“Putting the country first may well mean we would be better in opposition, by far….People feel it is going to be hard to drive the government and that, therefore, the people we represent might be better protected by leading the opposition.

“I think there is a strong view along those lines.”

Broughan is the first high-profile TD to publicly oppose a Coalition, though Labour Youth President Colm Lawless Councillor Cian O’Callaghan, Blanchardstown Councillor Patrick Nulty and the UNITE union have also come out against:

“”I’ve been talking to Labour party members across the country, grassroots members, councillors, and I’m also aware that a number of TDs in the party have some strong reservations about the potential for a Fine Gael-led government,” the Howth/Malahide councillor said.

“You can be absolutely certain that you’re going to see a very strong, vigorous and healthy debate on Sunday and we’ll wait to see what the outcome is.” (Cian O’Callaghan)

“I fear that Labour’s influence will be minuscule and that we are about to allow Fine Gael a free reign on introducing harsh austerity measures which will hit ordinary people hardest..I fear that Labour’s influence will be minuscule and that we are about to allow Fine Gael a free reign on introducing harsh austerity measures which will hit ordinary people hardest,” said the Trinity College Dublin student.

“Fine Gael do not rely on Labour to remain in office and this is a serious concern…In the case of not holding a balance of power it is wise for us to remain in opposition.”

Mr O’Callaghan said four TDs had personally expressed their opposition to him about a prospective coalition.

“Unite has campaigned during this general election for a Labour-led left government…We were promoting that our members would vote for the Labour Party; we wanted Eamon Gilmore as taoiseach.” (Jimmy Kelly, UNITE Regional Secretary)

“If a programme for government is put to Labour members, I believe we should reject it and instead put the country first and push for . . . transformation in our political system” (Councillor Patrick Nulty)

“Meanwhile, Labour Party MEP Proinsias De Rossa has said his party should be prepared to go into Opposition.

In a statement, Mr De Rossa said that Labour should defend the interests of its core constituency – low and middle-income earners – by having key elements of its social democratic policies implemented.

He said that if Fine Gael did not accept these requirements, Labour should not enter a Coalition.” (RTE)

Meanwhile, FG’s Immigration and Integration Spokesperson Lucinda Creighton has called for the party to sound out Independent TDs as her supporters were rejecting Labour, “higher taxes” and “going soft on cuts”:

“People voting for me and voting for my colleagues were coming from Fianna Fáil and PD backgrounds. They were voting against Labour and against higher taxes and going soft on cuts. We will be punished if we were to say we would not try to see if there were other viable alternatives”

Creighton’s stance comes amid tensions over the next occupant of the Department of Finance and contrasts with FG Grandees who have largely dismissed a deal with “flakey” Independents. This is in spite of a public offer from Dublin South poll-topper Shane Ross TD for an agreement with up to 8 Independent TDs. Among Independents who might be prepared to support a FG-minority government are Noel Grealish (publicly pledged for vote for Kenny as a “West of Ireland” Taoiseach, former FG TD Michael Lowry, Michael Healy-Rae, former FF TD Tom Fleming, Luke “Ming” Flanagan (who claims to agree with many FG policies), Stephen Donnelly (backed by David McWilliams in Wicklow), former FF TD Mattie McGrath and Shane Ross. Neither of these constitute part of the Leftist-bloc of ULA or SP Independents. An alliance with FG would produce 84 seats and allow FG to reward impressive performers who played a decisive role in shaping policy and building the foundations for the party’s spectacular gains which have made the party – for the first time in Irish political history – the largest in the State. A Coalition with Labour, in constrast, is likely to require the sacrifice of up to 6 Cabinet seats – possibly including the ‘Holy Grail’ of the Department of Finance. With double the seat numbers of Labour, the surrender of the most powerful position at the Cabinet (arguably more so in a Coalition than that of Taoiseach) would raise the spectre of a repeat of the unpopular 1982-7 FG-Labour Government where the senior party was abandoned en masse in the succeeding General Election as conservative and libertarian FG voters defected to the PDs, depriving the party of one-quarter of its vote and consigning it to 22 years (consecutive apart from an interlude in 1992-4) to the political-wilderness.

Any Coalition agreement will have to be ratified by Labour’s Special Delegate Conference and by FG TDs and Senators. Unions will have 10% of the votes while Labour Youth will havd 45 votes at the conference.

