bank assets which will come under the control and ownership of NAMA should be used to facilitate for instance, the provision of locations and sites for social infrastructure such as Schools, Health Centres, Leisure Centres, etc.
Back to top of page.
Seanad Reform
9th March 2009 - The Seanad, though a viable, vital and effective legislative chamber is also exclusive, undemocratic and unrepresentative and its anachronistic and opaque system of election, in particular, is in urgent need of reform.
One of the few times when the Seanad attracts attention from the media is during the Seanad General election immediately following the Dáil General Election. My intention here is to focus attention right now on the issue of Seanad reform while there is still time for Government to introduce changes.
It is fair to say that over the past few years the Seanad has improved out of all recognition in the legislative area and certainly on long and difficult Bills like the Broadcasting Bill, The Charities Bill, the Adoption Bill and others is probably doing a far more effective job of scrutiny and amendment than the Dáil but as regards the composition of the Seanad and its method of election we are in the dark ages.
The Seanad must be more than a creature of the political parties. It is past time for the Government to take a serious look at its electoral system and its operation. During the Seanad election there is always great interest and discussion on the need for Seanad reform most of these views are shelved and forgotten after the election to be dusted down again in due course for the next electoral joust. The first priority of the Seanad must be the reform of the institution itself. This is a responsibility both for the Government and for the Seanad itself. Currently this is in the hands of Minister for the Environment John Gormley who is chairing a Joint Committee which is to report to Government on Seanad Reform. All the answers and all the recommendations are to be found in the Report on Seanad Reform but there seems little likelihood of significant reform being introduced anytime soon.
We could begin by acknowledging that the Seanad is exclusive, undemocratic and unrepresentative and that in particular its anachronistic and opaque system of election is in urgent need of reform.
The system of election is daft. It is a sobering and unacceptable fact that only 0.03% of the population have a vote in the election of 43 members of the second house of parliament. Even more sobering is the fact that some of us among that tiny percentage have not one but six votes each. The whole operation fails to inspire confidence or attract trust in the political process among the general population. It’s the kind of thing that would raise eyebrows in North Korea, Zimbabwe or Albania of old and it justifiably leaves the Seanad open to allegations of rotten boroughs, gerrymandering and exclusive club.
It is self evident that the current method of election fails to capture the spirit of vocational nature of Seanad Éireann as contemplated in the Constitution. Take my own case as a prospective Seanad candidate with a background in education and labour as CEO of Ireland’s largest education organisation and later as President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I would appear, on paper, to be ideally qualified and suitable to seek election on the EDUCATION or the LABOUR panels. Unfortunately, because I am Independent and Non-Party I would hardly have received five votes on either panel so the only option for me was the University Graduates Panel which by its name alone sounds both exclusive and superior, two attributes which should be anathema to any democrat. Undoubtedly the University Constituency has made a superb contribution to the Seanad but in fairness its only justification nowadays can only be within a system whereby every citizen also has a vote in some panel or other. In that context a revived and extended University Constituency has much more to offer. It is embarrassing to think that our society would restrict access to the ballot box to graduates. That might have been understandable a century ago but is philosophically and intellectually offensive today.
In 1979 the Irish people by referendum amended the Constitution to allow the Government to include additional Third level graduates as voters for the University seats. The fact that no action has ever been taken to implement that decision is perverse in the extreme and seems on the face of it a callous disregard for the will of the people. Giving voting rights to the graduates of every third level college would be a good start and the Government should do that immediately.
Then we should set about giving voting rights to members of all vocational groups in the Seanad elections. The problem with the Seanad is that it has so few stakeholders. But there is no constitutional reason why farmers and fishermen should not vote on the Agricultural panel, musicians on the Cultural panel, trade unionists on the Labour panel, industrialists on the Industrial panel, teachers and parents on the Educational panel etc. But these changes, radical as they might seem are only elastoplast. Ultimately, however, there can be no denying but that the Seanad, the second house of Parliament, should be elected by Universal Franchise.
