Ged Nash
Louth · Labour Party · Ireland
“However, it is a rich country that has a problem understanding that it is now sustainably rich. Those of us in opposition will, of course, say that this country needs to do better, and it can.”
“On the one hand, it is legitimate for an Opposition party to critique the economic model day in, day out. I do it myself all of the time, and we all know that Ireland can do better. However, at the same time, is that kind of critique helping to persuade those whom we need to persuade into a new Ireland? I am not so sure that it is.”
“There will be fiscal and financial implications for this State in that transition. There is an obligation on us, insofar as we can, to properly interrogate and consider those implications and to be upfront about them.”
“No, it did not, but let us not exaggerate its impact on the Irish economy. It is good and it had an impact, but was there a causal relationship? I am not so sure. The jury is out on that. However, is the Good Friday Agreement a good thing and good for our economy? Of course, it is. Did the guns fall silent in the North?”
“We are not good at describing what those accommodations will be or what that relationship with the UK will be, whether economically, socially, politically, culturally or otherwise. It is a relationship that will have to be maintained. It will look very different as we approach a new Ireland.”
“That was a very different prospect when the vast majority, if not all, of East German citizens wanted to become part of a united German polity. As we know, that is not the case on this island. We need to be careful about how we approach that.”
The complete record
Every one of 739 lines we hold for Ged Nash, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 15.
“I will put the Minister behind the 8-ball, if I may. I have no doubt from speaking to his Government colleagues that Government has one, two or maybe even three principal objectives in respect of the expeditious delivery of critical infrastructure in the early part of the term of this Government. What are the most important infrastructure development projects that could be supported by this new division? The Minister must have something in mind. I have no doubt that he does. I have a slight concern. It was a concern that probably surfaced in the context of the election campaign in November but also subsequent to that in the programme for Government negotiations. I am not sure if there were any issues at all between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. I refer to the idea of whether a department of infrastructure should be set up.”
“The Minister will understand, will accept and has experienced in his role the principle that finances follow functions. When a Department is split up and functions move, the resources move with them. Is that the case?”
“I thank the Minister very much. The creation of this division seems to be a halfway house between Fine Gael's manifesto commitment to a Department of infrastructure and Fianna Fáil's own ambitions in this area, as reflected in its general election manifesto. The division will be headed by a deputy Secretary General. That is also the case in some other Departments. I believe the Department of Justice has a deputy Secretary General. The way the Minister has described this suggests that expertise will be pulled into this division from other Departments. Will this then mean a diminution of expertise in, for example, the Department of Transport? Many of us in the Oireachtas are concerned about delays to major transport projects around the country. How might that work?”
“This question is on the commitment made in the programme for Government to create a dedicated infrastructure division in the Department. Will the Minister put on the record the range of skill sets that will be available, the number of staff to be employed and the overall complexion of that particular division, which will be critical to the development of crucial infrastructure in our country?”
“We obviously do not include section 39 workers, who are balloting for industrial action, in our public sector employment figures. There used to be a connection and alignment between their pay grades' terms and conditions and those of equivalent grades in the public service. That is not the case at the moment and that needs to be addressed because they are carrying out the work of essential public services in the health-related activities contracted to them by the State.”
“IBEC has even made an assessment in recent years and has caught up with the position of the Labour Party and others that our State is not only too small to service current economic and social needs, but future economic and social needs and ambitions. I will make two points. The first is that when we talk about agility, the public sector and the private sector need to be agile. There is now competition for talent. It was disappointing to see individual Departments going on solo runs last week on unilateral proposed changes to their policies on blended work. That position has changed in recent days where they have agreed to engage with trade unions. It is important that the public service should be an exemplar of employment practices.”
“He said his figures are that it will be in excess of 420,000. He might explain his understanding of the Parliamentary Budget Office's position. His assessment may include local authority workers and he might clarify that.”
“I am glad the Minister made the point that the public sector ought to be the employer of choice. It needs to be the exemplar and best practice needs to be shown. A degree of workforce planning in the ranks of junior Ministers has taken place this week. The Minister claimed that because of an expanded population we require additional Ministers of State. We had that debate yesterday. He is right that public sector employment levels will grow to a record high this year and that is to be welcomed. There is a degree of misalignment between his position and that of the Parliamentary Budget Office, and its analysis made available to The Irish Times a couple of days ago. The Minister may have seen the piece published yesterday, where it was estimated there would be 415,000 civil and public servants by the end of this year.”
“Will the Minister put on the record the position relating to the programme for Government commitment on the process of workforce planning? It is referred to in the document adopted by the House. Will he elaborate on precisely what that means, what the process involves and when he expects to complete that initiative?”
