Archives

By Rachel Mullen Public-sector services are different: they are supposed to serve the public good and its values. The citizen should have a sense of ownership of, and entitlement to, them. Cutbacks and public-sector reform have, however, crowded out any sense of difference. The clamour for aggressive reorientation, led by certain quarters of the press and their pundits, has been cacophonous. In 2008, just before the crisis took hold, an Institute of Public Administration paper by Muiris MacCarthaigh identified a range of values associated with public service. These were “efficiency, impartiality, honesty, loyalty, risk-aversion, equity, hierarchy, integrity, accountability and fairness”. He found that new non-traditional values were occasionally identified by public-sector officials, including flexibility, value for money and effectiveness. Some values, such as innovation, that he expected in the context of modernisation did not emerge. The ‘pecking order’ of values was seen to have changed as part of the modernisation of the public services. Many public servants reported that accountability was now the dominant value in their work. Efficiency, in the sense of speedy service delivery, had grown in importance. Public-sector reform has never been too explicit about what new values it offers. Yet it is, more than anything else, an exercise in changing public sector’s values. Modernisation has involved the incorporation of private-sector values and the pursuit of a market-led public sector. As the new values associated with this modernisation take hold other more traditional public-sector values inevitably give way and disappear. Public-sector reform and its private-sector value-base predate austerity. The 1996 ‘Delivering Better Government’ strategy identified ‘equity’ and ‘integrity’ as core values of the public service; and at the apex. However, it noted that values of professionalism, openness, flexibility, impartiality and customer orientation are integral to the public service. Austerity has provided the cover for a further reinforcement of such values. The Public Sector Reform Plan 2011-2014 emphasises efficiency, productivity and cost-reduction. Value-for-money has been established as the dominant public-sector value. This shifting ethic makes a difference. Every decision that an organisation makes and every action taken by its employees will reflect the value system of that organisation. Values are central to the development of the culture of an organisation, what it stands for, how it operates, and what it might prioritise. New and old values can end up in conflict with each other. Value for money, for example, that is concerned with productivity, can diminish values of equity and fairness. The voguish move to recognising its public as ‘customers’ can be to the detriment to seeing them as the holders of rights. MacCarthaigh concluded that “whatever values are deemed to be appropriate for the public service, the evidence suggests that performance will be enhanced through their meaningful integration into all aspects of the work of the service”. He captures the importance of values, however, he is mistaken to be so agnostic about what those values might be. We need to move away from market-based values for public service if we are to secure public services that better match and meet the needs of our diverse citizenry. Public sector reform has addressed values head-on. Now we need public-sector renewal to address the damage that the reform has done. The renewal too must be value-driven. The recent introduction of obligations of equality and human rights  for the public bodies should be central to this renewal. Section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 requires public bodies, including government departments, to pro-actively consider and address equality and human rights issues that are relevant to their functions. The values of dignity, inclusion, autonomy, social justice and democracy underpin equality and human rights. A strategic and and funded drive is now required to centralise and implement this public-sector duty. This would refresh and bolster a public service that could stand central to a more equal Ireland. •

By Shane Darcy There is an important sub-plot to Minister James Reilly’s efforts to enact legislation for the plain packaging of tobacco products. It concerns the incongruent relationship that the Irish State has with the tobacco industry, and with legal firms that advocate on its behalf. Recent reports have shown that the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund has invested over €9m in tobacco companies, while Arthur Cox, the firm representing Japan Tobacco Ireland in its threatened plain-packaging litigation against the State, has also received around €1m in legal fees from advising various health-oriented State agencies and bodies, including the Health Service Executive. We have heard much pontification about the need to ensure that the right to a lawyer is respected, with an obscure UN charter even being cited, but that need not mean that State agencies that promote one agenda should employ lawyers or anyone else who currently promote a contradictory agenda. As it finalises a National Action Plan on business and human rights, the Irish Government has a prime opportunity to set out an ethically coherent approach to State investment and procurement. As an investor and consumer of goods and services itself, the Irish State has a significant capacity to promote responsible behaviour by the private sector and to insist on respect for human rights by those companies with which it does business. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Charlie Flanagan, considers that “placing human rights firmly on the business agenda” is necessary for enhancing the reputation of Ireland and of Irish companies. The National Action Plan on business and human rights is being prepared by his Department, following a broad consultation with civil society and business. It is aimed at implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a framework document unanimously endorsed by the Human Rights Council in 2011. Ireland is currently the proud holder of a seat on the Council. These Guiding Principles emphasise a State’s duty to protect human rights, corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the need to ensure access to remedies in the event of breaches. They expressly state that: “States should promote respect for human rights by business enterprises with which they conduct commercial transactions”. The State duty is grounded in existing international human rights law, which requires a State to ensure that third parties, including business enterprises, do not violate human rights. A national business and human rights plan is very timely for Ireland, as concerns have been raised