Up to 100 new Dublin South jobs to be created in government-supported start-up companies

Deputy Alex White today welcomed Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton’s announcement that up to 100 jobs will be created over the next three years in five new high potential start-up companies to be located in the south Dublin area. These businesses have been supported by the government through Enterprise Ireland in the second quarter of 2011. The announcement follows on from the 310 new jobs announced earlier this year as part of the Q1 results of Enterprise Ireland’s High Potential Start Ups programme.

Welcoming the announcement, Deputy White said

“If we are to rebuild the economy and create the jobs of the future, we must ensure that more High Potential start-up businesses can establish and expand here. An indigenous engine of economic growth is vital to the successful future we all want for Ireland.”

For more information on the announcement, please click here. 

We stand for legislation on JLCs that will work and not legislation that could ultimately be faulty

Following the the recent court decision in relation to JLCs and EROs, Fianna Fáil brought forward a piece of legislation called the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011 which was discussed in the Dáil chamber last night. 

It is not unreasonable for Deputy O’Dea to introduce this Bill in order that we can have a debate on the issue. Apart from one or two new proposals in the Bill, it is largely the same as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which I supported and spoke in favour of in the Seanad. The Deputy is correct in saying that the 2009 Bill was an attempt to anticipate the likely frailty and ultimate fate of a challenge that was then being brought to the orders and to the JLC system.

While I understand where Deputy O’Dea is coming from as regards the notion of the Government appealing the decision of Mr. Justice Feeney to the Supreme Court as a “tactic”, he will appreciate that such an approach is fraught with danger, particularly for a Government in circumstances in which – according to the Deputy and if I heard him correctly – the prospect of success is “minuscule”. And it would be wrong for the House to have the impression that bringing forth such an appeal would mean the Government would automatically obtain a stay on the existing Employment Regulation Orders. Indeed, obtaining a stay in the context of the High Court decision would be extremely difficult.

It is not unreasonable for the Deputy to introduce the Bill, but the Government is right and the Minister and Taoiseach are correct in the approach they have taken in saying that the Bill is not sufficiently robust. If the legislation is to achieve what people want, a number of matters must be addressed and necessary and vital improvements must be made to make the legislation fit for purpose.

We cannot forget that there were two essential pillars in the Feeney judgment. One was the absence of principles and policies to guide the Labour Court and the JLCs and the other was the issue of whether property rights under the Constitution were offended by the JLC system. As a minimum, a prudent Government and the House would want to proof legislation in the context of the latter issue, given the fact that previous proposals on protective and trade union legislation came up a cropper on this issue. This issue of property rights and their effects presents a considerable problem to those of us who want real reform and full collective bargaining rights for trade unions. It also presents a problem in this instance, in that it would be most imprudent to rush legislation when the High Court has identified that the property rights issue must be addressed. Perhaps it cannot be dealt with in legislation alone. Given the nature of these rights, dealing with them solely in legislation is difficult, but they must be addressed.

The other issue is that referred to by the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, and my colleague Deputy Mitchell, namely, the question of principles and policies raised in the judgment. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, has signalled an intention to introduce reforms, the Government has committed to reforming the JLC system and there has been consultation and debate on how that should be achieved and what the changes would be precisely. I expect that agreement can be reached on this agenda, and the principles and policies resulting from the agreement should be incorporated in any new legislation. Those contained in Deputy O’Dea’s Bill come from the 2009 Bill, referring to the “interests” of the workers, employers and so on, are somewhat bland and cover a bit of ground but not all the ground. We should use the legislation to provide for those new principles and policies as well.

JLC Judgment an opportunity for careful assessment of wage-setting mechanisms

“Today’s High Court judgment dealing with the JLC system of pay determination has identified a significant flaw in the 1946 and 1990 Acts” according to Labour TD Alex White.

“Mr Justice Feeney concluded that the legislation provided no guidance to the Labour Court or to the Joint Labour Committees as to how they should go about fixing rates of pay. This judgment follows a line of authority from the Courts that basic principles and policies should be set out in legislation by the Oireachtas, rather than being determined by the implementing bodies themselves.

“This flaw can be rectified, and that is in part what the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill of 2009 set out to achieve. That Bill, which Labour supported, had not been enacted by the time the last Dail was dissolved. Urgent consideration should now be given to reviving it.

“I believe that far from constituting a fatal blow, today’s judgment presents an opportunity for a careful and sensible assessment of the wage-setting mechanisms in low-pay sectors. We need to ensure that the fullest protection is afforded to low-paid workers, whilst also ensuring that the Labour Court and the JLCs operate on a sound legal and constitutional footing into the future”.

