Aidan Culhane: Dublin South: Comment

Well, we're off and running. Three weeks to go, an...

2007-05-03T10:14:00.000+01:00

Well, we're off and running. Three weeks to go, and all to play for. As I'm unlikely to be updating the site over the next few weeks, if you're looking for Labour policy, please go to http://www.labour.ie. If you're looking for my views on any local or constituency issue, please send an email or give me a ring. The Election office number is 01 2164445.

Special educational needs speech

2007-02-27T21:45:00.000Z

[as delivered]

In this party, we believe that our schools are for everyone. We also believe that everyone should have an equal chance of success in life. But they don’t. Children with special educational needs should be part of the mainstream in any education system.

We are still leaving children behind. Only half of our school pupils have direct access to an educational psychologist. The rest wait months for their needs to be assessed. They need an assessment to be eligible for learning support, so long delays can hold children back for up to a whole school year.

I have a long list of figures and statistics here, but the long and the short of it is this: it is frightening how often people raise with me the problems of getting assessments and supports for children with conditions like dyspraxia and ADHD.

You know, we often talk about the health service and the education system and all the things that are wrong with them, but for the parents of children with special needs in education, it’s not a system or a service. It’s their child. It’s their child who is being held back, who is being denied an opportunity to succeed. They know that their child’s condition can usually be fully resolved with the proper treatment. They know that the best chance of success is early treatment, but they’re told that they have to wait months to even get an assessment.

So what you are often left with is parents in despair because they can’t get the treatment for their child; a child who can’t learn in the way they should; a teacher frustrated trying to deal with a large class that includes a child with special needs; and a class of children who may not be able to progress in the way they should because one or two children don’t have the resources to learn with the rest.

Surely we can do better than this. Surely we can provide an education for our children that is supportive of all kinds of talents, intelligences and personalities, and which allows all children to realise their full potential.

So let’s not get into a slagging match with the government. Let’s stop talking about the failures of the present. Let’s just say that this is a priority for the Labour Party, and in government this is what Labour will do to address the problem. We have the money, let’s spend it.

There are two things that need to be done. The first is to get children’s needs assessed quickly, and the second is learning support in schools.

At the moment, only 127 educational psychologists are employed by the state to serve a school-going population of almost 800,000. Thousands of learning support staff have been added to the payroll in recent years, but without a corresponding increase in either special educational needs training or professional educational psychologists to support their work.

We will fully resource the National Educational Psychologist Service so that it employs 400 professional state psychologists by the end of our first term of government. This will ensure that special needs are identified quickly. It will also mean that every school in the country will have direct access to a psychologist who will work with teachers, parents and learning support staff to create an environment that is supportive of children with special needs, and which does not isolate them from their classmates.

And under Labour, delegates, that will be the best education that we can provide. It is the least our children – all of our children – deserve.

Labour should be more independent

2006-11-01T21:34:00.000Z

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” John Maynard Keynes

For the record I spoke and voted against the Leadership motion on electoral strategy at Labour’s conference in May of last year.

And I now believe, in the aftermath of two bad polls for Labour and Fine Gael, that the time has to revisit that decision.

I believe the concern expressed by those of us who feared that an electoral pact with Fine Gael has been vindicated since that date. In three of the last four polls Labour has been at 10%, a point and a half below our General Election performance in 2002.

I don’t like a politics that is about ruling people out, particularly from a party with our share of the vote. More especially I believe that the nature of the pact we are now in forces us to define our politics in a negative way. From my experience on the doorsteps, the Opposition is perceived as being against things. In doing so, even though Labour in particular played a key role in the origins of the Celtic Tiger, we are perceived as being begrudging about the progress made in recent years. And, let’s be honest, progress there has been. Not enough, and certainly not as much as an imaginative Government could provide, but progress nonetheless.

The reality is that the people I meet on the doorsteps recognize the limitations in this Government. They know they were lied to in the run up to the last General Election. They are, I believe, open to arguments that suggest things can be done differently. As an opposition, we haven’t been making enough of them.