MANY IN Britain, who came through the harrowing years of war, the London blitz, the struggle to defend against invasion and the eventual defeat of Germany, recall the period as one of great personal fulfilment and satisfaction. British political parties set aside their differences and formed a national government of unity for the duration of the war. The prime minister’s inspired leadership rallied people to the cause; the parliamentary routine of peacetime was abandoned. A united people responded to the challenge and, under conditions of great hardship, contributed to the war effort and ultimately took satisfaction in the successful outcome.

If this is meant as an analogy to Ireland’s current situation, it’s a very incomplete one.

Here’s the thing: Britain’s National Government was formed in 1931, in the midst of the Great Depression, not with the onset of the World War II.  Here’s the relevant Wikipedia entry and the key thing that comes out is that while economic crisis did produce a durable national government, it didn’t produce consensus.  Instead, 2 of the then big parties (Labour and Liberal) had splits, while over time the government became a Tory Plus model, albeit with hybrid policies, for example austerity also with protectionism and devaluation.

So in the Irish case, if FF saw salvation (i.e. a chance at staying in power) coming in the shape of Labour and FG endorsement, which parties would be most likely to split and whose policies would emerge from the sausage grinder at the end?

And incidentally, when a true national unity government was formed in 1940, the one that Walsh has in mind, it involved the resignation of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain.   It’s hard to see Irish politics producing an admission of failure.

It appears the Government will restructure the way civil servant pensions are paid from its current form; people are paid based on what they were earning at the end of their career; to paid as per the average salary they earned over the course of their 25 year career.

So, you go in there as a clerical officer at 20 years old, move up the ladder in the well-known un-meritocratic way, eventually 25 years  later, reaching principal or assistant principal grade upon retirement.

As you hit the rocking-chair, those who started their career under the pre-Budget scheme would have pensions based on the salary of a principal officer. However, it appears for post-Budget entrants to the civil service, pensions will be based on whatever the median salary was earned over the full 25 years. It’ll mean those who enter the public service from next year onwards will have a pension of approximately 50% the value of those who entered this year…fuck. An odd system to say the least (to me) not alone in the way it is calculated, but in the way it will impact work practices…

The civil service is demoralised and at present – from the outside – unmotivated. The new pension policy doesn’t look like it will change this – why bother busting your arse for the last 10 years of your career when a promotion will mean very very little to your pension?

On productivity; the top ranks of the civil service are often capable people, but I’m left wondering will they be so in twenty years time under this new system, when the monetary motivation at least, will be minimal. “Reform of the public sector”, I think not.

Of course, the other side of this is the fact that short-term benefits, which we need most, are almost non-existent. Odd indeed, on first viewing.

Warning 2: I am about attempt electoral mathematics. I am a journalist.

Warning 3: I know you can’t reduce voting preferences to maths, so don’t bring that up. Yes this is speculation for the sake of discussion. I am a journalist.

–

I have been in contact with the Green Party Press Office. Here’s the low down…

Valid motions on NAMA have come from four Green Party branches, these are Dublin South Central, Dublin Central, Kerry North and Waterford. Motions from Dublin South West and Mayo West were also tabled but proved invalid, they were either not placed on the agenda or tabled too late. Thus, in total six branches have tabled NAMA-sceptic motions, but four have been accepted.

Five branches are required to table a motion to force a special party convention. Thus, it seems a special convention is not “likely” but inevitable.

The total number of members in the four which are officially NAMA-sceptic is 170. However, it would be unfair to assume that every member of those branches would vote against supporting NAMA. Let’s, for arguments’ sake, take it that 60% this group will vote against the proposed legislation – 102 votes. Then, let’s knock another 35% off that figure for the members who will won’t show up to cast their ballot – we’re then down to 66 votes.

I couldn’t get the official numbers on members in Mayo West or Dublin South West but am told that they are fairly weak areas of Green Party activity – a maximum number of 50 was mentioned by a Green member. Again, let’s take 60% of them as NAMA-sceptic and drop 35% – that’s 20 votes.

So, currently there’s a specualtive number of 86 anti-NAMA votes from a section of Green Party membership that had 220 voters – of which I’m taking 143 to be active voters.

