Why Vote for Michael D.

Michael D Higgins

Five years ago, Liberties Press published Causes for Concern: Irish politics, culture and society, a sometimes eclectic mix of Michael D.s journalism, academic writing and speeches over the years. The book is a testament to the range and breadth of Michael D.’s accomplishments as a politician, a public intellectual and, above all, as a great humanist. Unusually amongst public figures, Michael D. is at home in a range of communication modes from the rhetorical flourishes of the university lecturer, to the incisive observations of the detached columnist to the creative exegesis of the poet. As a political representative, opposition spokesman and Minister he could be relied upon to bring an intellectual acuity and vision to every brief in hand. Reading through the contributions in the book which extend over several decades of public life a few key themes emerge: respect for education and love of learning, the importance of promoting culture and the public sphere and the need to show solidarity with the oppressed.

In developing his world view, Michael D. has drawn on a rich seam of intellectual thinking but he returns repeatedly to the question of authenticity, and the goal of living an authentic life. Michael D.’s analysis of the ills of Irish society- clientelism, consumerism, materialism and technocratic determinism- are trenchant and prescient. He was a critic of the direction of socio-economic change in Ireland when it was neither popular nor profitable to be so. The kind of values that he has been espousing for decades- solidarity, community, democracy, justice, freedom and equality- are exactly the values to which we have now turned as we seek to rebuild our economy and society in the wake of the Celtic Tiger.

As Declan Kiberd so eloquently points out in the introduction to Michael D.’s book “In an age when the great ideological battles between capital and labour have been pronounced to be over, Higgins has kept ideas at the centre of political life; in a time of technocracy, he offers vision; and while others run for office on the basis of competence, he insists on an ethical perspective.”

Michael D. has spent a lifetime putting his considerable intellectual gifts to work in the service of the Irish people. He has used his voice courageously to speak out for those in Irish society and elsewhere who have been oppressed. He will indeed be a President of whom we can all be immensely proud.

Mary Corcoran and Alex White

“One should not allow the perfect be the enemy of the possible”

Last Tuesday, the chamber debated the Electoral Amendment Bill 2011. There are important proposals that being brought forward, such as a lower spending cap for Presidential elections, and a maximum delay of 6 months for by elections. I spoke in favour of the Bill.

I welcome the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011. It constitutes an important advance and as other speakers have noted, it forms a single element of a highly ambitious programme of reform the Government has set out to achieve and introduce. It is important that Members bear this point in mind.

One of the most important measures that has been agreed in the programme for Government is the establishment of a constitutional convention. I heard Deputies Pearse Doherty and Éamon Ó Cuív making a number of points earlier that I thought had great validity such as, for example, a suggestion about a list system. In addition to a number of suggestions from other speakers, such a change could only be dealt with or addressed through constitutional change, which is the reason it will be extremely important for the Government to turn its attention as quickly as possible, hopefully later this year, to establishing the constitutional convention once it has got through the more immediate proposals regarding constitutional change and the referendums that already are on the blocks. It is only when such a constitutional convention is established that it will be possible to consider all these issues in the round. It will be possible to consider matters more widely.

Electoral reform and the electoral system for the Dáil is one of the priority items in the programme for Government the constitutional convention is to address. It will provide the opportunity to deal with questions such as whether there should be a list system, the broader question of elections or perhaps the establishment of a permanent electoral commission. In itself, that measure would not require a constitutional change but broad questions on what electoral system it is best to have or how best to elect people to this Parliament can be addressed in the context of a constitutional convention. I hope such a convention is brought forward as early as possible in the autumn.

Nevertheless, simply because one states it is necessary to have a broader debate on such issues and on how to have constitutional change, this does not mean there are no measures that can be taken now. One should not allow the perfect be the enemy of the possible or the more immediately achievable measures such as those contained in this legislation. It contains three discrete items, each of which can and should be dealt with at this time and which should not be obliged to wait for the broader programme or agenda. The question of by-elections manifestly should be dealt with as quickly as possible and it is good the Minister has brought forward this measure so quickly. The Government may consider itself to be under a certain amount of pressure on foot of the High Court decision but notwithstanding that, it still is commendable that the Government has brought forward this proposal as quickly as it has.