by the recent activities of Irish-based companies, both at home and abroad. These include the inadequate protection of data and the right to privacy by social media companies, the supply of software used for censorship to Syria’s repressive regime, and the operation of construction firms in Qatar where forced labour and irregular working conditions prevail. The State must make clear in its national action plan that it expects Irish companies to respect human rights throughout their operations. To embed respect for human rights from business, countries can insist on compliance with human rights as an eligibility requirement for State support or for availing of, or providing, government services, investment, procurement or listing on the Stock Exchange. The UN Guiding Principles consider that the various commercial transactions undertaken with companies by States provide a unique opportunity to promote awareness of and respect for human rights by business. In 2014 the European Union called upon Member States to bring about the “appropriate integration of environmental, social and labour requirements into public procurement procedures”. The Dutch national plan on business and human rights notes that in the Netherlands, “companies supplying the government with goods and services are required to respect human rights”. Ireland needs to move beyond merely encouraging Irish business to be socially responsible. The business and human rights agenda differs from corporate social responsibility as it is based on what is required and expected of companies, rather than on what a company may choose to do voluntarily  to ‘give something back’ to society. No amount of charity or philanthropic work can offset a negative impact on human rights. Legislating to reduce tobacco consumption by introducing plain packaging can be seen as a legitimate attempt to meet the State’s human rights obligation to fulfil the right of every person to the highest attainable standard of health. A consistent approach to human rights here would mandate that the State does not invest in the tobacco industry and that it reconsiders doing business with companies that support, represent or promote it. • Dr Shane Darcy is a lecturer at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, NUI Galway.

By Brendan Hennessy Around 20% of all households in Ireland are considered to be in energy poverty, as they spend more than 10% of their income on energy. The latest EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) data identify a continuing upward trend in households, both above and below the poverty line, struggling to afford energy. This is also reflected in the work of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (SVP). The overall demand for our assistance rose by 100% between 2008 and 2012. However, our expenditure for assisting households with energy costs rose by 200%, from €3.8m in 2008 to a high of €11.3m in 2012. This assistance is for all fuel types and covers both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The issues are illustrated in the words of one person we assisted: “I sit out in the kitchen but during the cold spell…I couldn’t light my fire because it was getting a back draft down the chimney, full of smoke… [my son] has bronchitis and [my daughter] has asthma so I’d to get the heaters out and thank God only for the St Vincent de Paul helped me out to get the heaters, and during the very cold spell…that’s all we had was those heaters…Oh my God the doors we had…there was a big gap. You could see out on the street. I went around the house doing my own little thing… put masking tape around the draft on the window…the snake thing for the door, hot water bottles for the kids to heat upstairs and the bedrooms”. The point is this is not untypical. Energy affordability is not only about being able to buy energy. It is also about housing conditions, the price of fuel and knowing ‘the little things’ that reduce costs. These are the issues that SVP brought to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resource consultation document ‘Towards a New Affordable Energy Strategy for Ireland’ Survey on Income and Living Conditions’. This document pointed to the importance of retrofitting homes in addressing energy poverty. Improving the energy efficiency of the national housing stock, both owner-occupied and private-rented, makes financial, economic and social sense.  Investing in energy-efficiency measures is good for household income, jobs, the environment, and human health and welfare. As to the efficacy of subsidies for retrofitting, we can look to the large Department of Social Protection expenditure on the fuel-allowance and household-benefits package. The €400m spent annually on these allowances dwarfs that of the retrofit budgets of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) yet retrofitting would clearly help reduce the need for the allowances. Retrofitting homes plays an important part in addressing energy poverty, but it should not fall to those already in energy poverty to foot the bill. If Government wants to fund a significant national retrofitting campaign it behoves all stakeholder Departments to contribute to the cost. SVP’s recent briefing paper ‘Policy Links on Energy Poverty’ contends that the debate must take account of the multi-layered benefits of energy efficiency measures. The positive health contributions are suggested by the quote above. SVP volunteers speak of their fears for children’s education when they visit homes where students have to do their homework in busy family rooms due to the absence of heated quiet rooms. Any resultant reduction in bills takes financial pressure off households, reduces dependence on credit and gives more financial autonomy. Reducing energy use benefits the environment and wider society. Research, undertaken by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice and commissioned by the SVP, shows the positive contribution of energy retrofitting. However, it also points toward continued income inadequacy for households dependent on social welfare. This research, entitled ‘Minimum Household Energy Need’ found that, for certain household types in different accommodation and using different fuel types, improving the BER rating of a home from an E to a B halved the household’s energy costs. Despite this however, such households remained in or close to energy poverty as they still paid more than 10% of their income on energy. The report warns that: “even at the highest efficiency levels examined, social-welfare-dependent households tended to remain in energy poverty and all faced inadequate income. Consequently policy must address both overall income adequacy and dwelling efficiency”. • Brendan Hennessy is Membership Liaison Officer, Social Justice and Policy Team, Society of St Vincent de Paul.