This would likely be unrepresentative of the rest of the Green grassroots – all branches didn’t table a NAMA-sceptic motion – but it is worth taking the maths one step further.

Approximately 400 members voted at the recent Green special convention on Lisbon II. Of that number 170 (220 minus 35%), under my dodgey calculations, would have been from one of the six overtly NAMA-sceptic branches. This seems disproportionate but as far as I’m aware the Dublin branches are on average far larger than the non-Dublin branches, and three of the overtly NAMA-sceptic branches are in Dublin, so it makes sense (to me, anyway).

So that leaves 230 members from other non-NAMA-sceptic or covertly, thus far, NAMA-scepetic branches who are active voters. Considering that these members are part of a generally non-NAMA-sceptic group and that the majority of remaining Greens have followed the leadership’s line since entering Government, I’m going to take 20% of these as potential anti-NAMA voters. That’s 44 votes.

So, 44 plus 86 gives a total of 130 anti NAMA-support votes from a figure of 400. That verges on the 1/3 needed to defeat the 2/3rd majority required for an internal Green vote to pass.

But, as I said, you can’t reduce a vote to maths – but you can try.

My own non-mathematical politics-junkie-looking-for-a-fix take on it…

The grassroots won’t pull to legs from under the leadership with the renegoiation of the programme for Government on the horizon. The leadership know this and will make certain promises. The NAMA vote will get a 2/3rd majority and it’ll come down to the programme for Gov’t.

What do you lot make of it?

The Government now has 83 votes, including Jim McDaid but not today’s two. It consists of 72 Fianna Fáil TDs, 6 Greens, two former Progressive Democrats, Jackie Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry and Jim McDaid.

The Opposition is made up of 52 Fine Gaelers, 20 Labour TDs, four Shinners, Maureen O’Sullivan, Joe Behan and Finian McGrath – total, 79.

There is one vacant seat which will be filled by the winner of the Donegal bye-election. Then the two martyrs of today. The Ceann Chomhairle, former Fianna Fáil minister for arts, sport and tourism, John O’Donaghoe, would have the casting vote.

So, if today’s two decide to vote against the Government, as Joe Behan has done, then the government:opposition ratio will be 83:81. That would leave it in the hands of Jackie Healy-Rae and Michael Lowry or Jim McDaid. If one of that trio moves then there’s a hung Dáil, two – we’re on.

Considering that the Budget will undoubtedly impact the health system massively, the likelihood is that by that time the HSE will be receiving some awful press for its handling of swine flu and that the two martyrs have resigned over cut backs in the health system, the today’s two voting against the Budget is plausible. Being honest, I can’t see them voting against anything else prior but Budget will be a tester. I reckon this is a PR exercise, but one that they may live to regret. Still, the politics are worth exploring…

So, for the sake of argument lets take it that Scanlon and Devins will vote against the Budget…

Obviously Lowry is the most likely to move. While he’s a Fine Gaeler at heart, he has voted with the Gov’t since the last General Election. But there are a few scenarios that could see him make The Big Switch. The first – and least likeliest – is that in knowing the forthcoming revelations from the Moriarty Tribunal won’t paint him in a good light, he’ll look for positive press to balance the scales – switching allegiances thus causing the dominoes to begin falling could make him a God in North Tipp. And not alone would it concrete his seat, it would also bury all of Moriarty coverage. But, like I said, that’s least likely.

Alternatively, he could could do it in the first few weeks after the Dáil returns if Fine Gael table a motion that targets his voters’ demographic. That might force his hand.

However, the most likely scenario of the ones I’m proposing is that he’ll vote against the Budget in November. As I have said previously, Snip doesn’t treat rural Ireland nicely – the next budget is going to be largely based on Snip. Voting down a vicious budget, in the process saving the people of North Tipp from the wrath of the Department of Finance in Dublin and bringing down an extremely unpopular Fianna Fáil Government would make Michael a hero at home. Being seen to prop up the Fianna Fáilers would not look too spiffing.

If Cowen & Co. are to avoid Lowry voting against a Government, in my opinion, they’ll have to promise him the world. Doing that would not be easy. There is no doubt that the Budget will be painful for rural Ireland, farmers will be up in arms, the REPs scheme may go – these are not issues from which Lenihan could omit North Tipp.

