Crunch Time for Politics

Let me start by saying that I’ve written this as a member of the Green Party who objected to the NAMA legislation. At the recent Green Party conference, I was one of a few speakers to offer contributions on both the NAMA legislation and the revised programme for government.

I wish to outline to your readers my personal views on both these important issues so that you may understand that not all within the Green Party accept that the Programme For Government (PFG) or the NAMA legislation represent the best outcome for the taxpayer in these difficult times.

First, let me begin with why the convention was called. The Green Party constitution allows for a special convention when at least five electoral groups submit a request to the National Executive Committee (NEC) on this occasion,  to decide the position of the party to the proposed NAMA legislation.

Media commentators and opposition political parties have made negative comments about the relative small number of Green Party members deciding government policy. I would be of the opinion that it highly desirable in a democracy that members of political parties can call a special convention to review how a political party is performing in government (or opposition), allowing members an open and frank opportunity to express their views and concerns regarding the performance of their elected politicians.

The weakness lies in the fact that no other political party allows for such openness and access to ministers and politicians and for this reason I would praise the Green Party for its willingness to engage with its members especially in such tumultuous times.

I took the convention very seriously, devoting many hours prior to the convention in attempting to understand the significance of the NAMA proposal and alternatives, while seeking council from professionals in the financial sector, businesses and members of the public on whether it was indeed in the best interest of our nation for this legislation to be introduced in its current format. I was not alone in this endeavor as many Green Party members did likewise.

As a political party, it has devoted more time than any other party and perhaps than all other parties combined, to debating the NAMA legislation. The Green Party have facilitated three party seminars and a party convention devoted entirely to NAMA. Many hundreds of members from across Ireland have attended these events at their own time and personal cost. It has been debated at branch meetings, at local and national level. Therefore it would seem that NAMA has been debated more within the  Green Party membership than any other party in the state. So I would say to detractors that while we may be a minority party, its members clearly take their responsibilities very seriously.

Notwithstanding the above I was disappointed with the Convention for many reasons. The convention was called primarily to debate the NAMA legislation and unfortunately the PFG re-negotiations overshadowed the occasion dealing a serious blow on the day to any attempt to properly debate the NAMA legislation.

I have presented my views on this to the Green Party and they are available for anyone to read openly on my blog website: www.westcorkgreens.blogspot.com

In summary, I stated that I found the manner in which the convention was organised to be worthy of political manipulation.

Despite the clear unease within the Green Party to supporting the NAMA legislation, there was no possibility that the motion to reject NAMA could be won given the procedures and events of the day.

I spoke against the NAMA legislation. I also clearly outlined why I believed the PFG was too aspirational whilst neither being radical enough nor clearly providing transparency on how or when it was going to delivery on many of the 200 items presented in the document. I voted reluctantly for the PFG and only as I noted on the day because I believe that the Green Party ministers are seriously attempting to change how our institutions govern this state from the houses of the Oireachtas to local Government. I voted for the PFG because I believe the Green Party can still make a difference in politics. You can only do this in Government.

In the debate on NAMA, I outlined why I could not morally or ethically accept the legislation in its current format. I stated that the safeguards for the taxpayer were not concrete enough and that if NAMA was the only possibility for safeguarding the taxpayer that it had to be changed.  I debated that neither Anglo Irish nor N.I.B. could be regarded as of systemic importance to the Irish state and that both institutions should be liquidated when the current bank guarantee ceases. I suggested that the bank guarantee should be extended when the current guarantee expires to all other banks so that we may attempt to save what we can and use public monies elsewhere where they are urgently needed. A considerable number of likeminded people voted the same as myself, against the NAMA legislation despite the Party’s insistence that it would result in dissolving the Government.

It is not to late for further significant changes to be made to the NAMA legislation. Let us hope that the multifaceted group of experts, people including teachers, farmers, solicitors, social workers, fish exporters, insurance brokers, economists, plant hire businessmen, auctioneers, accountants, publicans, general practitioners, funeral directors and those of no other occupation or professional skill, that make up the elected deputies and Dåil Eireann have the ability to attempt the salvation of our financial system. For many NAMA represents the level of control that the financial sector have not only over our economy but also our political system. Its not unrealistic to suggest that NAMA represents crunch time for politics in Ireland.

Declan Waugh

NAMA Designations of Failure and Incompetence

I attended some of the Green Party seminars on NAMA where many concerns and suggestions were raised by members but how many of these concerns have been implemented in the current NAMA legislation?

Where there is a clear view within the party that the amendments do not go far enough, it is not good enough in my opinion to vote through the NAMA Bill without clearly explaining to members why:

a)     their principle objections or recommendation cannot be facilitated

b)    why alternatives will not work

c)     why the proposed bill is the best we can deliver

This did not happen at the Green Party Convention last week. No written information or evidence was presented by the party to outline the Government of Green party elected delegates views.

I do not agree with the opinion that by voting against the Bill at the Green Party convention it would bring down the Government. The Bill could have been delayed to facilitate changes to the legislation, a revised Bill could have been voted on as with the Lisbon Treaty with guarantees written into the legislation to support current market realities and the views not just of the Green Party members but also some of the observations of the main opposition parties and many independent economists.

Clearly FF would not have presented the Bill for voting this week where they knew it was going to fail. In reality the Bill (as with the Lisbon Treaty) has to get as much as possible all party agreement to get the public to buy into what is in effect the most significant legislation to be brought before the houses of the Oireachtas in decades. After all it is the public the taxpayer who will be paying for this as they do the salaries of all Oireachtas members.

The outcome of the Green Party meeting in Athlone earlier this summer is os some significance in this debate, it is a fact that only 13 per cent of the attendance at a Green Party conference expressed support for the legislation in its current form, the Nama Bill in its current format came in fourth out of six options placed before Green Party members in Athlone. So what is new in the legislation to reflect this?

The majority of members opinion was that NAMA should pay only the current market rate for loans transferred to the banks yet this has not happened.

