The Cedar Lounge Revolution

The Cardinal Brady issue… March 16, 2010

Some of us may be a bit puzzled to read a piece by Harry McGee in the Irish Times yesterday that references in some detail the Brendan Smyth controversy as it impacted on the Fianna Fáil/Labour coalition, leading to its eventual collapse.

IN OCTOBER 1994, Fianna Fáil and Labour had been in coalition for almost two years when a major controversy arose that would eventually lead to the collapse of the government.
…
Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left formed a rainbow coalition for the remaining 2½ years of the term, with John Bruton as taoiseach.

Hard to see the direct relevance of that to the current issue, unless the idea is that the Smyth affair having brought down a government is now set to cause significant damage to a Cardinal.

And what of the Cardinal? He appears determined not to resign in light of the information that has emerged about his part in a canonical inquiry in 1975 as regards that same child abuser Brendan Smyth.

Cardinal Brady yesterday defended his role at the meeting where a boy (10) and a girl (14) who were abused by Smyth were forced to take a vow of silence. He denied he helped to cover up cases of alleged sex abuse of children in the diocese of Kilmore and insisted he would not resign.

And…

Smyth pleaded guilty to 74 charges of sexually abusing children between 1958 and 1993. Sentenced to seven years in prison, Smyth (70) died in jail in 1997.

The cardinal was a priest and a teacher in Kilmore when he was asked to interview two children, under oath of secrecy, by the then bishop Dr Francis McKiernan. He said these interviews formed the basis of the action taken to remove Smyth from pastoral ministry, adding that he was not the “designated person” to report the issue to the civil authorities. He also denied the oath of secrecy was designed to protect the church.

That’s a tough place to walk back from even, or despite it, being indicative of a mindset prevalent then and after in the Catholic Church.

And the apologia’s abroad aren’t helping any…

Speaking on Today with Pat Kenny , Monsignor Maurice Dooley, former Professor of Canon Law, said Cardinal Daly had “no obligation whatsoever” to report anything to the gardaí.

“There is no law in Ireland or statute that requires that clergy report crimes to the police,” he added.

Monsignor Dooley pointed to paragraph 1.16 of the Murphy report, saying: “it says quite clearly that the clergy, the bishops and so on, had no obligation to report anything to the police”.

“Is it a sin against the law of God not to report matters to the police …no I don’t think so…because there are certain people exempt from this moral obligation to report to the police,” he said.

An useful insight, is it not?

New Politics? New Republic? A new Dawn? We’ll let the electorate (or Fine Gael TDs) be the judge of that… March 15, 2010

There’s no end of interest in the media over the Fine Gael document on political reform. And so far this is being strongly trailed with details spilling out all over. Got to say, I think that may be something of a mistake on the part of FG. By the time the document emerges in full (although when that is is a moot point, see below) it may be a bit too familiar to us.

And I’m not enamoured of this ‘New Politics’ and ‘New Republic’ rhetoric. The Irish Times has started a series of articles based around the latter idea and to be honest you know we’re in trouble when Declan Kiberd is calling for a ‘new political movement’… and lauding the ‘youth’ sections of political parties. One fears he’s never actually come face to face with the latter and one is almost certain he has no idea how the former would be constructed. I know I don’t. It’s not that his ideas are entirely without merit, they aren’t and it’s not a bad addition to a discussion, just that in total they seem a little contradictory. He complains about over regulation and administration crushing creativity… but when one contemplates how – for example in financial institutions – we got where are today one can’t really ascribe systemic flaws to too much regulation. Or to put it slightly differently, replace the word creativity in the previous sentence with efficiency or profitability and we have the single transferable excuse from the finance industry as to why the song should remain the same.

But, returning to Fine Gael, here’s a thing. For all that I disagree with proposals like the abolition of the Seanad, there are some interesting and even positive ideas in it. So far what we know is that:

The amendments would include:
- the abolition of the Seanad;
- a new “list” system for selecting 15 TDs;
- new constitutional recognition given to four Dáil committees;
- reduction of the President’s term of office from seven years to five;
- the introduction of a public petition mechanism for the Dáil.

I’m unconvinced by the List system idea as well. I’ve argued before, the current constituency set up is problematic, but, the idea of a Dáil filled with technocrats (or party placemen and women, delete as applicable) fills me with a certain dread.

The document argues that a list will bring “people into the Dáil who can devote 100 per cent of their time to the legislative process”.

Yeah, well. That does little to dissipate the dread. I can’t help thinking that the last thing our polity needs is more wonks, detached entirely from what life is like beyond their peer and/or class group.

Not that FG wants to scare the horses too much.

The major reforms proposed by the document are a scrapping of the Seanad and the reduction of the number of constituency TDs in the Dáil from 166 to 146.
However, there will be another 15 additional TDs, elected through a list system.