But if Lowry doesn’t go, Healy-Rae might. While the man may appear to be a complete mess he is one of the must shrewd local politicians in the country. However, the Budget will also cause uproar amongst his constituents. My prediction: Healy-Rae won’t be quite so Fianna Fáil now that the Castleisland bypass has been signed off on. He may have Fianna Fáil in his blood but he’s a TD to the bone, the Budget will cause conversation in the Healy-Rae camp.

Of course there’s still a chance that McDaid could vote against his brothers. Some would argue he is more likely to do so than Healy-Rae, I’m not so sure. Other potential movers include Paul Gogarty and John McGuinness. Gogarty has been searching for something to vote against for months, the Budget, which will of course hit education, may just be too tempting. John McGuinness is an even less likely rebel but I wouldn’t put it past him.

So, to sum up, for the parties to switch sides would require today’s two and two more to vote for the Opposition, John O’Donaghoe is highly unlikely to vote against the Government.

While they’re safe for now they are looking more shaky than the period post-medical card debacle. The Fianna Fáil whip will have a big task to make sure all the crew show up for every vote. They still have to go through the Commission on Taxation report, the probable explosion in swine flu cases following the schools returning, Lisbon II, the Greens’ vote on the Programme for Government and then the renegotiation of the Programme for Gov’t, all before the Budget. If they do get through the Budget they’ll have to face a bye-election which would almost surely close what is left of the majority yet further…

Is there a way this Government can go full term? If not, any opinions on what will be the straw that breaks the camels back?

PS – Greens. Rocks & hard places.

–

In a decision sure to spark furious condemnation from “no” campaigners, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has announced new regulations on airtime set to grant the political-parties the vast majority of airtime during the campaign.

Broadcasters are not required to allocate exactly the same amount of time to both the Yes and No campaign when it comes to editorial coverage.

However, they must ensure that the total airtime given over to political party broadcasts is equal.

The guidelines come into effect from Friday, ahead of polling on October 2.

Willie O’Reilly, chairman of the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, said the Coughlan case meant broadcasters were strait-jacketed into dividing time equally, regardless of the merits of any argument.

“The perversity of this is that weak arguments gain traction with repetition, and charismatic leaders of doubtful representation are feted by the media,” he said.

“It is a cranks’ charter….Fine Gael TD Jim O’Keeffe said the forthcoming referendum on children’s rights had cross-party support, but the policy of giving equal airtime to both sides in a referendum debate could result in a group such as “a paedophile association” being given 50 per cent coverage”.

Article 40.1 of the Bunreacht na h-Eireann – largely the basis of the Supreme Court judgements – states:

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Mr Grealish also expressed confidence that he, Ms Harney and Ms O’Malley could forge a loose alliance that would act together when negotiating the programme for government and supporting the Fianna Fáil-led Coalition.

“I am hopeful the three of us can sit down and decide the best course of action. We have not had any discussions yet,” he said.

Ms Harney said she hoped that such an arrangement could be made.

She added: “The one thing the country needs above everything else is stability in government so that we can take very tough decisions. The decisions we will take in September and October will be much tougher than anything that has been seen in Ireland before.”

Is it right that the PDs will look to influence the renegotiation on the programme for government considering they were largely rejected not exactly endorsed by the electorate on the last occasion and will not be around to govern for the next one?

Cutting an expected comment off at the pass: Yes, the Greens are a small party and it could be argued that they will have a disproportionate influence on the program for government (on a TD to TD ratio) but at least they will be around after it is implemented, the PDs won’t. It’s therefore three individuals, one of whom wasn’t elected, looking to influence the direction of a Government they won’t be part of (collectively).

Cutting second expected comment off at the pass: The PDs, as a party, will look to influence the program for government in a specific ideological direction – which is different to what independent TDs do.

Or is it? Comments below.

Addressing the MacGill Summer School in Glenties, Co Donegal, the Green Party Finance spokesperson said progress required a prompt end to the culture of ‘No Blame – No Shame.’ He said this culture – in both politics and the public service – meant there was no challenge to the serious wrongdoing and rank incompetence which characterised Irish banking through the past decade.

However, the release, the full text of which is below, although headlined “End ‘No Blame, No Shame’ Culture in banking and politics“, covers little to do with politics. It rails against the “rank incompetence” that permeates the banking sector, politicians get a sentence or two near the bottom before he gets back to financiers… whether “politics” really warrants inclusion in the headline is arguable.