The general consensus by all commentators is that NAMA should only apply to credit institutions of systemic importance to the economy. This is my own belief and interestingly one should note the intended purpose of the NAMA legislation itself as stated in Section 2. Part (iv) is “to facilitate restructuring of credit institutions of systemic importance to the economy”

Section 55 part (1) outlines how the Minister will select which financial institutions should be covered by the NAMA legislation. It states that the Minster can designate a credit institution where  the Minister is satisfied “the credit institution is systemically important to the financial system in the State”

Neither the green parliamentary party nor the Minister for Finance nor the Government have explained to anyone why Anglo Irish Bank and NIB are systemically important to the financial system in the State.

I do not believe they are and I am not alone in this view.

Further the NAMA business plan presented today raising serious concerns regarding the risks associated with this legislation.

The NAMA business plan estimates an approximate 47% average decline on an aggregate portfolio basis including the impact of declines in overseas markets.

In order to estimate the aggregate current market value of assets to be acquired, it is necessary to estimate the decline in value of the underlying property collateral since the loans

Where this is examined in regard to many large developer loans it is clear that this figure is absolute nonsense.  The 85% crash in asset value of the former glass bottle site in Dublin should indicate the real world depreciation that is now evident in the market place.

The courts yesterday reported how EBS are suing three well known businessmen for not paying the interest or loan repayments on a site they purchased in Cork in 2007. This debt will be included in the NAMA loan books. I know this site very well and would be of the opinion that it wold now be valued at approximately €5 million which would support the 85% devaluation in property that occurred with the glass bottle site in Dublin.

We have current hard evidence to show that NAMA valuation is clearly nonsense and furthermore where this is evident the projection in the NAMA business plan of a 15% uplift on the current market value of the collateral of loans identified for transfer is absurd and balderdash.

To add insult to injury the NAMA business plan projections assume that, of the €77 billion nominal value of loans acquired, €62 billion will be repaid by borrowers. This will never happen. Its time for a urgent injection of realism within the political establishment.

My suggestion to the Green Parliamentary party is that they demand that the Minister for Finance must outline why Anglo Irish Bank and NIB are systemically important to the financial system in the State, this is what needs to be done and undertaken urgently in a transparent and proper fashion. 

Explain to the members of the Oireachtas and the public why both these institutions cannot fail? 

They already have so why put public money which a) we don't have and b) is badly needed elsewhere, into two institutions that are corrupt  and will never give a return on the investment. 

Such an act could damage the State and our economy irreparably.

Where these institutions are not seen to be of systematic importance, as I believe is the case, they should not be designated as institutions that will benefit from the NAMA legislation.

The Art of Political Manipulation

I came to the Green Party convention on the 10th October 2009 with an open mind, not being a member of either of the five Green Party constituency groups that called for the convention to debate and vote on the National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009.

I took the responsibility very seriously, devoting many hours prior to the convention to attempting to understand the significance of the NAMA proposal and seeking council from businesses and members of the public on whether it was indeed in the best interest of our Nation for this legislation to be introduced in its current format. I believed that my democratic vote could make a difference and was honoured to be given an opportunity to vote on this matter of national importance.

However, as someone who has observed politics for many years, I found the manner in which the convention was organised to be worthy of Machiavelli, the master of political manipulation.

Firstly, the members were presented with a debate on the Programme for Government (PFG) rather than the NAMA legislation.

Secondly, insufficient time was given for members to review the PFG document prior to debate. Procedures for the day stated that it was to be circulated to members at 10am rather than after noon, which was the case.  The logisitical difficulties here are understandable in the circumstances, however, these could have been overcome by holding the debate on NAMA first.

Thirdly, the NAMA proposal was not allowed to be debated as part of the Programme for Government.

Fourthly, the debate on the NAMA proposal commenced after voting had ceased on the PFG. Yet, the opening argument by the party was that by not supporting this legislation the government would fall; making a mockery of the first vote to support the Programme for Government.

Fifthly, voting on the Programme for Government closed before the debate was finished while allowing members to vote on the NAMA motion before the debate had even commenced was reprehensible.

Sixthly, the procedures allowed for up to 30 speakers to debate the Programme for Government, while less than 10 speakers had the opportunity to debate the NAMA proposal, which let us not forget was the very reason for the convention in the first place.

Seventhly, the National Executive Committee (NEC) did not allow the original or any alternative motion that would have allowed the party to reject or seek changes to the NAMA proposal while remaining in Government.

Despite the clear unease within the Green Party to supporting this legislation by following such procedures, the NEC and Party headquarters ensured that there was no possibility that the motion to reject NAMA could be won.

For the convention to be transparent, clearly the order of the day’s business should have been to discuss the most significant motion first, that being the NAMA proposal, especially given that the convention was called for to debate and vote on the proposed NAMA legislation by Green Party constituency groups. Notwithstanding this, one could argue that implementing the NAMA legislation is the most significant political decision in the Programme for Government and perhaps the most important Statute Bill ever written in the history of our nation.

While I accept the democratic will of the party members, I believe that the convention represented political manipulation of the highest order, was deeply flawed in its procedures and may as a consequence destroy the Green Party for decades to come.

As a result of the aforementioned, the Green Party now have the distinction over any other political party that it’s not just its parliamentarians that voted for NAMA but its ordinary members.

If the Government get it wrong, especially when they do not have the support of the people to make such an important decision, the Government and the Green Party in particular will forever be associated with NAMA; this may well prove to be the tipping point, not climate change, for green politics in Ireland this century.

The Test of Green Party Conviction October 10th 2009

This weekend the Green party hold what many in the party believe is the most important meeting in the party's history. While not diminishing the importance of the convention I believe that the decision to go into government with Fianna Fail two years ago will be seen as the most defining moment in Green Party history. At that meeting the party membership voted overwhelmingly to enter into a coalition government with FF. 

This decision was taken with a certain knowledge and awareness of the ethics, morality, integrity and often delinquent behaviour of FF parliamentarians.