Every citizen deserves to have a vote in the Seanad Election. This can be achieved by the simplest of Constitutional so that some Senators be elected by members of various vocational groups others by a LIST system based on geographical areas such as Euro Constituencies and others again perhaps by Graduates of Universities.
In that regard each citizen shall decide whether to register for a vote under the Vocational, Graduate or Geographical constituencies But always under the irrevocable rule that no citizen be entitled to more than ONE vote.
It just takes political will. Let's do it.
Back to top of page.
Credit Union
3rd March 2009-I wonder is there the slightest chance that the Irish League of Credit Unions [ILCU] and especially the Department of Finance will take their heads out of the sand anytime soon.
It is easy for the ILCU to issue reassuring statements but it really is time for them to get back to their knitting and ensure acceptable standards of governance and liquidity in all Credit Unions.
The Credit Union movement is hugely important and needs to be protected and developed but its current state is being ignored. Many Credit Unions are truggling with unprecedented bad debt, liquidity problems, investment losses and falling deposits, a combination which is driving them towards the eye of a perfect storm.
And spare a thought for the Credit Union Regulator. No doubt he will be made the whipping boy for the emerging problems but the truth is that he is a victim of the ‘light touch’ regulation which has caused the problems in the banking system. The Regulator is restricted to an advisory role in many cases for instance -
- even though the Regulator has issued guidelines on correct investment policy they have been ignored by many Credit Unions; and
- again though the Regulator has issued guidelines on Audit, Accounting and Reporting Standards he cannot insist on them being implemented and cannot take action against Credit Unions who ignore them.
This is the type of ‘light touch’ regulation which has so damaged the banks but it would appear that neither the Department of Finance nor the ILCU are prepared to respond. In fact the Credit Union Regulator is seriously restricted by out-of-date legislation and is further restricted by the fact that the Department of Finance is more inclined to listen to the League of Credit Unions than to the Regulator.
As late as a fortnight ago the Credit Union Regulator stated that 123 Credit Unions have not reported significant investment losses. In other words that they have hidden the investment losses of which the Regulator is aware.
The Credit Union Regulator has also stated that in a worst case scenario the bad debt write-off of Credit Unions would be of the order of 11% significantly higher than the 6% or 7% expected in AIB and Bank of Ireland.
The Credit Union Regulator has advised the Department that many Credit Unions are exposed to the decline in the property market but does not know the extent of this. Surely it is past time for the Minister to take action.
The facts are;-
• that loan impairments in some Credit Unions are running as high as 15-20%
• that almost 1/3 of Irish Credit Unions had First Quarter losses which on an annualised basis are between €100,000 and €1.2Million
• that many Credit Unions have been unable to pay dividends this year and that many other Credit Unions dipped into reserves to pay dividends
• that consequently liquidity has dried up completely in many Credit Unions
• that there have been huge investment losses in many Credit Unions arising from ill-advised investment in perpetual and treasury funds
• that the Irish League of Credit Unions is unable to or refusing to, provide liquidity support to many credit unions as the Savings Protection Scheme [SPS], originally set up to provide such a facility, is inadequately structured and has insufficient liquid funds to satisfy the day to day cash demands.
• that because of flawed legislation, unfortunately the Regulator cannot take action against or impose sanctions for reckless or bad directors
• that despite the Regulator’s attempts to impose Higher Audit Standards and Better Governance Standards, the reality is that the Regulator has no power to take action against them for non-compliance.
There is an urgent need for immediate Government action to -
1 - To make funds available to the credit union movement to give them liquidity and to make credit be available
2 - To amend the credit union legislation in a manner which will, inter alia,
(i) establish an independent deposit protection scheme;
(ii) confer additional power and authority on the Credit Union Regulator and
(iii) allow the Regulator act independently of the Department of Finance.
3 To establish a commission to examine and report on consolidation, liquidity, investment protocols, governance and amalgamations of credit unions.
4 To allow credit unions to benefit from the proposed Government Support Fund for Viable but Vulnerable companies.”
Back to top of page.