“However, there are issues in relation to the public spending code, compliance and governance as was highlighted by the outrageous situation in the Arts Council, which was overseen by the Department of arts. They have questions to answer as well. The Minister of State mentioned in an article in the Mail on Sunday that, in his view, the OPW has a brand issue. What does he mean by that and how does he intend to-----”
“I look forward to seeing that guidance. I assume it will be published and made available to Members of the House because it is important in respect of accountability and transparency in State organisations, and governance, more generally. This morning, and during the past 24 hours, there was a separate matter to do with the public spending code - the outrageous overspend on an IT project in the Arts Council. It is symptomatic of a wider problem across the system. I do not want to feed into any kind of anti-public sector agenda out there. I would be the last person to do that. By and large, in the Minister of State's own Department, and in the OPW, it manages 2,500 properties. The organisation does a remarkably good job and has consistently done so over the years.”
“I note the Minister of State's comments on the introduction of new guidance on expenditure and the roles and responsibilities of officials at certain levels in terms of governance of projects below a certain level. I would rather talk about rules, regulations and accountability rather than guidance, because guidance is missing the point. We do not do accountability properly in this country. That has been shown in stark relief by the way in which issues around overspends and lack of compliance with governance has been handled to date.”
“I thank the Minister of State. We know, and I will not recount, the different overspends around OPW projects that have been interrogated by the media, and indeed in this House, during the last period. The OPW is a very proud organisation with a long track record of achievement throughout the entirety of the history of the State. I do not want to see the OPW, its staff and the work it does to become a watchword for waste. There has been a fair degree of opportunism about various projects around these Houses, quite frankly. That being said, that is not to say the criticisms were wrong. Accountability is important when it comes to public expenditure.”
“I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, back to the Dáil and congratulate him on his appointment. I look forward to working with the Minister of State in order to hold him to account but also to ensure progress in his Department in the context of what is an important role. There is reference in the programme for Government to ensuring that "the Office of Public Works (OPW) and its structures deliver best value for money outcomes on all projects". Will the Minister of State indicate precisely what he means by that and a timeframe for the completion of that project?”
“I have no doubt that looking at the focus on the indigenous economy that we need to keep a close eye on research and development tax credits, for example, and how we can better operate those to encourage the development of indigenous enterprise, to grow sustainable Irish jobs and to ensure high potential Irish companies go global from here.”
“There is more than a grain of truth in what some colleagues said earlier but I would not put it in the way they have. There is an imbalance in the Irish economic and enterprise model and we are all aware of that, notwithstanding that we have to recognise the incredible work being done by Enterprise Ireland. I remind Deputy Tóibín to look at the Enterprise Ireland job statistics from last year. They are quite extraordinary and they compare very favourably with IDA Ireland's but there is a larger job of work to be done in that regard.”
“From the Minister, Deputy Donohoe's, own point of view, however, does he accept - and this is a long-standing issue about which we have been told time and again - that we need to broaden our tax base to try, insofar as we can, to insulate our own public finances from the threats that will potentially arise?”
“One of the implications of all of this that is probably less well understood is the fact that Ireland is the ninth-largest foreign direct investor in the US economy and that Irish firms are responsible for a substantial number of good jobs in the US. Of course, President Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. We were expecting some form of white smoke from the White House this week as to what any potential tariffs may look like. Obviously, Ireland is especially exposed. On that basis, obviously, much of the responsibility in dealing with tariffs would be an all-of-government responsibility. The Minister for enterprise, Deputy Peter Burke, will have a lead role, as will the Tánaiste and Minister for trade, Deputy Harris.”
“My question relates to a matter which has been raised on two separate occasions in the House this morning, that is, the impact of potential tariffs being considered by the US on Ireland and the EU's trade with the US and any assessments the Department may have undertaken at this stage on that impact. The Minister addressed the matter earlier but I have a couple of related questions in the follow-up discussion.”
“This Dáil is barely a month old now, and we are conferring office on a record number of junior Ministers for no better reason other than keeping the Lowry lot happy. It is shameful, and it is safe to say, as I said at the outset, that this Government is off to a bad start.”
“It is simply designed to keep Government TDs sweet and on side. I am not one who complains about the cost of doing politics. That is the road to nowhere and it feeds an anti-politics sentiment in this country and elsewhere. Democracy has a cost, and ordinarily that is a cost worth paying but we have to give value for money and accountability to the taxpayer. Baubles for backbenchers and compliant Independents bought and paid for by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste is no way to do business. in the first week of this Dáil, the Government tried to pull a stroke by attempting to convince us and, more importantly, citizens of this republic that Members of this House who negotiated the programme for Government could take a place on the Opposition benches. It is moves like this that further demean and undermine confidence in politics.”