It must be absolutely clear from the past thirty years that FF as an institution cannot change, it is an illusion to believe that FF is capable of evolving as a political party and it will continue its reckless addict like behaviour until ultimately they can no longer continue. 

The harsh reality is that the public are largely responsible for this monster that we have created. You voted for and elected them not the greens, you supported this party despite the obvious reckless disregard for the costs of their actions to others as well as to themselves. For the green party it was obvious, the public wanted FF and there was no other way that the greens as a political party could implement their policies unless they entered government with FF.

The last general election was a turning point for me personally, despite all the revelations and evidence of incompetence and corruption by some office holders; despite the certainty that the policies pursued would de-stabilise our economy, the public voted from them for a third term in office. I realised then that perhaps its not FF but the public that will not change and so I supported the greens going into government.

The public may not like what they have now created, but the Green Party are attempting to bring the highest ethics and morality to office holders in Dail Eireann. They are attempting to change the face of government, to offer responsible political leadership at a time of international turmoil.

FF as a coalition partner have repeatedly shown themselves to be a toxic party to the misfortune of smaller parties. The ultimate issue this weekend for the greens in not debating NAMA or the programme for government but rather are the green party members capable of staying the course and implementing real change. 

The real test this Sat is do they believe they can still make a difference.

Ethics in Public Office Act and behaviour of Mr. John O Donoghue, T.D

This letter was forwarded today to Minister John Gormley, leader of the Green Party and all the green party public representatives. It read as follows:

I am writing this as a member of the Green Party and former Green Party candidate in the local elections 2009. 

One of the reasons I accepted the honour to represent the party was my support for the moral and ethical position of the Green Party in demanding standards of integrity and conduct for political representatives for both the Houses of the Oireachtas and elected representatives of local Government.

As you know the media have reported for some weeks on the conduct and manner in which certain elected office holders carried out their duties both as Ministers in the previous Government but also as office holders in the current Government.

The nation stands dismayed, angry and disillusioned at the behaviour of office holders by members of the Oireachtas and the totally unacceptable use of public finances by certain public representatives in carrying out the functions of their office.

I refer in particular to Mr. John O Donoghue T.D. former Minister and current Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann.

Every day new evidence comes to light on the manner in which Mr. John O Donoghue T.D conducted his office and the privileges which he bestowed on  himself in undertaking his public duties both in the past and as the current Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann.

As coalition partners in the current government the Green Party have an obligation to ensure the highest level of ethical behavior of Cabinet members, members of Dail Eireann and in particular office holders such as the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann.

For this matter I wish to draw your attention to the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

Section 10 of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 provides for the introduction of Codes of Conduct which set out the standards of conduct and integrity expected to be observed by the persons to whom they relate in the performance of their official duties.

For your reference I include some of the principle points herein:

• In performing their official duties, Members must apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended

• “In accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Acts, office holders shall, in so far as it is relevant, have regard to and be guided by the Code in the performance of their functions and in relation to any other matters specified in the Code. This Code seeks to ensure that office holders must at all times observe, and be seen to observe, the highest standards of ethical behaviour in the carrying out of the functions of their office.

• Office holders should ensure that their use of officially provided facilities are designed to give the public value for money and to avoid any abuse of the privileges which, undoubtedly, are attached to office.

• Members must conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Code of Conduct and ensure that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the Dáil into serious disrepute.

• In performing their official duties, Members must apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended.

• Furthermore members of Dáil Éireann must recognise that it is in their individual and collective interest to foster and sustain public confidence and trust in their integrity as individuals and in Dáil Éireann as an institution.

The Principles of Ethical Conduct are defined within the Ethics Act and state

that :

• Holders of public office have a duty to keep faith with the public trust placed in them by the manner in which they carry out their official responsibilities.  This is a personal responsibility and requires them at all times to promote the common good, fairly and impartially, to conscientiously and prudently apply the resources of their office in furtherance of the public interest and to observe the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties.

In addition to complying with those formal requirements, office holders should at all times:

• observe the highest standards of behaviour and act in good faith with transparency, fairness and impartiality to promote the common good in the performance of their official functions.

In respect of use of public resources the Act specifies that:

• Office holders are provided with facilities at public expense in order that public business may be conducted effectively. The use of these facilities should be in accordance with this principle. Holders of public office enjoy an enhanced public profile and should be mindful of the need to avoid use of resources in a way that could reasonably be construed as an inappropriate.., and

• Office holders should ensure that their use of officially provided facilities are designed to give the public value for money and to avoid any abuse of the privileges which, undoubtedly, are attached to office.

 I believe that the Nation is united in the belief that Mr. John O Donoghue T.D. and Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann has shown through his actions that he has clearly breeched the standards of conduct and integrity as required by Oireachtas members in the Ethics in Public Office Act as outlined herein.

This is a moral and ethical issue of enormous significance for the Green Party; if as leader of the Green Party you do not act and insist on his resignation from office, I believe that the Government cannot survive and the relevance and integrity of the Green Party will be damaged irreparably.

Every day that you do not act you as leader of the Green Party, the party itself and Dáil Éireann as an institution continues to lose credibility.

To restore public confidence there is no option for the Green Party and Dáil Éireann but to demand the resignation of the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann.

 Declan Waugh

Building Gated Communities

I am writing in response to the article by Leo McMahon in the Southern Star last week regarding the proposal by Dr. Anthony Calnan to erect gates at either end of Ballymodan lane in Bandon to prevent anti-social behaviour at night.
 
For those that are not aware Ballymodan Lane is located less than 200metres from the main Garda station in Bandon, a station that is the regional headquarters of the Garda Síochána and one that is manned 24hrs a day. It is also a public access to the local shopping centre and is used regularly by walkers at night.
 
To suggest that permanent gates be erected at a location in the centre of the town on a public laneway to prevent anti social behaviour is certainly not an answer to the problem in my humble opinion. Might I suggest that Garda on the beat at night might be a more appropriate response to anti-social behaviour.
 
