Maman Poulet | Clucking away crookedly through media, politics and life

Guest Post – New siege of Limerick?

June 2nd, 2010 · Uncategorized

Bert McCann writes about the battle lines being drawn in the Mid-West

Before the skies darken into autumn  the plan to expand the Limerick City boundaries will  have reached  Environment Minister John Gormley’s desk. Saying that the issue has been controversial  is an understatement similar to describing  the Williamite siege as bit of a fall-out.  The ambitions of the metropolis though might yet result in a latter-day stand-off.  But this time neighbouring Co. Clare could be throwing up the barricades against the forces of its urban neighbour..

The city’s seeking for lebensraum goes way back.  The first ever coalition government, that of 1948-51 permitted expansion almost exactly sixty years ago. Another application  entered in 1974 remained unresolved before a chunk of the north county was handed over in 2008. Until then the troubled estate of Moyross was split with one half being the responsibility of the county and the other half  being in the fiefdom of the city. All of it is now within the walls a fact which may or may not contribute to civic peace of mind.

Paradoxically, it had in recent years the highest earned-income level after Dublin, a regeneration programme was in place, the arts were booming and the shops were alive with the sound of credit cards being swished.  However 40% of all housing was let to the less well-off and of course there ‘s the high mortality rate amongst  local crime figures. The latter images it seems aren’t particularly attractive to potential investors.

Recession descended, building halted and the brand new commercial development in the Opera Centre, having occasioned the closure of a large number of local businesses to make room for, itself failed to attract tenants.  The city again started to eye the countryside acquisitively. It was perceived locally that the county got the money and the high-end  companies and the town got the pain.

Minister Gormley set up the Limerick Local Government Committee in March to help find solutions.  When the Fine Gael city council then suggested the ingestion of its neighbour all hell broke loose.  The cry was no surrender.

A local journalist familiar with both domains thinks that,.

‘There’s a feeling that the city needs room to grow into a regional centre and that inward investment will be easier to attract if it cultivates a cachet associated with having prosperous suburbs.’

He continued,

‘ On the county side deep loyalties are involved aside from fear of major financial loss. ‘

Suddenly, peace broke out. The FG led  county council  agreed to go along with expansion and a  single council.  Reading the report of the decision in the Limerick Leader it seems that it may have dawned on somebody that savings set against rate loss means a net gain of €2m to the country side of the new conurbation. That arithmetic pleases voters say the local pundits.  So the county council supported the change  in  its submission to the LLGC which visited the region yesterday, speaking in camera with concerned parties.  Now everyone’s happy…?

Well, not really. The single authority wants to cast its line and reel  in a wee bit of  Co. Clare. This has provoked a popular uprising. Verbally, at least.  Last week John Cooke of Clare FM took his Morning Focus programme to one of the villages under ‘threat’. Under a banner reading ‘Not an inch of Co. Clare’ the plain people of Parteen talked of Limerick crime, dereliction spilling into the area and a representative of Clare Against the Boundary talked about all the benefit accruing to the city. Another woman decared she would refuse mail with Limerick in the address. A local publican said that Limerick has to be stopped at the river.

The Clare local councillors while softening a little towards the LLGC and the job its doing are of course compelled to follow the people’s lead., if they want to keep their seats. John Gormley who comes from these parts is standing back and letting his committee get on with it. But it is clear that Clare folk are not going to be netted easily. A 21st Century.siege and strong resistance might yet ensue.

Share

» 1 CommentTags:

Guest Post – Imprisonment for Debt

May 31st, 2010 · Social Policy

In the first of this weeks Guest Posts – Louise blogs about Imprisonment for Debt

Imprisonment solely on the grounds of failure to fulfil a contractual obligation is considered a human rights violation and is prohibited by Article 1 of the 4th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which Ireland is party to. Despite the prohibitions, an increasing number of people find themselves imprisoned for their inability to pay a debt, or fulfil a contractual obligation, figures were confirmed at 276 in 2008, and 186 in the first six months of 2009. (Latest stats available at time of writing.)

