John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It does not give me any pleasure to put forward a motion of no confidence in any Minister or Member of the House - it is not what I am about. I speak regularly to Deputy Burton and she is very courteous to me, as I am to her. There is no animosity between the Tánaiste and myself. However, when they listen to what I have to say and to why I am angry and upset, many people may understand why this motion has been put forward.

The practice of Government Ministers appointing party favourites to State boards and quangos before a general election is a long-standing and established tradition. Fianna Fáil, which has been quick to condemn the Tánaiste in the wake of David Begg's appointment as chairman of the Pensions Authority, secured similar roles for 60 of its own supporters before it lost office in 2011, when Labour and Fine Gael promised us a new and very different type of politics that would challenge the political cronyism surrounding State board appointments.

The Tánaiste has always been a most vocal critic of political cronyism. Back in 2004, when she was the Labour Party spokesperson on finance, she said she would vigorously oppose some proposals in the new Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill. Addressing the Dáil, she said she was particularly concerned that special advisers may be able to circumvent the rules on open, competitive recruitment. She also said that public confidence must be maintained in the honesty and fairness of the public service recruitment system and she expressed grave concerns that political appointments would be made via the back-door route.

Ten years later, in the wake of the McNulty debacle, the Tánaiste was still speaking against political cronyism. She claimed to the Dáil that it was she who proposed a new process of appointments to State boards whereby Ministers choose from a short-list provided by the Public Appointments Service and she promised a system of appointments which would provide the best range and mix of people.

However, there was no range of people under consideration when she bypassed the normal appointment procedures to offer personally David Begg the Pensions Authority post, a role he has admitted he had not wanted and for which he did not apply. Last week, on national radio, one of the Tánaiste's own Labour Party Deputies asked why the rules are in place if we are not going to abide by them.

One of the most infuriating comments that has been made in recent days is the suggestion made by Mr. Begg himself that the €20,000 a year role is not lavishly paid. What an appalling insult. I could fill this Chamber a hundred times over with pensioners, people on invalidity payments, people on disability payments, low-paid workers and the unemployed, all of whom earn less than €20,000 a year. What about single mothers who would be glad of an additional income of €20,000? These people know the meaning of a pittance, but David Begg does not. These people are surviving on a pittance every week. The Tánaiste's behaviour in making this appointment, regardless of Mr. Begg's suitability for the post, flies in the face of all her promises of equity throughout her career. I have cited some of the points she has made.

At present, I am handling several cases of homelessness among young single mothers in Waterford. A major problem facing these young women and the issue driving them into homelessness is that the Government policy set down by the Tánaiste's Department delays the payment of a deposit for a property for weeks or even months. Even if these mothers could raise a deposit themselves, the current rent levels set by the Department for a single parent and child is €475, despite the average cost of a two-bedroomed house in Waterford being €700. Can we not understand why people are homeless and being driven out onto the streets?

These young mothers are shunted off to bed and breakfast accommodation indefinitely and expected to lead a normal life without a proper kitchen or laundry facilities. They have nowhere for their children to play and no hope of getting a home of their own. They have no fridge in their room to store milk, not to mind food for their children. They are living on sandwiches and takeaways and walking the town with their babies and toddlers each day in an effort to kill time as their children are not allowed to play outside their bedrooms. This is a hopeless and horrendous situation for any parent to be in. I estimate that my office has helped more homeless people in the past three months than in the entire first year I was in office. This is largely due to the policy the Tánaiste is standing over, while she appoints her buddies to comfy roles for what has been described as a pittance.

I am tired and worn out from meeting people in hopeless situations. These people have no money, no food and no clothes for their children. I work out of an office, part of which is used to provide breakfast to children each morning because they have no breakfast before going to school. How would that €20,000 fit with that family? How would it fit with the thousands of families in poverty in Ireland? The Tánaiste can see why I am angry and upset. Any Deputy in this House worth his or her salt must be experiencing the same problems of desperation, poverty and deprivation in this country. However, the Tánaiste has decided one of her buddies, who is retiring on a large pension, will be given more than what is given to an old age pensioner, somebody on social welfare, somebody on invalidity or somebody on disability, and he describes this as a pittance. Is it any wonder people are upset? The Tánaiste should listen to any of the radio programmes broadcast today and listen to what people are saying when they ring in to them.

Whether David Begg is suitable for the job of chairing the Pensions Authority is not the question here. What needs to be questioned is how the Tánaiste can hold her head high and claim she has shown equity in making this appointment. During her term as Minister for Social Protection, the rate of child homelessness has soared. The policies of her Department during her term have flown in the face of our obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to guarantee every child a minimum standard of social protection. Allowing the Minister to continue in this role and to continue, unashamedly, to endorse political cronies shows the worst form of contempt for the thousands of children whose lives have been devastated by the very policies she stands over.

I started off this debate by making the point that I hold no animosity towards the Tánaiste. She is very courteous to me and is a very nice person. However, I live in the real world. I live in a city that has had the highest rate of unemployment and subsequently one of the highest rates of poverty, deprivation and child poverty. Therefore, I know what I am talking about. I do not come in here and speak lightly on this. I have never made a personal attack on any Minister or Member of the Dáil. However, I am furious now. People have come to me and said they do not understand this. Their social welfare or children's allowance or child benefit was cut and they cannot understand how we can give somebody who has a huge pension €20,000 on top, the equivalent of what they are not getting. This has resonated with people throughout the country today.

David Begg is not the issue. I do not know whether he is suitable for the appointment. The problem is that none of us knows because he did not have to go for interview or have to submit his portfolio to stateboards.ie. He did not do that. I am sorry to have to point this out. I am comfortable with putting forward this motion. This is not something I would choose to do, but I am doing it for the hundreds of thousands of people in need and the one child in ten who is going to school in the morning hungry and without proper clothing. I am doing it for the 750,000 people in this country who, as any organisation can confirm, are on the edges of poverty, below the poverty line or about to go into poverty. That is the reason for this motion.

See this speech in context