Blocking access to a public right of way removes rights to the public and if erected at this location why not at any other? I am aware of many locations in Bandon where youths gather at night, where noise nuisance is a problem and where the disposal of beer cans and rubbish is a common sight. There are many estates with pedestrian walkways where rubbish is dumped nightly there are many main towns in Ireland where at weekend drunken youths cause public nuisance, driving at speed through urban areas, causing noise nuisance and putting in danger pedestrians and other motorists on public roads.  Is the answer to build gated access to the towns thereby preventing automobiles entering the town at night?
 
The problems with public nuisance is however multi generational. As an example, dog owners are generally of an age much older than those that congregate in lanes consuming alcohol. However they do use public laneways and gardens to walk their dogs and cause a public nuisance by allowing them to defecate on public areas or private gardens without any thought for the property owners or public health as all faeces contain bacteria. Many dog owners deliberately bring their dogs to foul public areas, pavements, parks, playgrounds and even beaches resulting in a serious health risk to the public. Is the answer to ban dogs?
 
In the past twenty years there has been a major cultural and behavioural shift in the general publics attitude to nuisance. We have allowed public nuisance to develop to the state where people are now afraid to leave their homes at night. This is what is unacceptable. The answer is not to build gates and move the problem on elsewhere but to deal with the problem as with any disease. Diagnose the problem, treat the cause.
 
If Dr. Calnan’s recommendation of a gate to be erected at Ballymodan lane is seen as an acceptable solution to anti-social behaviour perhaps the same might apply to any such location in Bandon, Skibbereen or other towns in West Cork. If this is seen as an acceptable solution one might as well return to the days of walled towns and lock down the population after dark to prevent youths from congregating or causing a nuisance.
 
The solution to anti social behaviour is not removing the rights and privileges of every citizen to free movement rather to adequately police the area and use the mechanism of the law to prevent nuisance in the first place. One might consider that adequate policing would be the first means of addressing the problem, or education on the problems of alcohol consumption or restricting the sale of alcohol to youths might be more appropriate, why not earlier closing times for nightclubs or raising the minimum age for purchasing alcohol. While I sympathise with anyone who has to deal with nuisance (myself included) what is needed is some mechanism to promote behavioural change and educate those causing the problems on social responsibility.
 
Preventing access to public thoroughfares in not an answer. It is the equivalent of amputating an arm to cure a sore finger.

Declan Waugh

Money in Politics, how to influence Government Policy

There is a feeling within the wider community that our political system has lived the high life for too long. Yet one of the greatest dangers facing our political system is the passivity of our society in demanding transparent legislative and bureaucratic  systems to serve the best interest of our community. In our attempts to restore confidence in our political system, we must start by examining how society helped create the political and economic crisis we now find ourselves in.

As a society we must examine the recent past and ask ourselves what have been the major contributors to the recent failures of our political and economic system.

For me one of the main failures has been that we as a society tolerated and still do a political system that accepts financial donations from businesses and special interest groups. This was especially prevalent during the period 1992- 2007 resulting in a system of political courtship and influence supporting unsustainable development while benefiting the interests of a few creating the social, economic and political difficulties we now face as a generation.

How did this happen and why has our political system failed our community?

If you examine the facts as presented by the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) they may help in explaining where it all went wrong and what we must do to prevent it from happening again.

First let me explain that the SIPO are an independent body established to provide a supervisory role under the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act 1997.

The Standards in Public Office Commission recently published a list of political donations for the general election in 2007. It makes very interesting reading and is available for the public to view on their website. If you are interested in politics and who funds our public representatives I would recommend that you check out this website where details of donations received by every TD are outlined. For further information and much more view www.sipo.gov.ie

Examination of the figures show that in 2007 political candidates and our elected TD’s received over €705,000 in private donations from companies and individuals to support their election campaigns. Many Dáil deputies received the maximum allowable donation from special interest groups. A significant proportion of this came from cash donations from companies with interests in the property and the financial sector.

In the period 1997- 2007 according to figures published by SIPO over €2,225,000 was donated to political parties. This figure only includes disclosed donations by political representatives so one can only image that the true figure is substantially larger as many TD’s did in fact not disclose any political donations.

According to legislation the maximum value of donation(s) which a candidate at the Dáil general election may accept from the same person in the same calendar year is €2,539.48 yet politicians are only required to disclose donations with a value of more than €634.87.

In some cases individual TD’s received substantial election donations often exceeding the total expenditure spend in their election campaigns. Furthermore the  relevant the taxpayer reimbursed political candidates to the tune of €2,638,013 in 2007.

How does this work, well lets take one example; according to figures submitted by Christy O Sullivan TD and released by SIPO the Cork South West TD received at least €23,000 in political donations, including generous contributions from wealthy business interests, in the lead-up to last year’s general election. The former Cork County Councilor who was elected on his first attempt was one of the main beneficiaries of supporter donations in the country, according to figures  submitted by Deputy O Sullivan to the Standards in Public Office Commission. His largest contributions came from property developer Dave Dwyer, Baltimore with further large contributions from property developers, Barry Harte, Timoleague, Jim Canty, Rosscarbery, Micheal Keohane, Ballingurtee, Micheal Kirby, Clogagh, Bandon, Pat o Driscoll, Castlefreake and Cronin & Buckley Engineering, Ballincollig.

Niall and Patrica Whyte Downeen gave €2,500 as did Jim Kiely of Drimoleague and Martin O Connell, Bandon Rd, Jerry O Donovan, Dunmanway Rd contributed €2,000 while Enniskeane supermarket owner Derry O Connell donated 1000 along with Dan Twomey, Bandon who also gave €1,000.

Election expenses incurred by Christy O Sullivan again published by SIPO amounted to €17,578, as with other candidates State that means the taxpayer reimbursed him to the tune of €8,700. One must ask the question, is this a misuse of public money or should we change the system? In this example noted the candidate obtained far more in political donations from private donations to fund his campaign that what he spend on his election campaign yet he subsequently also received a large reimbursement from the state leaving him with a sum of €14,022 for his own personal use in addition to his generous salary and expense allowance as an elected Dail deputy.