So, the ‘No Blame, No Shame Culture’ for Politicians must end?

Tell me again, who are the Greens in Government with? What is happening down at the Moriarty Tribunal with Michael Lowry – also a member of the coalition – at the minute? Anyone know of a Beverly Cooper-Flynn?

No blame and shame from the Greens for that lot?

Surely the guy who was finance minister while all this lax regulation was taking place should be blamed and shamed too? Someone tell me, what’s he up to these days?… Spinning so much the blame won’t stick, that’s what he’s up to.

What about the guy who was leader of the country for the whole decade-plus of “incompetence”, is he still kicking around the Government benches? While we’re looking for him, here’s a hint, if he’s not in the bookies or on the backbenches he might still be on Planet Bertie.

Aside: Planet Bertie, where John Gormley, Dan’s boss, said the man with whom he subsequently entered Government resided in a famed Green speech back in 2007. In fairness though, Bertie’s not in the Galway Tent, but that’s means little considering we know exactly where he isn’t, unshamed and unblamed.

Incidentally, that Gormley speech ended “let there be no doubt, we want Fianna Fáil and the PDs out of Government”.

Anywhooo…

The Boyle press release goes on to say…

Irish bank bosses were hugely arrogant and dismissed warnings. He and other Green Party politicians, Eamon Ryan and Trevor Sargent, met senior bankers before the 2007 general election and expressed their fears about property market overheating and potential mass loan defaulting.
“The response to our concerns was that we didn’t understand banking and that everything in the garden was rosy,” Senator Boyle recalled.

Heartbreaking.

“The Green Party Finance spokesperson called for the prompt appointment of a new Financial Regulator and the inclusion of overseas experts in the planned Central Banking Commission to promote international best practice in Ireland”

Only the in the financial sector, Dan?

If the Greens are to retain any credibility when with the wider electorate they must begin to look at themselves as Government partners, not an internal opposition. Releases like this one simply draw attention to exactly what has not been achieved, exactly who they are now bed-mates with and illustrate the political naivety within the party. Boyle’s talking the talk but Planet Bertie is still taking visitors.

It’s a farcical position – you’re either in Government with Fianna Fáil, or you’re not. You either accept he put money on the horses and don’t blame and shame, or you blame and shame, get public assurances that the deadwood will be cut from the backbenches, and don’t bother issuing press releases… one or the other.

–

Full Text: End ‘No-blame No-Shame’ Culture in politics and banking

People need to see the successful prosecution of wrong-doers in banking and financial services before they can re-gain confidence in the system, Senator Dan Boyle said today.

Addressing the MacGill Summer School in Glenties, Co Donegal, the Green Party Finance spokesperson said progress required a prompt end to the culture of ‘No Blame – No Shame.’

He said this culture – in both politics and the public service – meant there was no challenge to the serious wrongdoing and rank incompetence which characterised Irish banking through the past decade.

The Green Party Chairman said we had become sadly familiar with what he called the ‘Byzantine world of Irish banking’ in the recent past. “The twin peaks of incompetence and illegality have been scaled with a frightening regularity. There is a public hunger for prosecutions, which I hope will happen, but it will be difficult because of the failures of regulation to date,” Senator Boyle said.

He said that Irish people, living in a small country where many people knew each other, always had difficulty publicly challenging problems. Irish banking had changed very rapidly in the 1990s from a small, very conservative operation to a huge multinational business which went largely unregulated.

Irish bank bosses were hugely arrogant and dismissed warnings. He and other Green Party politicians, Eamon Ryan and Trevor Sargent, met senior bankers before the 2007 general election and expressed their fears about property market overheating and potential mass loan defaulting.

“The response to our concerns was that we didn’t understand banking and that everything in the garden was rosy,” Senator Boyle recalled.

The Green Party Senator said the culture of ‘No Blame – No Shame’ extended across the Irish public service and into Irish politics. He was surprised that he was the first person to publicly call for the resignation of Financial Regulator – not a member of the Opposition parties.

He said the regulation system under the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority had failed to deliver for a number of reasons. There were not enough resources; staff salaries were too low to keep skilled staff; and a key factor was the failure to enact many of the tougher regulatory provisions of the legislation.