My view, that Labour should contest the election as an independent party, is as strong as ever. I see no reason whatsoever why my party should argue for the election of the leaders of either ‘tweedledum’ or 'tweedlee' as Taoiseach. There are enough people deluded on this subject without us adding to it. In fact, though I differ with him on the strategy issue, I firmly believe that my party leader, Pat Rabbitte, is the most talented and able of the three party leaders. We should not be subordinating our presentation of him to that of the Fine Gael leader, which this strategy does at the moment.

I do accept though that my view is probably still a minority one within the party and that a decision was taken by the party conference last year. Pat Rabbitte is not going to ditch Enda Kenny at this stage, however much I wish he would.

But even within the confines of the strategy we adopted at Tralee, I believe there is considerable scope for a more independent presentation of both Labour and Fine Gael.

At the time we were told by Pat Rabbitte that Labour would enter the election on an independent platform, albeit under the auspices of agreed principles with Fine Gael. That however has not happened. Rather we are moving towards agreement on a broad common platform as evidenced by the publication of a recent document on health care.

I believe this has come to the detriment of both parties.

The truth is that we are not that similar. Our supporters look for different things from us. In some cases, like the Aer Lingus privatization, those demands are polar opposites. By doing our compromising before the election, we are minimizing our appeal to our respective constituencies. In our case that makes us, Labour, vulnerable on the Left, and Fine Gael, vulnerable to Fianna Fail and the PDs on the right.

This difficulty has been compounded by the fact that the pact deal has been done so far out from the election itself. This has hindered the development of policy in both parties and worse still has robbed us of the drama and news value of the parties coming together in the sight of the election. In short, Pat Rabbitte should have played much harder to get.

We are where we are though. And I for one don’t believe it is too late to turn the ship around. But as a Labour Party candidate I want to hear us articulate a sensible and coherent social democratic alternative, regardless of how Enda Kenny feels.

I want us to portray clearly how we can afford to spend more on key public services like health and education, because I know we can. Such a platform should include radical measures for the extension of free primary care to the whole population. I want to hear the radical agenda on climate change.

Indeed I would like my party to stand up clearly on behalf of the national interest against sectional interests, especially with regard to the development of a national infrastructure compatible with twenty first century prosperity.

I would like our tone to change. Let’s not oppose measures simply for the sake of them. I certainly can see some merit in stamp duty reform for example. The purpose of taxation as a policy tool is to incentivise certain types of behaviour – property downsizing should be part of that.

In fact, on taxation we are doing the Government’s work for it. Our current position (taxes are down and will stay down) accepts the Government’s argument that taxation is the be all an end all of our economic success. It gives far too much credit to the Government and undermines our fair arguments about the Government’s addiction to taxation by stealth). The truth is that taxation is only a single factor in our economic success. Let our commitment be that we won’t increase any taxes unless it is necessary for the good for the country – carbon taxes being a case in point.

This election is not over. The public may not have endorsed the Opposition approach so far but I believe they are open to persuasion. But if we are to succeed we need both Labour and Fine Gael to maximize our support.

In our case, that boils down to letting Labour be Labour.

Government Decision Restricting Romanian and Bulgarian Workers

2006-10-27T09:26:00.000+01:00

Full text of letter to The Irish Times, published 27 October 2006

Dear Madam,

The government’s decision to restrict workers from Romania and Bulgaria after their their joining the European Union next year is disappointing to say the least. First, there is a principle of free movement of workers in the EU treaties, one of the core values of the Union. Ireland should show generosity to these new EU entrants by allowing them access to our labour market.

Second, our economy requires a large number of new workers in the next few years to sustain growth. Why should these new countries not have the same opportunity to come and work here that the last tranche of new EU members had?

The widely predicted “swamping” of the country by new immigrants has failed to materialise. Far from being a burden on the state, these new workers are contributing to our continuing prosperity. I fail to see why for instance the Bulgarian property market is a subject of continuing interest to Irish investors, but our labour market is off-limits to their workers.