15 list elected TDs isn’t exactly the red raw meat of total reform. More like a tilt. And cutting Dáil numbers by 20 to 146… is… but hold on. Read that line above again… ‘constituency TDs’.

The total number of TDs, under this proposal, would be 161 – a net reduction of five on the present number.

I think few – and I’m talking here of politicians – would be too uncomfortable with a five TD drop in numbers (particularly given that the lead in period to the new improved Dáil would be one presumes the length of the next term, and given the likelihood of a large majority for FG/Labour that could be quite some time). Although… consider the implications… presumably the Ceann Comhairle would be the 1 in the 161… how that would impact on votes might be interesting to extrapolate.

So, it’s by no means awful. But… five less TDs. Somehow it seems a bit… minor. And I speak as one unconvinced that we’re burdened by too many TDs. Not, I hasten to add, that I’d be keen for more.

Committees? Well now. This is better.

The document suggests the number of joint committees should be reduced from 19 to nine. The most powerful, interrogative Dáil committees should be given constitutional backing for the first time, it argues.
These should include the Public Accounts Committee; a new Banking and Financial Regulation Committee; a new Budget Committee and European Legislation Committee.
The party also proposes the introduction of a Public Appointments Transparency Bill which will require people appointed to key State offices to have their credentials scrutinised by TDs.

I think that makes considerable sense and would provide a reweighting that would push at least some legislative aspects, and in particular the oversight element of same, to a better position.

Which is why I wonder how much of this will survive the next election and a coalition deal. Perhaps I’m wrong, and perhaps Labour is signed up in total for this. But… we’ll see.

Social partnership should be scrapped under its current form. “It has become a tool to protect vested interests and insiders,” states the report.

I’m none too keen on social partnership myself, but I like the old ‘insiders’ discourse even less. A contemporary trope that is beyond irritating, not least when it is brandished by those who by any serious reckoning would be encompassed within its broad and vague meaning. But does FG think of IBEC as ‘insiders’… does anyone when the talk turns to social partnership? One suspects not.

Another new initiative is the concept of a public petition system for the Dáil. “We believe that citizens must have a direct way, between elections, to make their concerns known. Our proposal will oblige the Dáil to consider a particular issue on receipt of a public petition that has the signatures of a minimum number of citizens, eg 10,000,” it states.

That’s another one that I doubt will survive impact with the election. Not that it’s a terrible idea, but I like the ‘eg 10,000′. I’ll bet that if it sees the light of day it’ll be considerably higher number.

The document also advocates the reduction of the presidential term from seven years to five, and a vote in that election for Irish citizens living abroad for up to five years.

And that too is quite a good idea. The rationale for Presidential elections being out of sync with all other elections in the state eludes me. Sure, the office is meant to be above politics. But… above politics has tended to devolve to detached from the polity. And no harm in the election idea either, although when one considers that US citizens have a vastly more generous entitlement…

So, is it true what is quoted here?

The 67-page document, a copy of which has been seen by The Irish Times , contends that it is the “most ambitious programme for political reform since the 1930s”.

Perhaps – it’s certainly an eye-catching bundling up of issues. But… I’m hard pressed to see connections made in respect of the issues that brought us to where we are. In fairness, given that we have yet to see the document, it may be in the detail. But… I’d have thought a more explicit positioning of the need for a vastly improved level, and understanding, of regulatory responsibility on the part of the state (which would fit entirely comfortably into the centre right political philosophy that FG apparently espouses) in some more clear cut way would be better. Granted, increasing the power of Dáil committees may implicitly cover this. But something more tangible, perhaps at Cabinet level, might indicate a new seriousness in terms of tackling such issues.

There’s also the small matter that on the detail (so far) it is clearly restricted, bar the suggestion of extending votes to Irish citizens abroad, to a 26 county context. If we’re truly looking at a ‘New Republic’ it would be politically astute – as well as being the right thing to do – if the concerns weren’t limited to a portion of the island but in some form or fashion made provision for future developments, however symbolic those provisions might be at this point.

And it’s not as if this is uncontroversial within FG as it stands…

The bulk of the document has been signed off by the parliamentary party following a number of presentations made by Mr Hogan. The exceptions are proposed new rules on quotas for women, which were rejected on a vote by TDs and Senators last Wednesday.

Today the sense of dissent is somewhat stronger, for as reported in the Irish Times:

THE FINE Gael front bench was deeply divided over a proposal to introduce a list system to select some TDs during discussions on its major document on political reform, according to senior figures in the party.

And there’s more…

The original policy document presented to the shadow cabinet last month included two key proposals on Dáil electoral reform: a reduction of the number of TDs by 20 to 146; and a new list system “for the election of a limited number of people with particular expertise gained outside of politics”.
It suggested that approximately 15 TDs be elected in this manner and that the proposal be put to the Irish people as part of a super-referendum constitution day.