By Mannix Flynn In 2009 the then Lord Mayor of Dublin, Eibhlin Byrne, officially opened the new apartment blocks at York Street, Dublin. It was hailed, by some, as a flagship of social housing and regeneration. Before this, York Street housing had magnificent spaces outdoor and indoor – substantial back gardens, ample space in bedrooms and good-floor-to-ceiling heights. Residents had been housed in a dilapidated, though distinguished, Georgian former tenement block with fire-safety issues. Had that block been refurbished and made safe it would have safeguarded the aspirations of an entire community. Instead, what happened was the perpetration of the architecture of containment and an ‘othering off’ – the erasure of the spirit of York Street apartments. The very concept of these blocks was constrained: by the necessity to sell more than half of York Street at its east end to the plutocratic St Stephen’s Green-anchored Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) for swanky new college facilities. During the negotiations between the residents and tenants of York Street which began around 2007 Sinn Féin’s Daithi Doolan was the representative in the area. There were other Sinn Féin supporters on the ground, and the community felt confident that they were going to get a good deal, though they might have been suspicious about a college of doctors that had built a car park at York Street some years previously against the wishes of the local people purely for financial reasons, generating large-scale vehicle emissions to the detriment of community health. The sweetener for the deal was the use of the RCSI sports and community facilities. The rooftop of the RCSI extension was to be in the form of an all-weather pitch and its facilities were to be shared with the entire community in compensation for the lost green space and amenities. However, in fact these amenities were eliminated by stealth as the community interest was subordinated to that of the well-got RCSI. The all-weather pitch was removed through a variation of the plan. And the use of the facilities as a right was eliminated – becoming instead part of an elusive ‘outreach program’ whereby the community got access to the facility only when it was not in use. In partial return the RCSI gave Dublin City Council around €400,000 of community-gain money, whose destination is uncertain, and there will be no messiness of integration with the locals for the men in suits and stethoscopes. All this has eradicated the possibility that the RCSI might ever integrate with the community of York St and Mercer St. It was tragically clear in 2009 when the new apartments opened that the residents had had no idea that there was to be no all-weather pitch or sports facility for them. Moreover, as to the new apartments, from the outside all looked well but from the inside there were many concerns: safety of windows, tap-water overheating, much-vaunted roof gardens quickly closed down by Dublin City Council (DCC) as unsafe. Six years on and the RCSI has another grandiose plan. It is going to build another much bulkier building at York Street with – again – no rooftop facility, this time abetted by newish local Sinn Féin Councillor, Chris Andrews. A recent offer of around €3,000 each in compensation to the residents at York Street has been dwarfed by offers of more than twice that amount made to residents in Cuffe Lane at the rear of York Street who own their own homes and therefore seem to be treated more seriously by all concerned. The always stuffy but greedy, morally and aesthetically bereft, hawkish and cynical RCSI and the dead hand of Dublin City Council with the naïve support of deal-making local Sinn Féin councillors in 2009 and again in 2015 underpinned the dynamic of the  take-out. The property-playing RCSI, which has over several generations colonised much of the St Stephen’s Green area with characteristic mediocrity is now insisting that all the deals it did with the DCC tenants are confidential. While some of the residents in the area seem to be content, a number are not, as they face in to two years of dawn-to-dusk pile-driving, dust and heavy-machinery movements, and are seeking legal advice. Sinn Féin’s Chris Andrew’s has been rather coy on the matter in keeping with the ethos of his new party. None of the other local councillors was aware that negotiations were taking place. Many residents now feel they were stampeded into signing the RCSI secret documents, especially when their private neighbours have been paid substantially more than they have and Chris Andrews hadn’t informed them of this. When I raised the matter at the DCC in a motion that called for a guideline protocol for major compensation for DCC tenants, Andrews came over oddly uncomfortable. He should have been wholeheartedly in support of this motion, but the truth is that Mr Andrews is busy being in support of the RCSI, illustrating the journey the Shinners have travelled. They have aided and abetted the rape of a vulnerable community and its assets. •