Alex White TD Elected Chair of Oireachtas Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform Committee

From Oireachtas News:

Alex White TD for Dublin South was today elected as Chairman to the key Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.

Wexford TD, Liam Twomey was elected as Committee Vice-Chair.

The Committee will shadow the activities of the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Refom.

Speaking after his election, Deputy White said;
“I am grateful to my Oireachtas colleagues for electing me to chair this pivotal new Oireachtas Committee. I intend to adopt a professional and business-like approach to the way this Committee does its work, so that we can achieve tangible results and make a real contribution.

Clearly, reform and public expenditure will be among the highest priorities for this Oireachtas. I believe this Committee can have an important function in scrutinising the work of this new Department as well as devising concrete progressive proposals.”

Committee Vice-Chair, Liam Twomey TD said;
“I too look forward to job of work ahead of this Committee. We will be addressing some of the most pressing areas of policy and I believe the Committee’s input can make a meaningful contribution.”

The Committee will hold a meeting shortly to identify its work programme and priorities.

“People expect political reform and want to see it happening”

Yesterday, the chamber discussed a motion put down by the Technical Group on reform of the Oireachtas. Amongst the proposals put forward by the group included the abolition of the whip system and allowing committee input prior to drafting legislation. The full motion can be viewed here.  I spoke in support of the government amendment which cited reform proposals in the Programme for Government. The amendment can be viewed here.

There is no reason why there should not be debate here about the need to change the way the House operates and the practices which may be in existence for decades. As Deputy Eoghan Murphy argued, we should address the elements that should be changed, and I have no problem with the debate or the Technical Group raising those issues.

The point regarding the Whip system has been ventilated and I will not repeat it other than to pose a question. How could it be abolished and who would do so? How can the Dáil determine that people cannot come together in a voluntary way through a political party, make decisions together by compromise and come to the House to vote in a particular way? It is not open to the Dáil to abolish the party political system or the Whips in the sense proposed in the motion. As a result the argument against the Whip system is really unconvincing, demonstrating a frustration which Independents in the Dáil and Seanad have with the system. That is natural and although there is a luxury in being an Independent, those Members must also face the obstacles relating to the processing of business and the ability, essentially, to get work done in this Parliament. As Deputy Stagg and others have argued, practices have evolved through political parties because they are at the heart of our current system. Apart from that it is good to have this debate.

Everybody is in favour of reform and apart from the Whip issue, we are probably all in agreement. There is very little difference between the original motion and the amendments. Calling for reform is one thing, but implementing it or setting it out on paper is another. Prior to the election, the Labour Party carefully and at some length examined this issue. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, set out in a document 140 proposals for genuinely radical change that would appeal to Members on all sides of the House. It took us a considerable period to analyse the problem and set out proposals which could be implemented.

Deputy Murphy is right to express frustration at how the House operates but change requires the unpicking of entrenched practices and the way business has been done for many years. Every time we look at a practice we can find a reason for its existence. Although we may want to get rid of it, we can see the rationale behind it so we have to unpick the practice in order to change it. We should do that, and every Member should be involved in the process. The necessity for reform should not be the subject of contentious debate, although some of the individual aspects may cause people to differ. Deputy Stagg is right when he states that the process is ongoing and the impression should not be given that the matter is purely within the remit of the Government. Opposition parties should be involved, and I hope they will be.

I was struck by some of the debate, particularly when Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke more broadly about civic morality. It was a good issue to bring to the heart of the debate. There is a great expectation amongst the people for this Dáil. This does not just relate to the economy and the principal issues that must be addressed, but how we do our business. People expect change and want to see it happening. That is a reason for us to proceed with the constitutional convention, although there is little detail yet as to how it will operate. That would be a genuine opportunity for us to examine the kind of republic we have and the sort of change we want to see in the republic.