However, when the party front bench considered the proposal, it rejected the idea.
Which suggests that the document referenced by the Irish Times over the weekend is that ‘original policy proposal’ rather than a finished piece. Except we also read that:

Some TDs said privately this weekend they had been under the impression that the concept had been abandoned. But the party spokesman said this had never been the case.

Hmmm… So what are we to make of the following?

It had been agreed at front-bench level that the party would begin a consultation process with its membership and the electorate before making a final decision on the list system.
Over the weekend, party leader Enda Kenny told The Irish Times the party would await the report on electoral reform due later this year from the all-party Committee on the Constitution. Mr Kenny said that if elected to Government, Fine Gael would also convene a constitutional forum within 100 days of assuming office, at which the list system and other major reforms proposed by the party, including the abolition of the Seanad, would be discussed.
Mr Kenny confirmed he would launch the document immediately after the party’s national conference in Killarney next weekend.

‘After’ the conference? When the reports in the IT at the weekend told us it would be launched before? Is it party policy or not? He seems to think so…

The proposals contained in the 67-page document are expected to form a major part of his leader’s speech on Wednesday.
“It’s a massive programme for politics,” said Mr Kenny. “I am very pleased to get the document adopted as Fine Gael policy.”

If by adopted one means, maybe, perhaps, not entirely clear whether it is or not.

Several prominent members of the party said they opposed the list on the basis that it was elitist and divisive. A number of TDs also said they were not happy with the manner in which the parliamentary party was asked to approve the document, without catching sight of it, but on the basis of presentations made by one of its key authors, environment spokesman Phil Hogan.
The strongest public criticism of this was made by Dublin South East TD Lucinda Creighton who told Newstalk that backbenchers were expected to play the role of “performing monkeys” with respect to the document.
Ms Creighton’s objections to quotas for women candidates did force part of the document to be withdrawn.

But reading the reports today one would be hard pushed to believe that the proposals for political reform will weather the next week or two unamended, let alone the more difficult processes of an election campaign and subsequent coalition deal. An interesting way to introduce the ‘New’ Republic. No?