Alex on Morning Ireland

I was interviewed on yesterday’s edition of Morning Ireland to discuss Labour’s Plan for Enterprise, Innovation and Growth, released on Sunday.

Also on to discuss jobs were Leo Varadkar TD, Fine Gael and Niall Collins TD, Fianna Fail.

Click here to listen to it again.

Where in this Budget is there a plan for recovery?

Yesterday’s budget was severe on all sectors of society. There are many people who cannot afford to take the cuts handed to them by this government. Yet, because the devil of this budget is in its detail, it may take until January for the full realisation of these measures hit home. 

Today, I spoke on the budget in the Seanad. You can view the video below…

We must sit down and work out what we cherish, rather than slash indiscriminately

In the United States yesterday, as we have seen overnight on the news, there has been another change election. From my perspective, I am sorry to see that there would appear to have been a sharp shift to the right in American politics on foot of this election. Much of what we have seen happening in the United States in recent weeks has some resonances in this country because there are many candidates in those elections who appear to think that the way forward for a modern democracy and modern economy is to cut, slash and emasculate the state and cut the heart out of public services. That has been elevated almost into a political mantra in the United States. It is not as if it is something new, but certainly it has come back very much as a major agenda item in that country.

It has resonances in this country. Unfortunately, there are many people in the debate in our country who seem to think that all we must do is to cut the heart out of the State and out of public services, and have an effect on public services and public entitlements, for example, those who hold pensions.

There is a genuine concern, shared by me and my party, about areas of waste in public services. We must look at that and consider it carefully. Can we begin to have a debate on public services about what we want to have in this country, not what we want to cut? I refer to this indiscriminate slashing of the knife for two or three weeks in public before a budget. Can we sit down and work out what we cherish, what we want to have and what is worth keeping, rather than taking the debate from the other perspective? That would be a useful exercise for us to undertake here.

Of course, one of the areas that we should be considering as part of that debate is education. I have made the point in this House previously, we all have areas that we will say in the debate that we want to see preserved. It must be the case, and I believe this to be the position of the Green Party, that education at all levels is an area which should be preserved, nurtured and fostered. Particularly in the case of third level education, it would be a terrible pity if the Green Party was to abandon its previously stated position, for example, on third level fees or third level fees being introduced by stealth through a hugely increased registration fee. It would be a great pity if they were to abandon that. I appeal to them not to do so.

It is easy enough to say about education that there are many who can afford a higher registration fee and maybe it is the case that most Members in this Chamber could afford a higher registration fee for their children. That is not the point. The point is that higher education should not be the preserve of the well-off. We have made a commitment to higher education and education at all levels, that it is not a commodity to be parcelled up and sold off to the highest bidder and that it is something that we believe to which all children and all young people should have access irrespective of the wealth of their parents.

Special Needs Assistance in danger of ‘a serious backward step’

Will the Minister for Education and Science explain why it appears that within the next few days, the system is to lose 1,200 special needs assistants? This has not been denied or confirmed but can we have an indication that the report is wrong? Will Senator Dan Boyle tell us if it is wrong as his colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was on radio no more recently than at the weekend again emphasising the importance of education to the Green Party?

Will the issue be clarified to this House if it cannot be clarified on radio or to anybody else? Special needs assistance is one of the small number of things we have achieved in the past ten or 15 years of prosperity. It is a genuinely progressive step that has occurred in our schools. It would be a most serious backward step for people who are genuinely needed in the system, special needs assistants, to be made redundant at the end of this week or anytime soon. That appears to be what is contemplated by the Department.

The Department’s evaluation paper on these matters, submitted to the Department of Finance, stated in a rather prescient manner that there is a redundancy scheme in place. The document states:

However, removal of SNAs, even on a moderate scale, is likely to result in significant rearguard action by schools. It may result in schools refusing to continue to retain pupils with special needs and will undoubtedly attract significant adverse public and media reaction. Previous experience in the special needs area indicates that even where criteria are not met, removal of resources can be very contentious.

This is a genuinely contentious issue and it should be dealt with in this House.

More :: Department reviewing SNA posts (RTE)

Budget cannot be viewed as fair

Last night, I had an opportunity to speak in the Seanad in reaction to Budget 2010. Below is my own contribution.