Economic studies have shown no evidence of displacement in the labour market. We have full employment in Ireland. We need new workers. We have a moral obligation and an economic need, and just because there is a get-out clause restricting Romanian and Bulgarian workers is no reason to avail of it. For a nation who has sent so many of its own abroad over the years, it seems that the attitude is, ‘When you get up the ladder, pull it up after you’. Of course there are questions of exploitation that need to be addressed, but they should not obscure either the principle of free movement or the need for new workers.

In justifying the government decision, Minister Martin stated that we need to deal with integrating those who are here already before allowing the Bulgarians and Romanians their full rights as EU citizens. While Minister Martin remained untroubled by this question when he was in the Departments of Health or Education, integration is the most important question around immigration. Integration should be seen in opposition to a policy of assimilation that seeks to eliminate all cultural differences, and to a multiculturalism that emphasises differences and encourages separateness. A policy of integration should seek to permit people of all backgrounds to fully participate in Irish social and economic life, based on the values of democracy, tolerance, pluralism, and sexual equality .

If a good result can come of a bad decision, then a coherent policy answering the questions as to how newcomers to Ireland should be treated with regard to education, the economy, education, health, housing, etc might be it. It’s time to have the debate.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Aidan Culhane

Education, Integration and Immigration

2006-10-16T10:23:00.000+01:00

Looking Back: Looking Forward: 1916–2006 Impact of the Easter Rising and First World War in Ireland, North and South

Cllr Aidan Culhane.

Confederation of European Councillors, Derry, 12 October 2006

1916. I think it’s clear that in Ireland the term evokes two very different responses. For most of us, it is the Rising of 1916. For some, it is the horrors of the Somme, and the First World War.

Looking back, it is clear that whatever your perspective is, both events were to prove cataclysmic for the fate of Ireland and Britain. The 1916 Rising in Dublin paved the way to independence for part of the island, while the Great War would change profoundly the nature of Britain.

For Britain, the war changed forever the certainties of the Victorian and Edwardian age. The rigidities of the class structure began to break down. The end of empire came into view. The role of women in society began to change, and the growth of the Labour movement continued. All would lead to a very different Britain than the one that so many men left to fight in Flanders.

Though many more Irishmen also left to fight for Britain in the First World War than stayed to fight against the British empire in the Easter rising of 1916, it is that insurrection far more than the War that came to define the state that was established after two bloody conflicts on the island itself – the war of independence and the Civil War. That state became defined by an ethos of 1916: nationalist Ireland not Imperial Britain; Catholic Ireland, not Protestant Britain.

For the UK, the end of the empire that the First World War heralded has meant that Britain has more than 50 years’ experience of mass immigration. Ireland’s experience has previously always been one of emigration, the Irish republic must for the first time consider the issue of significant immigration.

“Cherishing the children of the nation equally” is one of the most often quoted phrases of the Proclamation of 1916. Today, we need to look more closely at what this means, particularly in the context of a society which is dealing with large numbers of immigrants, be they refugees or economic migrants.

I believe that the state should set out a set of civic values that it regards as important, values that are not defined by a single religion, values that are applicable to all and supported by all. These are the values of democracy, rationalism, pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law. Through all its policies, but most particularly through education, the state should advance these values.

Many mistakes have been made in the past in the name of multiculturalism. The Irish state has, as I have said, largely defined itself negatively, that is by its separateness from Britain. It has never attempted to instil a set of civic values. Looking back at the ninety years since 1916, and looking forward to the country as it will appear at the centenary, it is time to radically re-assess how we define ourselves, and to assert our values in a positive way.

Before I go on, let me make clear that I support immigration. That is to say, I think that the state has a moral obligation, a legal duty under international law, and an economic need for immigrants to come. Let me also say that what I outline is not just a policy for the new Irish, it is just as important for our indigenous population.

A debate has bubbled under the surface in Ireland over the past year about the churches’ role in education. Archbishop Martin of Dublin early last year said that catholic schools must have a definable catholic ethos. My party leader responded by asking whether, especially for new communities, there must be four or five schools of different denominations where one or two would suffice. Fine Gael spokeswoman, Olwyn Enright took up the theme this summer in the context of multi-denominational education in the light of declining religious numbers. The UN committee on the Rights of the Child visited Ireland recently and commented on the lack of multi-denominational and non-denominational schools in Ireland, and recommended that the state “take fully into consideration the recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/IRL/CO/2, para. 18) which encourages the promotion of the establishment of non-denominational or multi-denominational schools”.