Summer 2009 heralded the opportunity for substantive change in the treatment of debtors in Ireland. With the assistance of Northside Community Law Centre and an amicus curiae from the IHRC, the McCann case came to the High Court where Laffoy J found the legislation allowing for imprisonment of debtors to be unconstitutional, mainly because the burden of proof over whether a debtor was wilfully refusing to pay, or unable to pay, was placed squarely on the debtor, who in most cases had no access to legal aid.

The reaction was speedy to say the least, the District Court stopped processing orders, and a new Bill was drafted and passed through the Houses. Within a matter of weeks of the McCann judgement being published, the Enforcement of Court Orders Acts 2009 was passed, containing an amendment to the 1940 Act, effectively replacing the now null section.

As the Bill was being debated the point was repeatedly made that the intention was only to correct what was identified as unconstitutional in the McCann case, there was no inclination to attempt to improve the system and introduce an alternative, more appropriate remedy to debt enforcement. Amendments put forward by Opposition, for example, to introduce an attachment order facility, were rejected on the grounds that the area of personal debt and debt enforcement are to be reviewed when the Law Reform Commission completes it’s work on the subject. The LRC’s consultation paper makes no recommendation on whether imprisonment should be retained in debt enforcement and it’s report is due to be published this year.

The Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 2009 requires two conditions to be satisfied before a judge can issue an order for imprisonment for failure to comply with the court order. It must be proven that the debtor willfully neglected to comply with the judgment order, i.e., that he is refusing to pay the debt, and also that the debtor has no goods which could be taken in execution of the debt owing, i.e., that he can pay. Thus the distinction between Can’t Pay and Won’t Pay debtors is a false distinction and Section 8 of the 2009 Act demonstrates the anomaly arising. If the debtor does not have goods which can be taken in execution of the debt owing, then irrespective of whether or not it is proven that they have willfully neglected to honour the debt, they are still unable to pay and therefore should be protected from imprisonment. On the other hand a debtor who refuses to pay and who does have goods which can be taken in execution of the debt owing is protected from imprisonment for failure to comply with the order by Section 8 of the 2009 Amendment Act.

Viewed in light of the current financial climate and the beginning stages of NAMA where we are seeing very large debts essentially be put on hold rather than enforced, it highlights the imbalance evident in a system that allows for the arrest and imprisonment of a individual over a relatively small debt. This imprisonment comes at a high monetary cost to the State, as it bears the cost of the prison sentence, along with legal fee incurred in the proceedings leading up to the sentence. Perhaps most incredibly of all – serving the sentence imposed does not discharge the debt owing.

Thanks to Maman Poulet for giving me the opportunity to make this guest post. It is a topic I’ve done a lot of research on for my MA Thesis and I appreciate being able to get it out there into the world to a ready made readership.

Louise

http://aviewintomyworld.wordpress.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Share

» 5 CommentsTags:·····

Civil Partnership Bill Committee Stage reconvenes

May 26th, 2010 · Equality, Irish Politics, LGBT, Same Sex Partnerships

At 10 am this morning in Committee Room 2, the Committee stage of the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 will reconvene.  This is the stage where amendments are proposed and debated on the bill. The first part of these proceedings took place last month and saw a number of amendments tabled by the opposition. Some of these remain to be discussed.

As reported earlier there are a number of additional amendments which will be tabled by the government. You can read these here. You will be able to watch the debate online and you can also comment on and read a live blog (tweets using #cpbill will be included).

[Read more »]

Share

» 1 CommentTags:·····

The Sky might fall down!

May 26th, 2010 · Irish Politics

A private members debate concluded tonight with the Government defeating a Fine Gael proposal to compel that by-elections to be held within six months of a vacancy arising. There are currently 3 vacancies to be filled in Donegal South West, Dublin South and Waterford. The Donegal vacancy is nearly a year old with the resignation of Pat ‘The Cope’ Gallagher after his election to the European Parliament in June of last year.