I will comment on the committee system. There is general agreement that the committees should be vested with real powers. The committees should be given a genuinely enhanced status. It should not just be a question of rhetoric that the Government will take committees seriously – as I am sure it will – and provide additional resources; we must see that happen. As parliamentarians we should stand up for the Parliament and our independent role, separate from the Government, even if we support that Government. We have a crucial role to play on behalf of the people who sent us here. We are right to demand that the Government should take the committees seriously, attend them and resource them. They should have an enhanced status.

We also have a responsibility in regard to how we conduct our business in committees. They ought not to be opportunities for grandstanding and set pieces, and we need to learn discipline with regard, for example, to scrutinising witnesses and asking questions. Many people have forgotten how to ask questions. A question is not a statement. I say with all due respect to my colleagues that we should take the committee system seriously. Let us be seen to make it work rather than simply expect the Government to do all the work.

Alex on Prime Time

Last night I appeared on the panel on Prime Time on RTE One to discuss the fallout from the Fianna Fail confidence vote.

Also on the panel were Leo Varadkar TD and political analyst Noel Whelan.

See it again by clicking here.

New Year, New Government, New Policies

Happy New Year! 2011 brings with it renewed hope and an impending general election.  It may, with hard work, bring the first Labour-led government in the history of the State.

Labour has started the year by launching an ambitious plan to reform Irish democracy.  New Government, Better Government sets out 140 ways to improve how government works, how politics works and how to reform the public service. It is, I believe, the most radical reform document ever published by a political party in this country. You can take a look here.

Although a new government will faces challenges in the economy and elsewhere, Labour believes priority must be placed in restoring public confidence in our political system.

Recovery Plan is bill for economic failure

The Four Year Plan released yesterday afternoon will affect every man, woman and child in this country.  It is devastating – the price we must pay for political incompetence.  Within a matter of hours, I gave a speech to the Seanad.  You can read the whole debate by clicking here.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the plan published by the Government this afternoon. This plan is in many ways the bill for economic failure. Regrettably, it is a bill that must be paid over a period of some years.

Having listened to Senator Boyle, I have a real sense that he is finding his voice on some issues and that he may be, in terms of some of the things he said, feeling a sense of political liberation. I agree with much of what he had to say. There is a sense that people have been codding politicians, and not perhaps only Government politicians, and that they may have been unwitting participants in the illusion that we can fund and have the type of public services to which we aspire and should have for our citizens and children, and that these can be sustained and managed at a particular level of taxation. A stark statement on page 91 of the plan, with which no one could disagree, states : “We have eroded the income tax base to an unsustainable level”. This is manifestly true. However, I do not believe income tax is the only element we need to examine in the context of from where we raise taxes. I agree with Senator MacSharry and others who said that it is necessary that we not confine ourselves to only looking at income tax. We do not wish to raise taxes for the hell of it but so that we can look towards having a sustainable economy and public service in respect of which there is certainty in terms of funding into the future. We must never again think we can pin everything on the type of transitional taxation we had during the so-called boom.

I recall sitting beside a politician on a radio programme prior to the last general election. She was a supporter of the then Government and is not now a Member of the Houses. I recall her seeking to sustain the argument over many minutes on that radio programme that it was possible to reduce taxes and improve public services. I do not understand how it would have been possible then or since to do this.

The extent to which any of us was party to such an illusion was a mistake but the principal responsibility must lie with the Government regarding these matters. Opposition politicians can from time to time be criticised for calling for this and that. It is sometimes legitimate to engage in such criticism but it is greatly dwarfed by the legitimate criticism that one can level at a government that has failed to carry out the policies it ought to have implemented.

The document, regrettably and sadly, is a bill and it is not particularly detailed. It has detailed aspects and although it purports to contain a growth strategy and a jobs strategy, it does not. There is nothing new in the narrative on these areas. There is a great deal of generalised, aspirational material, with which it would be impossible to disagree, but there is little relating to a jobs strategy. The IMF is constantly being invoked but its officials are in the House and, in an interim report published earlier this week, they rightly identified the urgent necessity for a growth strategy and to put in place serious measures to get people back to work. That is what we need.

Can we trust the government anymore?