By Eoin O’ Malley At most a year out from the general election, we are beginning to see some shape to what will be the most formative election in recent memory. The 2011 election was called an ‘earthquake election’ by some political scientists because on many metrics we saw remarkable changes. It was one of the most volatile election campaigns in post-war Europe. But it was as remarkable that such a volatile campaign produced such a familiar government. The Irish did what they were used to doing, kicking out a long-lasting Fianna Fáil government and replacing it with a Fine Gael-Labour coalition. The current government enjoyed a honeymoon of about 18 months, followed by two years of bad news and poor management. However the last six months have seen good news on most fronts: unemployment is down, employment up, emigration has fallen, tax receipts are up, and there are tentative signs that Fine Gael and Labour are benefiting from this in the polls (see Chart 1). Given that governments usually suffer a mid-term slump, a recovery a year out from an election, accompanied by economic growth, suggests that the government could be returned, perhaps needing the support of independents to secures a majority. But the government is not loved, and its improved polling might say as much about the qualities of the opposition as it does about Fine Gael and Labour. To secure re-election the two parties need to do a better job selling their successes, and refuting their failures. The biggest and most obvious failure relates to water charges. Quite how the government managed to make this a touchstones issue is depressing. With the problems of water quality and supply that we’ve seen ubiquitously, most obviously in Galway, nearly everyone agreed that the Victorian water infrastructure needed investment. EU rules meant that its operating costs needed to be funded by consumers. A majority also agreed that people should pay in proportion to use. But the government regarded water supply as a technical issue that could be delegated to an outside agency. It failed to understand that it was more than a technical issue; it was a new tax and that required a political approach. The tax had to be sold to the public, but Irish Water was designed to supply water not sell a policy. A less obvious failure, but one that will limit the government’s resurgence, is its lack of support for the group of people who bought houses at the height of the boom and the ones who are trying to buy them now. There has been no attempt to curtail banks from increasing interest rates. Nor is there any concerted attempt massively to increase the supply of housing. The government, as one the largest property owners in the country seems to view increased property prices as a good thing. But it’s damaging Ireland’s recovery because a new generation of people is being asked to pay excessive amounts for a place to live. These costs will increase pressure for pay hikes. It’s not for nothing that the groups that are least likely to vote for the government are aged between 25 and 45. This is the generation that is least secure about its future, and all parties hoping to make electoral gains will have to make them here. Fine Gael looks in pretty good shape for the next election. Its message will be simple: recovery and stability. It will frame the choice as between the progress it has made and the risk of a Sinn Féin-led government. It will warn voters that they shouldn’t throw it all away to  populist promises of miracle recoveries. Rather, it can suggest, recoveries are delicate flowers that need to be nurtured. Since Fine Gael has shown itself to be inept at selling its message in the past one would wonder whether it could throw it all away by succumbing to its own populist tendencies. Sinn Féin will frame the election as a choice between it and austerity. It obviously suits the party that the election will be seen as a choice between it and Fine Gael. Converting opinion poll support into seats may be its biggest challenge. It has two obstacles.  Its supporters, predominantly young, working-class men, don’t vote and it will take its entire formidable machine to mobilise them on the day. It’s also not clear to what extent the party is repulsive to transfers. Certainly by-election results show that in fights between it and anyone else for a last seat you’d have to be on anyone else. Another danger for Sinn Féin is its choice to tie itself closely to Syriza. If the Greek experiment ends badly, with Syriza making significant concessions to Europe, or worse leaving the Euro, it might come to regret not modelling itself instead on the Scottish Nationalists. In fact we might prepare ourselves for that comparison being made by the party. Of course, unlike the SNP, Sinn Féin doesn’t want to govern yet. It will stay out, hoping to build on successes to solidify its position as a top-two party in the state, hoping that it can lead a government following the election in 2020 or 2021. Labour’s big mistake was entering government, when it could have been by far the biggest opposition party. Having chosen government, it will depend on personalities and transfers, but it needs to be less apologetic. Apologies indicate that you made a mistake. Labour promised too much in 2011 when it didn’t need to. It must have known that such promises wold leave hostages to fortune on the electoral battlefield, but having failed to protect university fees and child benefit it now thinks that apologising will somehow make it better. It won’t. It just reminds voters. Instead the party should be more aggressive in reminding voters of where Ireland was in 2011 and where it is now. As the smaller party in government it has a tough job. The larger party usually gets to claim the victories, the