He said former Progressive Democrat Leader, Michael McDowell, had a role in framing the law and that former Finance Minister, Charlie McCreevy, promised new and bolder regulation. “It is hard to imagine that argument now and keep a straight face,” Senator Boyle said.

The Green Party Finance spokesperson called for the prompt appointment of a new Financial Regulator and the inclusion of overseas experts in the planned Central Banking Commission to promote international best practice in Ireland’s financial affairs.

Fixing the banks by removing their toxic assets as well as their performing property loans is the purpose of NAMA, in the process establishing the biggest state property company in the world. (As an aside, an optimistic column in this week’s Sunday Times suggests an unintended consequence may be to finally bring some common sense into our planning system as NAMA will herald an end to the days, never to be allowed to return again, of local authorities tacking ridiculous planning schemes for see-through shopping centres, malls and apartment blocks onto the outskirts of towns and villages throughout the country simply to swell their coffers with developers’ fees.)

Then there’s the murky, messy issue of restoring competitiveness to the Irish economy, to ensure our readiness to participate in a global upsurge in demand when the great recession comes to an end, whenever that may be. Competitiveness is linked into the other three in one way or another, as well as to pay cuts throughout the public and private sectors, cost of living, cost of government services, energy costs and just about everything else you can think of.

The McCarthy Report is like one of those awful TV programmes like ‘How Clean is Your House?’, where the team wades in and tears out decades of clutter and rubbish of which the immediate residents have grown rather fond, even if it long since ceased to serve any useful purpose and is, in fact, injurious to their long term health and happiness.

Out go long-cherished principles of universality in healthcare and social welfare provision and education and in the conditions and perks that public servants from politicians to barristers to teachers to gardai, and just about every other agent of the state, thought of as their just and rightful entitlements. From farmers to gaelgeoirs to artists, the message is: you can sink or swim, but there is no State-sponsored financial safety net to keep you afloat any longer.

It’s revolutionary, but it’s not coming about by choice. Colm McCarthy was at pains to stress the point in various interviews since his report came out that the State is borrowing €400m a week to pay for wages and public services and social welfare. That the debt market from which this money is being borrowed is not the debt market of the 1980s when Ireland and couple of other countries were the only countries drawing on it. That it is already overstretched by the demands of the bigger countries like the US and the UK that sooner rather than later it will turn off the tap on small countries like ours, particularly if we are seen to be doing nothing to reduce our borrowing requirement. The day arrives when there is no money to pay civil servants salaries, or teachers’ and doctors’ pay or social welfare payments to the unemployed; no money at all, not even for ministerial pensions and TDs’ expenses.

His second major point is historical: in the 1980s we tried to tax our way out of recession; and only succeeded in keeping the pain going right throughout the decade. Therefore, logic suggests that we make a huge and painful adjustment on board now; since it will be less painful in the long run.

The third point which he didn’t make, but was made elsewhere, is that much of the money that was expended on creating so many state services, indulging the vanity projects of individual ministers and departments and accelerating increases in social welfare payments and pensions and state supports, ahead of inflation, were bankrolled out of receipts of property taxes and stamp duty, and in the case of local authorities, developers’ fees and the like. We may not have known it at the time, but that too was ‘borrowed’ money. Those particular chickens have come home to roost on the rickety fences of our fiscal imbalance as well as the crumbled edifice of our banking system.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow. The fact is this was never ‘a rich little country’ as so many of our political class universally claimed as they sloshed money around or demanded even more expenditure to cure every social ill that came to light. Worse, nobody cares a stuff what happens to us; we’re entirely insignificant. So much for Ireland ‘punching above its weight’ on every global street corner!

Government Ministers, understandably, have nothing to say on the McCarthy cuts agenda, since they cannot pre-empt either the estimates process or the Cabinet decisions that they will have to take in the Autumn. Even the Green Party ministers, as partners in Government, are circumspect on what will comprise an acceptable package, until their negotiations with Fianna Fail on a redirection of the Programme for Government are completed.

A quick scan of the Fine Gael website might give rise to the impression that the McCarthy report was not published at all last week – with the exception of some non-committal contributions to radio and TV debates by Richard Bruton, the party’s silence on the report has been notable. Predictably, the Labour Party has issued a raft of statements pointing out the disastrous consequences of McCarthy’s prescriptions in every area of the public services, but without proposing alternatives. The public service trades unions distinguished themselves by rejecting the report even before it was issued and other interest groups, notably including the IFA, are gearing up to preventing any cuts that will affect their particular sector. If the Government buckles and goes along with what suits its political interests rather than the national interests, then the game’s up. The worst political delusion probably is that things can’t get any worse than they are now.

