On Monday 18 April I met with a number of people who have formed a working group to pursue areas of common interest in connection with thermal energy. Peter Scallan of Celtic Linen, Eimear Mannion of Wexford Creamery and Ken Cahill of Irish Pride Bakeries came to Dublin to explain their plight in relation to energy costs. These three companies employ over 1500 people between them in Wexford and they are being forced to compete on an unlevel playing field as the county has no access to natural gas. These companies are forced to use either oil or LPG which are more than double the cost of the natural gas which is available to their competitors. To make matters worse, it also raises their carbon tax as these alternative fuels have 38% more CO2 than natural gas. Why does Wexford have no natural gas? We were always told that the principle behind the European Union was one of fairness and that it was all about the strong helping the weaker. Sadly, it doesn’t always work out like that. When we signed up to the Nice and Lisbon treaties, we gave away large advantages to global corporations who insisted on greater opportunities to compete with the different states. In other words, the ability of the state to carry out work in the social interest of its people was being challenged in the name of financial profit. Big private companies don’t do social, they do profit – and they’d like governments to behave likewise. This all means that Bord Gáis are prohibited from bringing natural gas to Wexford (via a pipeline from Kilkenny where the main Dublin/Cork line passes through) because it would not be financially profitable in the short term. Clearly this is an EU Directive that is not in the interest of the people of Wexford.

The following day I spoke on the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Bill which I believe will be an improvement on the present situation. More and more in the last few years, we have been too eager to use the prison system as a means of dealing with minor crimes and, more often than not, causing more harm than good. I said:

I began week 6 by highlighting to the Taoiseach the difficulty faced by mortgage holders, especially given the new interest rate increases, and more are likely to follow. I enquired if the government might consider mortgage debt relief for those who bought property between 2004 and 2008, rather than just kicking the can down the road with temporary relief. On Wednesday morning (13 April), I challenged Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore about the lack of real concern on the part of Angela Merkel – the person calling the shots – for those countries on the periphery of Europe like Ireland. Now that she is in fear of her own electorate, she is behaving like a good German rather than a good European – a short-term strategy which will be bad for Ireland and Europe in the long-term.

That evening, during the debate on the Education and Training Motion, I addressed the issue of the education cuts which are threatening to have a devastating effect on primary school children all over Ireland:

Week 5 was dominated by the ‘bank reorganisation’ and the EU-IMF bailout. I disagreed very strongly with the manner in which the previous government dealt with this, and I am certainly disappointed by the way the new Coalition has continued on the very same path, despite promises to the contrary. Here’s a section of my Dáil speech:

“I find it amazing how little difference there is in what the new coalition is up to in terms of dealing with the banking crisis and what the Fianna Fáil Party did prior to it taking office. Fine Gael Party and Labour Party Members should have the courtesy of bowing to Deputy Lenihan when they meet him in the corridor because they seem to agree with absolutely everything he had to offer.

I have noted a few of the nice quotes made during the election campaign. Fine Gael’s banking strategy, Credit Where Credit is Due, which is part of its five point plan, states: “Fine Gael was the first party to argue that it was unfair for the Irish people to shoulder all of the losses of our banks, and that it was right that investors who had lent recklessly to the banks should also share in the pain.” The document goes on observe: “It is neither morally right nor economically sustainable for taxpayers to be asked to beggar themselves to make massive profits for speculators.” It is hard to credit that this is the party that has given us the medicine that we have got for the past week.” (6 April 2011)

Week 4 was dominated by the Moriarty Tribunal and its findings into the behaviour of T.D. Michael Lowry and businessman Denis O’Brien, in relation to the phone licence. The manner in which both individuals cast dispersions on Judge Moriarty in their efforts to undermine the case against them left a lot to be desired – here is a part of my Dáil speech:

“I was somewhat taken aback at the manner in which Mr. Justice Moriarty and the Judiciary have been called into question. This is a dangerous road to follow. The Judiciary in Ireland is an independent and fair system. It may not get all the answers right but it is worthy of our respect. If we are not going to respect its decisions, what are we going to do? It would not stack up anymore. The core of any democracy has to be respect for what a judge decides or has to say. It is not good for us that people with influence, whether political or financial, are able to challenge the legal system with such brazenness. It is something we have to think about. I am surprised that the Government is not more outraged about this matter. We should be angry this is happening. It must seem to the ordinary people there is one rule for them and another for the people who have influence. Is this the way it is supposed to be? Is this how it will stay?

After a few weeks in the Dáil Chamber, you’d think I’d be settling in at this stage. I’m not so sure. Maybe it should be important not to ever get too settled in a structure that is in much need of change. Despite all warnings to the contrary, I have had the privilege of speaking in the chamber every day since it opened – being part of the Technical Group of Independents has certainly worked out well with regard to gaining speaking rights.

Many times during the election I was told that, as an Independent, I would find it difficult to get opportunities to express my point of view in the chamber. Obviously, influencing the decision-making process is another challenge but, for the moment, I am prepared to give the coalition the benefit of the doubt when they say that they will certainly engage with us Independents.