Information published by SIPO also informs us that Minister Willie O Dea declared €2,500 in donations while Deputy Tom Kitt received €17,750, Deputy Sean Haughey received €3,450, Deputy Martin Cullen €18,585 and Deputy Beverly Cooper Flynn received €12,000. Minister’s Noel Dempsey received €19,763, Micheal Martin €22,135, Conor Lelihan received €6,650, Batt O Keefe received €11,000, Former Taoiseagh Bertie Ahern received €19,000, Taoiseach Brain Cohen received €2,458 and Minister Mary Coughlan received €1,000.

It was Deputy O Sullivan however within Fianna Fáil, that gained most from political donations in County Cork last year with his election fund swelled by a minimum of €22,900 courtesy of generous supporters.

Fine Gael also benefited by receiving donations from special interest groups with deputy Jim O Keefe received €2,500 from Havenview Investments, €2,500 from Spencer Dock Development and €2,500 from Treasury Holdings. Party colleague Deputy Simon Coveney received twelve donations totalling to €23,200, while the labour party Ruari Quinn received €13,640, Pat Rabbit €4,500 and Eamon Gilmore €3,500. Green Party leader and Minister John Gormley received €4,500, Minister Eamon Ryan received €4,000 and Trevor Sargent received €1,200 donations principle received from green party members.

Sinn Fein Deputy Martin Ferris declared €8,650 in political donations while his two party colleague Caoimhghin O Caolain and Aengus O Snodaigh did not declare any donations along with independent TD Michael Lowry, Minister for Health and former Progressive Democrat Mary Harney and Deputy Liz MacManus of Labour.

Meanwhile Independent Kerry TD. Jackie Healy-Rae received €24,900 in donations.

Twenty five Fianna Fáil deputies did not declare any political donations to the Standards in Public Office Commission including Deputies Mary O Rourke, Dick Roche, Dermot Ahern, Frank Fahy and John O’Donoghue. Meanwhile twenty three FG deputies did not declare any political donations including Party Leader Enda Kenny, Deputies Phil Hogan, Brian Hayes and P.J Sheehan.

An examination of the disclosed donations to political candidates and parties clearly shows us that special interest groups have befriended politicians handing over millions of euros in cash to the main political parties. So why is this relevant to us? if a business makes a large financial donation to a politician, does this represent a conflict of interest can it influence the ability of that individual or party to make decisions?

So when we reflect on our political system, what legislation it enacts, who it benefits, who is appointed to bodies by political parties and ultimately how we have got to where we are now, it must be obvious that we the public must demand legislation to prevent political influence from special business interest groups. This must start with stricter regulations on lobbying and political donations something that Green Party leader and Environment Minister John Gormley has pledged to do. 

Declan Waugh

€500million investment package in the Irish electricity sector – EIB

The European Investment Bank is to lend up to EUR 500m to help Ireland secure and green its electricity supplies and support Europe’s economic recovery. Two loan contracts to that effect were signed today in Dublin by EIB Vice President Plutarchos Sakellaris and the chief executives of EirGrid Plc and Electricity Supply Board (ESB) in the presence of Irish Energy Minister Eamon Ryan. 

• EUR 300 million for the Ireland Wales electricity Interconnector; first EIB loan for EU recovery plan energy project 
• EUR 200 million for wind farms; first EIB loan for renewable energy in Ireland 

EIB will lend EirGrid up to EUR 300m towards construction of a 256 km cable between Ireland and Wales. The East-West Interconnector (EWIC) will underpin the development of renewable energy by enabling the import and export of excess wind power, It will improve security of supply and facilitate competition through connecting the Irish electricity market with the rest of Europe.

ESB will receive up to EUR 200m in loans to develop its renewable energy business by installing 248MW of wind power capacity by 2012 in various locations. The total cost of the investment programme is estimated at EUR 475m.

The loans bring total EIB support for Ireland in 2009 to EUR 850m, almost double 2008’s total of EUR 450m.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources Eamon Ryan said: “I warmly welcome this investment by the EIB in Ireland’s energy future. We are transforming energy policy in Ireland and today’s investment will propel this transformation. I congratulate both EirGrid and ESB and know they are ambitious semi-state companies who deliver on their commitments. I look forward to the completion of these projects. We are well on the road to Ireland becoming world leader in green energy and the fight against climate change.”

“Ireland is very dependent on imported fossil fuels but has huge potential for wind power. Both these projects help Ireland in its ambition to go green and secure future energy supplies, helping Europe as a whole meet its climate change goals,” said EIB Vice President Plutarchos Sakellaris.

“The EIB is particularly happy to be able to support EirGrid and the interconnector, which was identified as key project in the European Economic Recovery Plan endorsed by EU leaders last year. The ESB loan is also our first to the renewables sector in Ireland, where we hope there will be many more opportunities for cooperation in the future,” he said.

ESB Chief Executive Officer Padraig McManus said: “ESB is engaged in major investment in renewable energy to realise its ambition of becoming carbon-neutral by 2035. We are expanding our wind portfolio to 600 MW by 2012. By 2020, one-third of ESB’s generation will be wind-based. Today’s announcement is part of that strategy.”

EirGrid Chief Executive Dermot Byrne said: “Today is a major milestone for Ireland’s electricity infrastructure and for our power market, with the signing of this very important tranche of funding for the East West Interconnector project. When completed, the interconnector will help ensure secure electricity supplies for consumers, it will promote competition and will enable power to be efficiently transferred between Ireland and Britain, providing Irish wind producers with access to export markets.”

The European Economic Recovery Plan, approved by the European Parliament and EU ministers in July, proposes spending EUR 4 bn in 2009 and 2010 on key energy projects to help counter the effects of the financial crisis on the real economy. It allocates EUR 110 m for the Ireland-UK interconnector.