At the end of it all we can be sure of one thing: Humpty Dumpty Ireland will never look quite the same again. And if our national capacity for self-aggrandisement and self-delusion are among the things that are swept away, maybe it’s no bad thing at all.

People were found by Prime Time restrained in buxton chairs, in flithy conditions. The HSE went on for a limited, ultimately unpublishable, inquiry chaired by Prof. Des O’Neill. It is not hard to see why. Yesterday’s report hangs the HSE for overlooking a registered complaint about conditions at the home while considering the proposed relicencing. Let us think about that for a second.

As Leas Cross applied to increase capacity, an inspection report raised serious concerns as the process of reregistration took place. No one is named in the chain of events and following the line of General Manager A to Inspector X etc makes for difficult reading, however, the conflict of evidence leaves the commission with one big headache.

It is not possible for the Commission to determine conclusively where ultimate responsibility lay for decisions regarding registration. It is clear from the foregoing conflict of evidence that there was a lack of understanding within the Health Boards to where that responsibility lay, which meant that nobody appears to have been accountable for such important decisions.
…
From the evidence submitted to the Commission, it appears that, once the registration of Leas Cross had expired, it was renewed automatically with no regard to the suitability of the home for re-registration, to previous inspection reports, to outstanding complaints or to the need to impose conditions. In particular, it is clear that the nursing home was re-registered notwithstanding the existence of a erious complaint of which the inspectors and Health Board management were aware….
Nonetheless, it is the opinion of the Commission that the practice of the Health Board in this regard seriously undermined the inspection process and potentially posed serious risks for the residents of nursing homes

So accountability is lacking, the chain of command is all over the place and ultimately decisions made by executives undermined the system of inspections meant to protect patients. Protect patients you say? From what?

The first complaint to the Health Board in 2004 was made on the 15th January by Mary Hegarty regarding the care of her mother, Catherine Mullins. Ms Mullins had been resident in Leas Cross since June, 2003, suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Following a number of complaints to the matron at Leas Cross relating to the failure of the staff to understand the needs of an Alzheimer’s patient, an incident occurred in January, 2006 which persuaded the family to move their mother elsewhere. Ms Hegarty visited the home to find her mother slumped on a couch in the foyer, in pain and wearing soiled clothes. She received little assistance from the staff in trying to help her mother and she also found that her mother’s medication had been left in her room. The family removed Ms Mullins from Leas Cross a few days later.

This is private enterprise folks. There were four complaints in 2004 relating to patients being pushed down the stairs, having raw sewage in their rooms and this final one:

The final complaint in 2004 was made on the 1st October by the husband of a resident suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, who developed a serious bed-sore while in Leas Cross. The family of the resident in question have asked to remain anonymous. The nursing home had been informed at the time the complainant’s wife was admitted that she was susceptible to pressure sores. A serious sore developed on her sacrum, which was treated in the Mater on three occasions in 2004 and recurred despite treatment. A wound specialist at the Mater Hospital asked for better cleaning of the wound by nursing home staff. The complainant ascribes the repeated development of the sore to the fact that his wife was allowed to spend long periods sitting in her wheelchair…
On the 1st October, 2004, the complainant wrote to the Nursing Home Section Manager to complain about the medical care provided to his wife at Leas Cross…
The complainant did not receive a reply to his complaint until the 18th February, 2005, by which time his wife had died…

It goes on, I cannot reproduce them all here so I have extracted the complaints section of the report and embedded the document at the bottom of the page – you can also get it here. The complaints pre-existed the Prime Time exposé in 2005. The HSE knew about the issues but continued the process of re-registering. The inseption process was in pretty bad shape at that point.

In a statement to the Commission one nursing home inspector described the nursing home inspection process in place in 2004 / 2005 as having “major deficiencies”, including the following:

• Staff involved in Nursing Home inspections were covering “many other duties” in addition to their inspection work.

• The Nursing Homes (Care and Welfare) Regulations 1993 were “vague and unspecific.”