It was interesting to read the excuses why there should not be any legally based timeframe put in place for by elections to be held. However the ‘take the biscuit’ award should go the Minister for Environment and Local Government (and therefore the Minister for Elections) John Gormley.

Last night Gormley explained that some calamities might befall the state and a time limit for the holding of an election should not be imposed.

Deputy John Gormley: This Bill proposes to amend section 39 of the Electoral Act 1992 to compel the holding of a by-election not later than six months after a vacancy occurs. The Bill recognises and retains the reference to the role of the Dáil in directing that a by-election be held but then swiftly undermines that role by forcing the Dáil to act within six months. This mechanical approach to holding by-elections does not take account of unforeseen events or prevailing circumstances which may not be conducive to holding elections within that time frame. I can think of two emergency health situations in recent years – swine flu and foot and mouth disease – which could have led to the deferment of elections.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister dug deep for those.

Deputy John Gormley: We do not have control over such matters and must be able to respond appropriately. It is necessary that we retain the flexibility that allows our elected representatives to make the necessary judgement call as circumstances require.

Deputy David Stanton: There is no swine flu now.

Tonight in reply to Gormley’s speech, Alan Shatter TD (FG Dublin South) replied and suggested a few other calamities for the Minister’s list.

Should he change his mind and support the Bill this evening I would like to suggest the following Green related natural disasters that he may wish to propose be referenced in the Bill as sound grounds for postponing bye-elections. All of these are as credible as the two examples given by him of ‘unforeseen events’ that the Bill should address. They are:

1. A coup by a green army of garden gnomes

2. A volcanic eruption on Achill Island

3. A plague of locusts

4. Ireland struck by a meteorite

5. A Martian or other extra-terrestrial landing

6. The commencement in Ireland of an annual hurricane season

“Of course another defect in the Bill is the absence of any provision to prescribe an appropriate course of action should a bye-election be held and your pet dog in the polling station unexpectedly eats your ballot paper. It is surprising this was not also referenced by Minister Gormley.�

Still no sign of a by-election as the sky is not falling down (and the government do not look like winning any of them).

And Chicken Licken, Henny Penny and Goosey Loosey don’t want to go off and allow democracy.  Which one do you think Minister Gormley is ? 🙂

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Share

» 1 CommentTags:·····

Consent and RTE PrimeTime

May 24th, 2010 · Irish Media

Who checked that the people who took part in the RTE Prime Time Investigates programme last night and if they truly understood how they would be portrayed in the programme or even wanted to participate?  I refer to the people diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimers.

Their families were no doubt asked and consented for them and some are understandably hoping that services will improve as a result of taking part in the programme.

There were numerous times during this programme that I flinched. Not only for the horrific situations faced by the families and their family member affected.

But also at

  • the constant use of the word nappies (by the narrator),
  • the footage of people who could not consent being washed, changed, having incontinence pads changed,
  • the frequent conversations about someone while in their presence.
  • The question to a woman in the early stages of the illness about her fears of a nursing home without someone to support her.
  • Putting someone in and out of a car to demonstrate difficulty in care and support – who asked him did he want to do that?

Of course he couldn’t answer if asked I know but some independent advocacy or editorial advice on making this programme was badly needed to ensure the rights to dignity of people with Alzheimers and Dementia was respected at all times.  The individual rights seem to have disappeared.

It is bad enough that the state treats people so badly and services are failing to cope and nobody seems to take responsibility, our National broadcaster exploited them for their programme.

Their stories could have been told with dignity and respect and clarity regarding their needs and the deficits in support.  I should have been horrified (if unsurprised) at the failure of the system and dilemmas being faced in planning for the present and future, instead I was despairing at the manner in how it was being portrayed.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Share

» 16 CommentsTags:···