The total cost of EirGrid’s project is estimated at EUR 601 mn. Engineering group ABB has been awarded the contract to design, manufacture and install the interconnector. EirGrid expects the project will result in approximately 100 jobs in Ireland and 100 jobs in Wales during the construction phase. The project is due for completion in 2012.

Ireland currently meets 95 percent of its energy needs through imported fossil fuels. The Government has an ambitious strategy to meet 40 percent of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. EIB staff will attend the Irish Wind Energy Association’s autumn conference on Thursday to learn more about future wind power projects in the country.

Background information:
The European Investment Bank is the bank of the European Union. It was set up under the 1957 Treaty of Rome with a mandate to support EU policies. It has six priority areas for its lending: poorer regions, the environment, transport and energy networks, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), innovation and research, and secure and sustainable energy supplies. In 2008 it signed loans for EUR 57.6 bn, of which EUR 51.5 bn was for projects within the EU’s 27 member states. To help cushion the impact of the economic and financial crisis the Bank has raised its EU lending target for 2009 to EUR 70 bn. For more information see: www.eib.org.

EirGrid plc is a leading Irish energy business, dedicated to the provision of transmission and market services for the benefit of electricity consumers. It is a state-owned commercial company. EirGrid holds licences as independent electricity Transmission System Operator (TSO) and Market Operator (MO) in the wholesale trading system in Ireland, and is the owner of the System Operator Northern Ireland (SONI Ltd), the licenced TSO and market operator in Northern Ireland. The Single Electricity Market Operator (SEMO) is part of the EirGrid Group. For more information see www.eirgrid.com.

ESB is the state owned electricity company of Ireland. It is a vertically integrated utility, providing electricity generation, distribution and electricity supply with an annual turnover of EUR 3.5 bn and activities in 100 countries. ESB is currently implementing a multi-billion euro capital investment programme to make the company carbon-neutral by 2035. Half this investment is directed at promoting renewable energy generation. The plan also involves major investment in its electricity networks infrastructure to facilitate greater renewable energy on the system, the development of a recharging network for electric vehicles and the implementation of a smart metering project. For more information see: www.esb.ie

How The Lisbon Treaty Might Help Save The World

Since I graduated from college almost twenty years ago I have believed that the European Union offered the only realistic political choice for attempting to address issues of sustainability, for ensuring humanitarian and social justice and, in more recent years, for dealing with what is the greatest challenge facing humanity tacking: climate change.

As an environmental scientist I largely owe my career to the EU for its role in forcing Ireland as a member state to introduce environmental legislation. Without the EU bringing into force various directives on environment, employment, waste management, water resources, soil protection, air quality, renewable energy, biodiversity protection etc.; it can be generally assumed that Ireland would never have bothered and the country would truly be a third world country.

Do you really think, given the qualifications of most elected Dail representatives, that they would be capable of governing this state without guidance from the EU? Given the performance over the past twenty years, I think not. If it were not for the EU mandate of protecting citizens rights and continuously introducing new legal directives that require implementation by member states, Ireland would not now have such regulations that protect its citizens.

Nevertheless, we are now in the 21^st century and entering a new kind of era that no other generation has faced before. Over the summer I read the excellent book D-Day by military historian, Anthony Beevor. For our generation, it is almost impossible to understand how in the course of some three months in Normandy alone some 400,000 soldiers were killed or seriously wounded fighting for peace in this part of Europe while some 35,000 innocent French civilians were killed in the battle. Over the last century the challenge facing people was Fascism or Stalinism, today the challenge is climate change and sustainable development. While World War II may have claimed the lives of some 70 million people, this figure pales into insignificance when we consider the implications of climate change worldwide.

Wars have always been about resources but this century we have a resource problem of gigantic proportions. With some 7 billion people now living on this planet, how is humanity going to deal with dwindling resources for an ever-increasing world population. In the 21^st century, how are we going to try and manage our resources and address the critical issues of sustainability? How will we deal with energy, food security, the threat of war, terrorism and the humanitarian and climate change crises? I believe that only through the EU can we hope to address these enormous challenges and the first step is to empower the European commission with new legal powers and responsibilities. If we do not, the system will fail; a system that has brought peace and prosperity to Europe for over half a century.

So how will the treaty of Lisbon protect us?  I will give you some examples quoting text from the treaty.

On sustainable development, protection of human rights and cultural heritage, Article 2 of the Treaty states: “the European Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance. It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

On supporting developing countries, Article 10a states the European union shall “foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty; assist populations, countries and regions confronting natural or man-made disasters”

On aspects of common security and defence policy Article 17 states: “The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

In developing competences within member states, something that again appears critical to the administration of Ireland’s public sector, Article 2a states: the Union shall “share competence with the Member states in Environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, area of freedom, security and justice”

On protection of human health Article 2 E states:“the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be: protection and improvement of human health, industry, culture, tourism, education, vocational training, youth and sport, civil protection and administrative cooperation.’

 On discrimination Article 5b states: “In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.”

On immigration Article 63a states: “The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings; in particular women and children”.

On economic and monetary policy, something that is critical to Ireland in its current financial crisis, Article 104 states:  ‘Where the Council decides that an excessive deficit exists, it shall adopt, without undue delay, on a recommendation from the Commission, recommendations addressed to the Member State concerned with a view to bringing that situation to an end within a given period.’

On public health, Article 152 states: “It shall in particular encourage cooperation between the Member States to improve the complementarity of their health services in cross-border areas”

 On the environment and climate change Article 174 states: “ it shall promote measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.”

On energy Article 176 A states: “In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to: ensure the functioning of the energy market; ensure security of energy supply in the Union; and promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and promote the interconnection of energy networks”.

On administrative cooperation within the European Union Article 176 D states: “the effective implementation of Union law by the Member States, which is essential for the proper functioning of the Union, shall be regarded as a matter of common interest and the Union may support the efforts of Member States to improve their administrative capacity to implement Union law. Such action may include facilitating the exchange of information and of civil servants as well as supporting training schemes.”