So where are we to go? It strikes me that the time is right for a radical overhaul of education in which civic values are made explicit. It is surely right for a modern republic to set out the values in which it believes. For indigenous Irish, as well as for newcomers, those values I outlined: democracy, rationalism, pluralism, and respect for the rule of law should be advocated vigorously by the state.

Where there are practices that are contrary to these values, the state must not shy away from them in the name of multiculturalism or a cultural relativism in which values that should be absolute are occluded by a “that’s their culture” type argument. Freedom of worship and freedom of speech are the sine qua non of any true democracy, but no freedom is completely untrammeled.

No republic should shy away from advancing its values if it truly regards them as worthy of the name. And making these explicit through a modern inclusive education system is surely the least we can do to cherish the children of the modern Ireland equally.

McDowell not wrong on stamp duty

2006-09-27T12:19:00.000+01:00

Michael McDowell’s opening-up of the stamp duty debate is welcome. It isclear that certain reforms of the stamp duty regime should be considered. There are three reforms of particular significance. First, there needs to be a marginal rate of stamp duty to remove the market distortions and inequity where purchasers are paying a higher rate of stamp duty on the whole amount of a property even though it is close to the threshold of a lower rate. Second, the rates of stamp duty need to be index-linked in some way. Third, the distinction in stamp duty between new and second-hand homes should be abolished. While some caution is required on this, given the importance of the construction sector, it is not desirable that new properties are more attractive for families than second-hand homes.

Deeper debate is needed on the issue in the long term, but the problems he outlined should be addressed.

McDowell says we don’t need the money. Given the problems in our health services, our under-funded education system, and the fact that parents have to think twice, for cost reasons, before visiting a GP, I cannot agree with him. However, our tax collection must be fair, and not distort the market. McDowell may have opened the debate for self-serving reasons, it is still one worth having.

LETTERS TO IRISH TIMES RE LEBANON

2006-08-15T22:56:00.000+01:00

Dear Madam

John McManus (IT, 1 August 2006) has it about right when he says that there is an “unfortunate tendency on the left to identify all who oppose America as objectively progressive”.
The present situation across the Middle East is clearly very complex, but the left is too ambiguous about those who want to bring the region back to the Middle Ages, and, as in Iraq, those who attempt to foment civil war to create a viciously repressive state. That war is over: there is a UN-recognised regime in place and the Iraqi people have voted far more frequently in recent years than we have. In their opposition to the US and the Bush regime in particular, many on the left turn a blind eye to what my party colleague, Mr McManus, has correctly identified as the rise of ‘theocracy and fanaticism’.

The Left has been indolent in the face of a number of international issues in recent years. Lazy cries for UN reform excuse international inaction in the face of atrocities from Bosnia to Darfur. We, the left, were not even united in support of a NATO campaign to prevent further genocide in Kosovo.

On questions such as Cuba, a state which according to Human Rights Watch has an “undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent” and in which a dictator of forty years plus has just handed power to his brother, the Left remains hopelessly soft.

In his letter, John McManus says “it is the job of all those on the Left to be clear where they stand on the basic principles of liberty and equality”. To state it more baldly, the Left must support democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law.

Yours etc,

Following some comment on this letter, I sent the following:

Dear Madam,

The suggestion that I am at odds with my party on the position in Lebanon is not fully correct.

I fully support Michael D’s longstanding call for an immediate cessation of violence. The military action being undertaken by Israel is ill-conceived and counter-productive, even taking into account its right to defend itself. The civilian deaths are an outrage.

Yet Israel’s capacity to wage this war seems more than matched by Hizbollah’s capacity to fire rockets into Israel. One side, Hizbollah, seems to have done its strategic thinking, the other, Israel, has not. I suspect that had Sharon remained healthy this war would not be taking place.