• The guidelines provided to inspectors “…did not set out basic clinical standards to be expected in nursing homes and there were few clinical parameters by which nursing homes were to be assessed.”

• Staffing requirements for nursing homes “were not specified.”

• There was “a lack of regulation or clarity” with regard to the role of the inspection team in assessing medical care.

• The level of medical cover necessary in a nursing home was not specified in the Nursing Home Regulations or any HSE guidelines.

• There were no guidelines regarding training for the post of medical officer in a nursing home.
…
The Commission considers that, in the exercise of the duty of care identified above, a more consistent approach during inspections to examining residents would have identified care-related problems such as pressure sores and dehydration earlier and would have enabled inspectors to ensure that adequate steps were taken by the nursing home to develop prevention procedures and to treat residents where necessary.

The dedicated nursing home inspection team, established in October, 2004, introduced a new inspection form. That form does not appear to have been used in relation to Leas Cross Nursing Home.

I realise at this point I am block quoting a lot, but words of my own would fail to communicate the scale of the failure at Leas Cross. In advance of the Prime Time report, the issues were being aired and the system was failing horribly. Attention to patient welfare was suffering, an atmosphere of untrammeled expansion pervaded and the HSE was happy to continue paying the home in order to provide care. At a high level decisions were taken that were, to say the least, harmful.

To underline this point and in a final piece of blockquoting, I want to share some concerns from the St Itas bed management committee, whose patients they had referred to Leas Cross.

It seems that the Psychiatry of Old Age team continued to have concerns regarding the standard of care at Leas Cross. Amongst the documents disclosed to the Commission is a draft letter dated the 15th July, 2004 from the St Ita’s Bed Management Committee to Nursing Home Inspector H which is headed “Re Leas Cross Nursing Home”. The draft letter states:

“On our previous and recent review visits to Leas Cross, the ambience and décor of the building was pleasant. On interviewing our patients, a percentage of them complained re the inappropriate use of incontinence pads. Another ambulant patient’s shoes were missing for two days. His relatives who were visiting at the time expressed their concerns to us. Four of our patients were sitting in wheelchairs and others in old buxton chairs. General personal hygiene was poor with evidence clearly visible. Their clothes were grubby in appearance and a few patients had a strong odour of incontinence. The heating in the sitting room in the older part of the building was stifling with a large radiator extremely hot.

The staffing appeared inadequate with only one qualified staff nurse and nine care staff caring for sixty five residents in one area, and one qualified staff nurse and four attendants caring for approximately forty residents in another area.

We would like to raise these issues as causes for concern. Many of these issues could be resolved with adequate staffing levels and examination of standards
…”

I want to leave with two elements, the first is this from Carl O Brien in the Irish Times: “But Leas Cross wasn’t alone. There are many others which have been subject to serious concerns or investigation, but never received the same glare of publicity.

St Mary’s, a public nursing home in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, has been the subject of allegations of mistreatment of residents. One such allegation concerns an older person suffering from dementia who had her mouth taped by a staff member to keep her quiet.

The Tara Care Centre in Bray, Co Wicklow, breached care and welfare standards, which led to the disappearance of one of its residents. Health authorities tried closing another nursing home in Dublin over fears that residents were at risk because of improper administration of drugs and staff shortages.

These are just a handful of homes. In an environment where a shortage of nursing home beds existed, in conjunction with a tax incentive-fuelled rush to build new homes, an issues like standards were relegated to one of minor consideration.

Leas Cross was just a symptom of institutional abuse and the State’s laissez fair attitude towards the area. With the exception of some figures, this was a systemic failure by Government, health authorities and other groups to address the issue of appropriate quality of care for older people.”

This is what we should all bear in mind, Leas Cross is not an isolated case, it is the wider problems made particular to one home. For sure it is a worst case but the systemic failure is broad based and the abuse of conditions pervasive as a result.

Consider these conclusions from the report just below and ask whether the publishing of this report yesterday and the subsequent position of the Minister do justice to the scale of the horror uncovered. Fiachra O Cionnaith in the Examiner today has an excellent article on the reaction from families – you will recognise their stories from the report extracts above.
Leas Cross Inquiry Conclusions

This is the section relating to complaints made to the home about care:
Section of Leas Cross Report from Pg 113-122 regarding complaints made