On development cooperation Article 188 D states: “Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty”

The treaty also addresses  economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries. Article 188 I states: “When the situation in a third country requires urgent financial assistance from the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions on a proposal from the Commission.”

The treaty has a solidarity clause in Article 188 R stating that: “The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilize all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to: prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States; protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack; assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack; assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

And finally if we don’t like it or wish to withdraw from the European Union Article 49a of the Treaty states that: “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

As with any complicated legal document there may be issues that some people may not agree with but for me this Treaty provides a glimmer of hope for the future; it shows us that the European Union is making decisions not based on the next general election but for the welfare and protection of the next generation of citizens. 

Restoring confidence in our political, financial and legal sector.

Every commentator appears to agree that until the banks and the financial systems are cleaned up our economy will not recover. As taxpayers and citizens of this country we have to ask, how did we get here? Who was responsible for regulation of the banking sector in Ireland? Who were the banking executives that so mismanaged our economy? Who are the principle debtors to the banks? What are their assets? Will anyone be convicted for economic and financial crimes in this country?  Finally, how effective are the measures being taken by our Government to protect the welfare of its citizens in dealing with this crisis?

Last week I read with grudging admiration in the Wall Street Journal of how one country, ranked 44th in the world according to GDP (compared to Ireland’s position at 34th), is responding to their own banking crisis; it made fascinating reading. While the similarities with Ireland were noticable; a small powerful business elite accustomed to a lifestyle of excess and businesses fuelled by unchecked credit lines etc., their response to the crisis was remarkable.

As with Ireland their credit ran out, the financial markets were no longer sustainable. The country in question had to inject $2.6 billion (€1.8 billion) to bailout the countries top five bank’s, which had accumulated $7.6 billion in bad debts threatening the survival of this continent’s second biggest economy.

Earlier in March this year, the Economist noted of this same country that the banks were at risk because they were dangerously exposed to the stockmarket slump after rashly securing a large portion of their loans with now almost worthless equities. Does this sounds familiar?

So how is this country attempting to restore confidence in its financial sector you may ask? Their central bank last week made the unprecedented move of publishing a list of the top debtors to the banks, among them some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in that country.

Last Wednesday, their Government’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) said that the debtors had one week to repay their loans or risk arrest and seizure of their assets.

The list included the countries only two billionaires, two previous heads of the country’s stock exchange, several companies, two state governments, the former governor of the richest state and the ministry of finance.

After injecting $2.6 billion into the country’s top five banks, the central bank fired the top executives of these banks, executives from four of the five banks have been questioned by the economic and financial crimes commission and the country’s top anti-corruption unit and bank managers at five banks have been put on a watch list to prevent them from leaving the country.

Not only that but the head of the EFCC stated “that debtors have one week to bring in their checks or drafts to us or we begin their arrest and prosecution as well as confiscation of their assets because they are people of enormous means”.

Now that’s taking action!  So where is this country.  It’s Nigeria.

Here in Ireland the Government have injected over €10 billion to bailout the banks that we are now told have accumulated €90 billion in bad debts. That’s more than ten times the level of bad debt compared to Nigeria, a country with a population of approximately 160 million people.

The people who got us into this position have committed an economic crime of unprecedented scale against the citizens of this nation robbing us of future economic stability while ensuring that our taxes, which should be being used for essential services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure and building a sustainable economy; are used to bail out a corrupt and irresponsible banking sector.  In my view, we can learn a lot in this instance from Nigeria. 

If our political establishment abdicate on not bringing those responsible to justice and if those individuals and institutions whose actions have been shown to be criminally negligent remain unpunished, one cannot have any faith in our political, financial or legal sector.  The stark reality is that this culpability starts with our former Minister for Finance, now our Taoiseach.

As for NAMA, it poses a big dilemma; the start reality is if the Green Party support the legislation in its current format without protecting the rights and interests of the public, if no one is held accountable, if those who were responsible for this crisis are rewarded or compensated for their actions; the Green Party will have lost all moral authority. In the interim the party may remain in power but it will lose its grassroots support and signal the end of the Green Party. Never before has such a small political party had such responsibility.  For how long can the Green Party support the weight of mistakes by past Governments, mistakes that over the past twenty years the electorate in many respects demanded by voting for them. 

In the end it would be a greater travesty if the one political party that opposed the politics of bribery, corruption and cronyism are the sacrificial lamb that bleeds to death to save our political establishment.

Suggestions for Review of programme for Government

1. Changes to Planning legislation
To support the development of a lower carbon economy in addition to a Climate Change Bill being passed by Government changes in the  Planning and Development Regulations, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, the EPA Act, Waste management Act and Licensing Regulations must be sought to include the following:

When considering the environmental implications of a proposed development a carbon impact assessment must be examined in the context of the overall environmental impact assessment.

Current regulations require developers to examine in addition to the current regulations i.e. the ecological, landscape, archaeological, human environment, noise, amenity, traffic emissions etc associated with a proposed development during construction and post construction.  Regulations must be revised to include a specific criteria for carbon management and emissions. Without such changes to regulations that will allow for calculating the future pollution emissions for development one cannot clearly demonstrate how as a nation we are managing our carbon emissions.

2. Establish a statutory carbon task force, that will manage administer and support the major transition that is required to evolve Ireland into a low carbon economy.

3. To support Government policy both the Renewable Energy Action Group and the proposed Carbon Management Action Group must become stationary consul tees on major planning and development projects.

4. Revise travel allowance arrange for public sector. Remove incentives for use of private transportation. Provide public sector employees with public sector travel passes. We must encourage behavioural change on a massive scale similar to the smoking legislation and plastic bag levy. All public sector employees given subsidised photo ID travel passes for rail and bus available Monday to Friday.

All Irish rail and bus eirann staff have this arrangement presently.