“I do not think it has been clarified - I stand open to correction on this - what type of additional overnight allowance will be paid to Ministers of State from outside Dublin thanks to the new Government deal done with Michael Lowry and others. Minister of States who attend Cabinet, the so-called super juniors, are entitled to a further salary top-up of €13,145, and that adds up to a basic salary of €172,670 for super junior Ministers. To put it on the record - and the Minister knows - I served a number of years ago as a super junior Minister but I will tell him this. I can remember a time, and I am old enough to remember, when there was only one at the time. There was only one, and also the Chief Whip. There is no requirement or justification for the expansion in the ranks of Ministers of State.”
“That amendment was not accepted, however. We can interrogate that matter further later on. There is a strong argument for doing away with that allowance in its entirety. There is no requirement, rationale or justification for it. Ministers of State have private secretaries, which they are entitled to. That has traditionally been the case and should be the case. However, they also have special advisers and up to four additional civil servants appointed to their teams in their Departments to assist with the admittedly heavier workload Ministers of State have. That in itself requires further interrogation. Ministers are not entitled to the travel and accommodation allowance paid to TDs, but the Oireachtas's travel costs are met by their line Department.”
“They also retain their two TD staff members, a parliamentary assistant and an administrative assistant. Officeholders, including each new Minister of State, receive a special secretarial allowance of up to €48,515, not from their own Department but from the Houses of the Oireachtas, which allows them to hire an additional staff member or contract, for example, secretarial or PR services. That is paid for by the Houses of the Oireachtas and is an entitlement not extended to Opposition TDs, with the small number of staff we have to try to mark the Government and make it accountable. I have tabled what I might describe as a negative amendment. It would not incur a charge on the State. In fact, it would ensure that the cost to the State was reduced”
“Labour estimates the cost of each new Minister of State is approximately €500,000 per year, while the all-in cost of three new positions, an extra Minister of State attending Cabinet and a new overnight allowance for eligible Ministers is over €1.5 million per year or €7.5 million over the lifetime of the Government, not including pension, office or establishment costs. In addition to the annual TD salary of €113,679, the new Ministers will receive a Minister of State allowance of €45,846, bringing starting pay to just under €160,000. Junior Ministers can hire two civilian drivers with annualised salaries of close to €45,000 and there are expenses associated with that; that is only fair. The Minister incurs mileage as well, which nobody disagrees with here.”
“The statements would be open for review by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is one of the few amendments that has passed beneath the watchful eye of the Bills Office. That is an argument we will have later. If the Government is truly convinced these new posts are both necessary and value for money, it will support that amendment. It will have nothing to fear from an amendment that aims to protect the public purse from any waste that may occur by the creation of these unprecedented posts.”
“Some 16 were appointed by 2016. It was a ceiling, not a target. We are proposing amendments to the Bill which will require the Government to not only put a lid on the expansion in the number of junior Minister posts but also to be transparent about the costs of each new baby Minister. Our amendment would require the Comptroller and Auditor General to require the Secretary General of each Department of State by April of each year to report on the costs incurred in the previous year attributed to any Minister of State in that Department. This would include the cost of special advisers, civilian drivers and staff working in the private office of the Minister of State. The statement of costs could include the cost of any functions performed by and official responsibilities carried out by the Minister of State.”
“Since the general election, we have seen the unwelcome return of the arrogance and hubris the country came to associate with Fianna Fáil in the past. That is writ large in the Bill. Along with the proposed undetermined tax breaks the Taoiseach wishes to award to property developers, we know this type of thing never ends well. It is a case of back to the future. If the Bill progresses unchanged, we will have seen an expansion from 15 junior Ministers in early 2015 to 23 today. We in the Labour Party are convinced the creation of these new posts will not prove to be value for money for the State or the taxpayer. The Minister mentioned the 2007 legislation that provided for 20 junior Ministers, but we, in government in the crisis years and picking up Fianna Fáil's mess, did not see that as a target; it was a ceiling.”
“The latest stroke by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and their partner in government Michael Lowry has smashed the pre-crash record of 20 Ministers of State. By the time the committee chair gigs are doled out, we will have in excess of 50 TDs with Government-sponsored jobs. The idea clearly is that once they are bought, they will all stay bought and remain loyal. It is clear as day that there is no objective justification for these new roles despite the honeyed words in the Minister's script. It is not as if the business-as-usual programme for Government requires a series of newly minted junior Ministers to deliver its extremely modest and conservative set of ambitions over the five years of the programme. This is a self-serving move designed to keep sweet as many Government-supporting TDs as possible.”
“The birthing of so many baby Ministers would make boom-time Bertie blush. Figures compiled by the Labour Party suggest that each of these new posts will cost the State upwards of €500,000 annually. The starting cost to the public of this stroke Government will be over €1.5 million per year when we add in the new overnight allowance for Ministers of State the creation of further super junior positions. That amounts to €7.5 million over the prospective five-year term of the Government. When I spoke during the election campaign on the need to focus on creating well-paid indigenous Irish jobs, this is not what I meant. The boom-time baby Minister bonanza is back it seems. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are prepared to spend a shedload of taxpayers' money to keep Independents and their own TDs happy with new positions.”