From today’s Order of Business…

I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that criticism of what the Government has done in the past is an entirely separate matter from what we have to deal with now. The two are intimately bound up for two reasons. First, the Minister for Finance and others on the Government side have spent a number of weeks trying to persuade us that the budgetary crisis and the banking crisis are entirely separate. This effort has been made repeatedly in this debate in the past two to three weeks. We have been asked to stop talking about the banks and just talk about the budget when we know that the banking crisis and the central policy failures in regard to banking, and at the top of which failures I would put the blanket guarantee given more than two years ago, are inextricably and intimately bound up with where we are at the moment in regard to the crisis the country is in. We cannot see our way to analysing and debating this issue in any kind of credible way without having regard to these central policy failures, the legacy of which we are facing day in, day out.

The second reason we cannot separate the two things is the issue of trust. Can we trust the Government? We can disagree with those in government and that is fine. We all know that we disagree with them but can we trust them or believe what they say? The problem is that trust and legitimacy immediately flow out of any government, leaving aside whether one agrees or disagrees with those in government, if one cannot believe what that government says. One cannot possibly have any trust in that government. The people cannot have trust in a government, some of whose members at the weekend described as fiction that there were ongoing discussions on bailouts or related matters.

Another Minister, Deputy Dempsey, who was standing beside the Minister in question shook his head and indicated he did not know anything. Either the Ministers knew what the position was and misrepresented it or they did not know what it was, in which case what are they doing in the Government? What is going on in the Government in relation to policy?

My brothers who live in the United States are as well informed about what appears to be taking place as are the people here who are being informed by the Government. This morning’s interview by the Minister for Finance hit rock bottom in that respect. There is no frankness or honesty, without which one cannot have trust and-or legitimacy.

Future of Seanad Éireann on the line

Last night, a motion was put down on Seanad Reform by the Independent Senators.  You can view the motion here.  Following the debate, the motion was put to a vote where the government was defeated 28-27. Below, you’ll find my speech from the night.

There is an element of this debate that is profoundly depressing because it is shot through with a terrible feeling of déjà vu. This is at least the third time in my short time in this Chamber when I have stood up to make pretty much the same contribution I am about to make. That is not acceptable, and it is not acceptable that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, would finish his speech to the House in January 2010 with the following conclusion:

We seem to be some way off cross-party consensus on reform of the Seanad and I will be reporting this conclusion to the Government. I intend to submit a report for discussion with my colleagues in government shortly. We will have regard to the views expressed by all parties and the commitments given in the programme for Government. We will then consider the next steps to be taken in the process. While consensus remains elusive, I have previously informed the House that the absence of consensus cannot be allowed to lead to paralysis. It is my ambition that the Government will press ahead with reforms from which successive Governments have shied away.

He is correct about successive Governments having shied away. I will take that criticism in so far as it involves parties on this side of the House. However, that is now almost one year ago. The Minister had said the same thing in the House some months earlier and the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, said the same thing again today. Senator Fitzgerald was right to ask whether this proposal has been brought to Government.

We cannot fly everything on the electoral commission. Either the Government has serious proposals to bring forward or it does not. Perhaps it should just say it does not see Seanad reform as being a priority at this time. That is what I gathered from listening to the Minister of State and, although it is not what she in fact said, it was what any reasonable person would have concluded. She tipped us off when she asked what we were doing about it. I wonder what the Leader , Senator Cassidy thinks about the very thinly veiled criticism of some of the procedures and practices in the House. For example, the Minister of State was unhappy today that we had two debates about the Seanad and wanted to know what reforms we were bringing forward ourselves. In so far as it goes, that is not an unreasonable point for her to make but it does not constitute a response to this debate.

I and others have raised this issue repeatedly. On the Order of Business last week, I asked the Leader to name one reform, however minimal, he had brought forward in the lifetime of this Seanad. Out of respect, I tried to maintain my practice of not interrupting when he replies to the House and although sometimes I fail, on that occasion I did not. He announced in his reply that he had brought about a change, namely, a practice had been introduced whereby Ministers who made statements in the House would take questions. That is not a reform that has been introduced since 2007 because it has been in Standing Orders for many years. Therefore, the sum total of the reform that has been introduced since we all were elected to the House in 2007 is exactly zero.

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.