Arrange for family members of rail, bus Eireann and Aer Lingus to avail of free transport to cease.

5. To support Government policy on sustainable use of energy and resources leasing of temporary long term accommodation of prefabs for Department of Education must cease. Long term leasing of energy inefficient and poorly constructed buildings must cease. Moneys spend on leasing could cover costs of repayments for construction of buildings over time. This would also support local jobs and construction industry across country. I.e Gael Schoil Clonakilty department of Education have paid approx 300,000mper annum for the past ten years for leasing of prefabs. The school has almost 300 pupils and is entirely made up of prefabricated buildings. Environment is totally unacceptable for education of children and would not be acceptable for other public sector employees or private sector.

6. A minimum transaction fee for pensioners availing of rail transport should be introduced. The current policy of free transportation must reflect the current financial circumstances in which we now find ourselves. Customers availing of free rail transport should be required to pay a minimum transaction fee for ticket. I would recommend a fee of €5 euro.

7. A minimum transaction fee should apply to medical card holders for availing of prescriptions form GP. This would encourage a more sustainable use of prescribed medication.

8. Music copyright licences such as IMRO should be calculated based on floor area of business or turnover. Small and medium business should not be paying the same rate as large multinationals or supermarkets. To my understanding the fee is standard for businesses based on number of premises therefore small commercial premises pay the same fee per premises as large commercial operators. For small business struggling to survive this fee should be waved as public broadcaster already pays the licensing fee to play the music.

9. Revise Plastic bag levy payment procedures. Small businesses are now being charged a flat fee per annum for having stock of plastic bags for customers. The fee is now not based on amount of bags sold to customers. I am aware of one small business that were invoiced in excess of €3000 per annum for plastic bags. This would equate to 20,000 bags at 0.15cent per bag. The business has records to show that they do not use this volume of bags but it appears that a flat fee is charged to reduce administration costs by exchequer. For small businesses such a upfront fee is excessive. Improve the system to assist small businesses.

10. Social welfare payments should include a provision for active community service. Where recipients are available for work they should be required to undertake a minimum 2 day programme of community service linked to their experience abilities and interests, they could be utilised as tourism stewards, work on environmental clean up programmes, undertake community work such as tidy towns, work with health services, in education or sports. As a society we must develop a greater sense of citizen responsibility and participation in our community. The current social welfare model does not and will not meet the demands of the 21st century. The citizens current behavioural sense of entitlement to services without participation in community must change or our society will collapse under the financial strain.

11. Revise current expenses and allowances for all Oireachtas members. Removal all travel allowance for use of private car and travel expenses to houses of oireachtas. All representatives should be given travel permits to avail of rail and bus services. I know of members that travel by rail to Dublin and claim road mileage allowances. In the private sector this would be deemed a serious breach of conduct and would result in an employee being sanctioned or disciplined. This proposal would be very supported by the public and would show that public representatives are supporting government policy of supporting public transport, supporting sustainable travel and reducing individual carbon emissions.

12. Remove supplementary allowances for Oireachtas members sitting on committees. No additional payments should be given for undertaking this work, this is what they are elected for.

13. Increase tax on alcohol purchased in off licenses. Reduce tax on alcohol purchased in Public houses. The public house  plays an enormous part in the heritage and active community in Ireland supporting tourism, recreation and community enterprise. The public house is an national institution without which tourism and local communities cannot thrive. Financial support should be given to public houses that include a programme of music throughout the year. This could be used to assist the development of singing clubs and traditional music. We must change the recent behavioural  attitude to increased consumption of alcohol in the home and support owners of public houses in rural (outside the cities) ireland before the heart and spirit of the communities across rural Ireland are closed for good.

14. Revise and re-introduce grocery orders bill. As with the energy regulator department store operators working across the border and within the island of ireland must be required to sell goods within the island at comparable prices subject to variation in currencies. The price of basic goods should be set quarterly and revised based on currency evaluation with sterling. Trade licences should be removed where operators are seen to overcharge consumers.

15. Department of trade and enterprise and office of consumer affairs must examine price for fuel at petrol stations where obvious cartels exist on fixing prices. Operators must not be allowed to charge above the odds for fuel. In some rural locations the consumer has no protection and is lacking competition to ensure goods can be purchased at reasonable price. Ie. Price per litre of petrol in bandon co. cork 116c/l over 4c per litre more expensive than towns further away from fuel distributors such as skibbereen. Cartel exists with ownership of fuel stations and they fix the price.

16. All coastal towns and estuarine locations (i.e courtmacsherry bay, clonakilty bay areas) providing tourism services and with environmental designations must have have adequate sewage treatment facilities, recycling services and public transportation facilities.

17. Public services such as Universities, collages, local authorities and hospitals must adapt budgets to ensure that more than 50% of expenditure is paid on provision of services and not payroll costs.

18. End subsidisation of Private healthcare.

19. Increase renewable energy tariffs for producers of renewable energy to support development of green economy.

20. Reduce salaries of Oireachtas members to reflect current and international trends.

21. Cap the level of overtime payment in public sector. Review employment contracts to ensure that essential services are not curtailed. Increase annual payment for certain sectors and remove overtime allowance completely. In private sector senior or middle management are required to work overtime on occasions, this is unpaid and part of job requirement. (the town of dunmanway recently had no public water supply for 24hrs one Sunday because the pump station was down and the local engineer would not attend to the problem as they were not being paid overtime, the consequence was that a town of over 2000 people had no water supply on a weekend. Such incidences are totally unacceptable. The roles and responsibilities for managers must reflect public service requirements above all else.

22. All state bodies, semi state bodies, banking financial institutions and large commercial traders must have a board member with appropriate environmental training or credentials to support sustainable development initiatives.

23.  End National programme for fluoridation of public water supplies. Dental health care should be the responsibility of the individual rather than a solution imposed e masse. Most EU countries do not allow. I believe there is widespread support for this proposal and international evidence to show that fluoridation of public water supplies is no longer acceptable.