“That this is the first Bill the Government has sought to pass in the new Dáil is instructive. To say that this Administration has got off to an appalling start is an understatement. The Bill will create an unprecedented 23 Minister of State posts at a cost that makes some State agency building projects of recent times look prudent. It is a jobs-for-the-boys Bill. I use the word "boys" deliberately because these new posts are being handed almost entirely to men,”
“These measures, along with the establishment of a State construction company, which, by the way, to remind the Taoiseach, is merely the next step in the evolution of the LDA, an initiative that the Labour Party, uniquely in the Opposition, supported, are the kinds of practical ideas to address the housing crisis that the senior members of this Government thumbed their noses at when we entered exploratory talks on forming a Government. There is time for a radical redirection in housing policy that ramps up housing delivery and brings costs down for those seeking to buy or rent a home. It is not the Labour Party which is hostage to dogma and ideology; it is the Taoiseach.”
“We have a plan to unlock some of the €150 billion in private savings on deposit by developing a housing solidarity bond via State Savings that would have an attractive interest rate and help to redirect private investment from vulture funds towards housing development. I believe, given the crisis we are in, that the Irish people would be up for that. We would also provide for further opportunities for credit unions to underwrite mortgages and invest in housing using surplus savings.”
“The Labour Party also believes that we can and should smartly use public resources to help to create better conditions to make it more attractive for SME developers to build the private and cost-rental homes we need. We would also establish a State investment and development bank to finance private housing development using a portion of the Future Ireland Fund. We propose that we develop a new long-term financing product for approved housing bodies underwritten by the State to provide financing at 3% or less over 50 or 60 years. This would reduce the cost of financing the cost-rental housing we need and make those rents much more affordable, bringing certainty into the system for developers and also for long-term renters.”
“It was repeatedly opposed by officials in the Department of Finance who are paid to advise the Minister. The Government already subsidised developers to complete apartment complexes under Croí Cónaithe yet they still have the paw out for more. This is absolutely incredible. We in the Labour Party would take a different approach, not merely because we have a different political philosophy but because the Government’s approach has failed and will continue to fail. Tax cuts for builders will not address the escalating price of land. They will not magic up tens of thousands of skilled workers. Tax cuts will not streamline our planning system. They will not incentivise developers to use new technologies and innovate. This is why ten years ago the ESRI said “No” to tax breaks for private home builders. The exact same case remains today.”
“It seems that we are destined to enter a doom spiral of never learning, of doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Looking at Fianna Fáil’s and Fine Gael’s recent history of expensive, untargeted tax reliefs in the housing area, we see a tax credit for landlords that they never asked for, an answer to a question nobody ever asked, yet landlords are still fleeing the market. That was an absolute distraction. I am drawn to the comment made by eminent economist Barra Roantree at the time this proposal was introduced, when he said this was among the stupidest tax reliefs in recent times, amid very stiff competition. The help-to-buy scheme is a tax relief costing close to €1 billion which is pocketed by developers and only serves to inflate house prices, as we always said it would.”
“We hear high-profile murmurings this week of new tax incentives for developers, leading me to the conclusion that this Government does not mind a bit of socialism as long as the welfare payments are paid to wealthy developers and to the benefit of corporate landlords. The Government’s message to those who are looking to put a roof over their heads is that it is going to take some of their taxes to give to private developers to encourage them to get their fingers out and finally build the homes we need. This is apparently because the profit motive just is not enough these days. I am a pragmatist. We are a pragmatic party. We are happy to scrutinise any proposal on tax reliefs that Fianna Fáil wants to propose. However, Fianna Fáil’s history with tax cuts and developers has never ended well. The people of Ireland are still paying the price.”
“By the time the Government is finished, we will have 50 TDs from the Government ranks being chairs of committees, Cabinet Ministers or Ministers of State. That is more than half of the entire makeup of the Government who are dependent on the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste for their political careers over the next few years. I will ask the Minister this question. How do we know this is a stroke? It is because only half an hour has been allowed to debate a range of amendments from the Opposition-----”
“I thank the Ceann Comhairle very much. Tax breaks for developers were announced this week. We will also be dealing this week with the addition of three new Ministers of State to the bloated ranks of baby Ministers. I was expecting to see Bertie Ahern in the chair there today. It is a case of back to the future, with tax breaks for developers and a boom in baby Ministers and Ministers of State. We had 15 Ministers of State in 2016. We had 20 in the last Government. There are 23 planned for this Government. The Minister is bringing legislation to the House tomorrow to provide for the increase in the number of Ministers of State, which is entirely unjustifiable in anybody's mind. This is a stroke and about keeping restive backbenchers on board.”