I am grateful to Senator Boyle for his acknowledgement, which members of the Government find it difficult to make, that at least part of the deficit problem the Government, and by extension the people, must deal with is attributable to what has occurred in the banks. That is unquestionably the case. From time to time and mainly in the context of NAMA, Ministers attempt to suggest, in a roundabout fashion, that the NAMA borrowings are not real money or real borrowing. However, the borrowings are real and will constitute an exposure for the people in respect of the bonds that banks will be given in exchange for loans.

More immediately, the deficit has increased since September when the Department of Finance acknowledged that it amounted to just over €20 billion compared with €9.4 billion at the end of September in the previous year. The statement reads: “The year-on-year deterioration in the deficit of some €10.8 billion is primarily explained by a decline in tax receipts of €4.8 billion, the €4 billion payment to Anglo Irish Bank and €1.7 billion in respect of the frontloading of the annual contribution to the National Pensions Reserve Fund.” It is no use that Government spokespersons attempt to convey the impression that the issue of the banks and the extraordinary exposure of the taxpayer in that respect is off line and has nothing to do with the budgetary crisis. These matters are connected in a substantial way, meaning that there has been an element of dishonesty in the remarks of some Government spokespersons.

Senator Boyle, similar to Senator MacSharry, stated that these budget decisions would have been made by any political party in power, but I do not accept that the decision to reduce the pay of public servants earning €30,000 per annum would have been made by any party in government, certainly not mine. I do not accept that the decision to cut child benefit or social welfare would have been made by any party in government, as was suggested by Senator Boyle more in hope than in a belief that it was the case.

This is about politics. Perhaps I am approaching politics from a slightly different perspective than Senator MacSharry who stated that the issue has gone way beyond politics, which is an extraordinary phrase. The current situation signals the arrival of politics, not its departure. I do not know what my colleagues understand or believe politics to be, but it is my belief that politics is about making choices and deciding, for example, whether one agrees, as parties did in recent weeks, on the appropriateness of reducing the 2010 deficit by €4 billion. Politics is about where to make the savings and what choices to make, be it on cutting public expenditure and, if so, where, or on increasing taxes and, if so, where. People should not be afraid of this. When there is an argument on these issues, people refer to it as being “all politics”. In my respectful submission, the problem with the current system is that there is not enough politics or calm, measured and careful debate, contest and disagreement on issues. I am not calling for disagreement for its own sake, but the only way to determine what will next occur in any society, particularly one in paralysis and crisis like ours – I am referring to wider society, not just the economy – is to have a free flow of debate and interaction. This is called politics. I am not looking to get away from this fact. Rather, I am looking to embrace it.

‘There was no cave-in and the trade unions have not won a famous victory’

It is interesting to read reports in newspapers which in the past have stated – perhaps hoped – that public service unions were beaten. They are now leading with headlines that the Government has caved in to the public service unions. It cannot be both and in my view it is neither. One newspaper stated that trade union leaders were jubilant at this agreement last night, which is quite fanciful, and the union leaders certainly do not look jubilant in the photograph beside the article.

They have no particular reason to feel jubilant and they are not looking for jubilation. They are not looking for humiliation and defeat either, which appears to be what some commentators and politicians want. It seems that the only way some people think we can make progress is through confrontation, with people being beaten and shot down. I do not agree with that or see it as the way forward for our country or the public service.

As somebody who absolutely supports the need for radical reform in the public service, I know that nobody in their right mind believes it can be achieved in two weeks of negotiation. How could all the issues we have debated in here be addressed in that short time? It is nonsensical or daft to suggest that was possible.

There was no cave-in and the trade unions have not won a famous victory. One report in a newspaper had a trade union group describing what happened yesterday as “the greatest betrayal in the history of the Irish trade union movement”. Which is it? My party has called for negotiations with a view to reaching agreement and yesterday’s developments represent a small but welcome advance. It is only an interim measure and it’s not a solution to the problem. I do not know if it will work.

Others may be right in raising how the 12 days of unpaid leave will work. Perhaps we will describe them as the 12 days of Christmas 2009 in a couple of years. We do not know how it will work out. The idea should be considered further and thrashed out in the next couple of weeks. Do we want confrontation or progress? People must decide what they want; do they want to see people beaten down or do they want a national recovery effort involving all of the country’s people in order to turn around our current economic position?

For that limited reason, yesterday’s developments are welcome. In the Labour Party we have argued that the public sector pay bill must be reduced and serious efforts should be made to achieve that without cutting people’s basic pay. The interim agreement seems to suggest that is possible. I do not know if it will ultimately be possible to reduce the public sector pay bill without cutting basic pay but I hope it will. This represents a small step forward in that regard.

Taoiseach forgets he’s in the driving seat

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

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

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

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

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