And in the Docklands… March 12, 2010

Thanks to a contact for forwarding this, from the Examiner on the 9th…

Scott Millar
DOCKLANDS DISASTER
“ An unholy trinity of politicians, developers and bankers were given free rein in the docklands and our community suffered, and will continue to suffer for decades to come.” East Wall community activist Joe Mooney
The legacy of the Dublin Development Docklands Authority looks set to be communities left with derelict sites and taxpayers forced to pick up the 1bn bill through NAMA, writes Scott Millar
SOMEWHERE in Environment Minister John Gormley’s office lies a report that, it is claimed, will rock the Government to the core.
It is an investigation into the possible conflicts of interest, or worse, which influenced the work of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), whose failures are expected to result in more than 1 billion worth of toxic property loans being hoisted on the taxpayer through NAMA.
Ironically, the report was compiled by current authority chairman, Niamh Brennan, the wife of former Justice Minister Michael McDowell.
In 2007, there was much amusement, in an otherwise listless general election campaign, when Mr Gormley confronted Mr McDowell.
Insults were traded, with Mr Gormley accusing the then PD leader of putting political survival before investigating allegations of Fianna Fáil corruption — an incident quickly christened the “Battle of Ranelagh”.
According to former Green senator Deirdre De Burca, opposition politicians and local community activists in the Dublin docklands, Mr Gormley is showing the same appetite for political survival before transparency by not moving quickly to place the DDDA report in the public domain.
For the tight knit communities of Dublin’s docklands the disaster that the authority has become has left much more than financial scares.
Joe Mooney, a community representative from the East Wall area, said for years they have been trying to highlight the DDDA’s appalling behaviour.
“ We were ignored, because so many had a vested interest. Much of what concerned us is now common knowledge, and those that were negligent are now pretending to be surprised.”
The East Wall area is littered with apartment and office blocks abandoned half way through construction.
Overshadowing the adjacent Spencer Dock is the bare eight-storey concrete skeleton of what was to be Anglo Irish Bank’s new headquarters.
Where the docklands authority committed to creating a 15 million “Linear Park”, gravel and disused building material lie strewn along a canal. Similar commitments to a build a 6m primary school and funding for education programmes are yet to materialise, although a DDDA spokeswoman said these plans had not been abandoned but rather delayed.
Surveying the desolate landscape, Mr Mooney added: “An unholy trinity of politicians, developers and bankers were given free rein in the docklands and our community suffered, and will continue to suffer for decades to come.”
The DDDA was supposed to be the model for a Celtic Tiger-era fast track development body that would provide both financial and social dividends.
In theory, Bertie Ahern’s Government sought to appoint a board to bring together the “skills” of property developers, state planners and risk taking bankers, with input from local communities, to turn the dilapidated docklands on both sides of the Liffey into a new hub for the capital.
Established in 1997, the docklands board was chaired by businessman Lar Bradshaw, with a larger advisory council that included community representatives.
As resident Marie O’Reilly recalls all the decision making power remained with the board. “There
was to be a veneer of community involvement but all they could do was observe and complain but there was no influence on decision making.”
THE development was to proceed in a series of phases with various private consortiums coming together to finance, build and then sell sectors, with huge profits envisaged. Problems began to emerge with the Spencer Dock development.
This collection of largely disused dockyards spanned over one fifth, 52 acres, of the entire area.
The consortium that came together to develop the site comprised of Treasury Holdings, led by Fianna Fáil aligned developer Johnny Ronan, developer Harry Crosbie and the largest land holder CIÉ, a semi-state body.
Concerns that lands owned by a semi-state were being subsumed into what was a largely private scheme were raised by community representatives, to no effect.
One “public relations representative” retained by the consortium was ex-Fianna Fáil advisor Frank Dunlop, currently serving a prison sentence for non-associated acts of corruption.
Residents raised concerns over the height of buildings, lack of amenities and the clear segregation between social housing units for locals and private apartments that were envisaged being purchased by young professional newcomers. The docklands authority had initially committed to developments being mixed.
An often bitter and extended planning hearing stretched from 1999 into 2000. Residents became increasingly concerned about DDDA board members’ commercial interests overlapping with their planning role.
Ms O’Reilly recalls: “Instead of remaining a planning authority, they decided to jump the fence to become a developer. As we looked into those running the DDDA, we found loads of overlapping business and political connections.”
In March 2001, a North Wall Community Association submission raised “fundamental criticism”
concerning a proposed development.
“ In relation to this particularly planning scheme, if argued, total reliance would be placed on seven current or future members of the DDDA board, all appointed by the Government and most of whom have no planning expertise whatever. On the contrary, most of the current board have strong business connections.”
Complainants found themselves labelled “cranks”; they claim funding for community groups through DDDA levies became political.
An East Wall resident association planning submission from 2001 boldly stating community groups were being “blackmailed” into ceasing objections by a docklands authority grant system that fostered “financial dependency” with “community concerns becoming second to keeping in favour with figures within the authority.”
More concerns were raised when the authority increasingly turned to implementing so-called Section 25 developments. This referred to a exemption in the DDDA act that allowed the authority remove some developments from normal planning procedures, crucially removing objectors right to appeal to an increasingly troublesome An Bord Pleanála. One developer is recalled telling residents after he lost a planning appeal, “f**k that, I’ll get it on the section 25.”
In practice, section 25s made the Environment Minister the final arbitrator on planning decisions.
The power was used by then minister Dick Roche, when he signed off on the controversial North Lotts scheme.
In October 2004, the Spencer Dock Development Company received loans of 390m. The largest tranche came from Anglo Irish Bank, whose then chief executive, Seanie Fitzpatrick, had joined the DDDA board in 1998.
Less than a month after the funding was secured, the authority’s chairman Lar Bradshaw was appointed an Anglo director. Two years later, Anglo also backed a consortium, including the DDDA and developer Bernard McNamara with a loan of 412m for the Irish Glass Bottlers site in the south docklands — this site is now derelict.
Claims of a cosy relationship were raised in the Dáil on November 4, 2004, by local TD Tony Gregory.
“ Some of the (DDDA) board members, including the chairman, are associated with Anglo Irish Bank, which is now funding the largest development in the whole north docklands, a development to which they, as board members, granted the planning permission in the first place. Is it any wonder local residents’ leaders expressed serious concerns regarding the Spencer Dock development, where planning permission was granted in contravention of the docklands own master plan while the views of the community representatives on the docklands’ council were ignored?
“ The minister must surely agree that a very serious conflict of interest exists somewhere. I ask the minister whether it is time to review the membership of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.”
In response, Mr Roche accepted that the “membership of the board is drawn from a relatively narrow pool” but claimed a “code of conduct” prevented conflicts of interest imposing on decisions. “Given the nature of the activity of the DDDA, and the nature of the board, there will inevitably be areas of overlap but to suggest that is the same thing as wrongdoing is wrong,” he added.
With the legacy for most docklands communities being half build projects, little of the promised social dividend and a massive bill for the state, Mr Roche’s assertion maybe sorely tested.
Although the community activists wrote to Niamh Brennan asking to meet her to address outstanding concerns, they were not accommodated.
It is a omission that Joe Mooney finds perplexing, as he does the prospect of former Dublin port and CIÉ lands being taken into NAMA. “In the case of these lands going into NAMA, it would seem the state is to use public funds to buy lands it originally owned, that’s just beyond me.”