That Hizbollah is so delighted by the response it has drawn forth from Israel shows its indifference both to Lebanon and to ordinary citizens who want to get on with their day-to-day lives. That the west seems more intent on holding Israel responsible for this particular catastrophe is to ignore those who orchestrated it. Again, it needs to be restated, Israel’s over-reaction cannot be allowed to obscure the actions and motives of a group whose world view is fundamentally hostile to all that progressives believe.

Finally, Michael D rails against the charge of anti-Americanism at those who hold his position. I understand his frustration. But when the deputy lord mayor of Dublin, a member of our party recently appeared on the airwaves telling the elected Governor of Florida to go home, is it any wonder that the charge is levelled against us?

Yours etc.

Estate Agents should carry health warning

2006-05-22T09:59:00.000+01:00

Labour Candidate for Dublin South, Aidan Culhane, has called on new house and apartment buyers to be wary of the promises of estate agents.

“Increasingly developers are writing estate agents out of the picture inserting clauses into contracts exempting themselves from being bound by any representations made by their agents.

I would suggest that young house buyers would do well to put their questions and queries directly to developers at an early stage so that they know what they are getting. The material produced by estate agents is not legally binding and comes with more health warnings than your average packet of cigarettes. Ultimately, it is far too simple and it happens for too often, that estate agents offer meaningless guarantees about issues raised by clients – like the nature of appliances being provided - that they are not in a position to deliver on.

Recently the new IAVI President, John Dawson, complained that estate agents bound by law to do the bidding of their clients and therefore weren’t in a position to address some of the problems in their industry, like gazumping, that are affecting purchasers. However, it seems the problem is more fundamental.

Ultimately, because the estate agents acts as a buffer between the retailer and the buyer, but not as the developer’s legal agent, this means that if any aspect of a property is misrepresented, there is nobody who can be held to account for it.

So my advice to people interested in new property in particular is to ignore the estate agent and go straight to the developer with your queries and concerns. The middle man is powerless so cut him out.”

Council meetings to be broadcast on the Web

2006-04-10T22:04:00.000+01:00

My motion to broadcast council meetings on the internet was passed tonight. For something that I thought was fairly uncontroversial, there was a fairly robust debate. Anyway the council has now agreed to begin the process of getting the meetings online.

It's fair to say that they won't be watching in their millions, but in this day and age, there's no reason why we shouldn't be doing this. The public gallery in Dun Laoghaire only holds 12, so people are often turned away. For those who do want to come to meetings, there will be a closed circuit broadcast to a room beside the Council chamber.

It happens about three or four times a year that there is a huge interest in a particular issue, but I think that if people realised that they could watch a debate on an issue affecting their area, they might be more inclined to keep an eye on what goes on in local government.

Affordable Housing Vital in Dublin South

2006-04-03T10:29:00.000+01:00

SPEECH TO LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE, APRIL 2006. THE HELIX

I don’t need to rehearse for anyone the story of what has happened to house prices in Ireland over the past decade. Nor do I have to explain in any detail the consequences for real people of escalating house prices.

For years, young couples have been finding it harder and harder to afford their own homes. Hard working people are being compelled to move further and further out from the city in which they work to find a place to live. Not through choice, but through compulsion, they have developed a long-distance commuting life style, with all the strain that places on family life.

The people who take the early bus. The people who spend hours every day in their cars. The people who are put to the pin of their collar to make their lives function, particularly when they have children.

Many of these families now find themselves living long distances from the communities where they grew up, and the support of family and friends.

In my constituency of Dublin South, many young people find it almost impossible to find a home where they want to live – in the community where they were brought up. Why should it be ordained that you can grow up in Dundrum or Knocklyon, go to school in Ballinteer or Rathfarnham, but you can’t live in any of those places because you can’t afford to buy your own home.

Lets be clear. This is not some inevitable fact of life. It is a complete failure of Government . Fianna Fáil and the PDs have never seriously addressed this issue because they never seriously cared.

They have completely failed to control the cost of building land, but have allowed the limited stock of this vital resource to be left in the hands of a very few wealthy speculators.

They refused to implement the proposals contained in the Kenny report, or any version of them, to keep down the cost of land that is rezoned.

They have not delivered on the provisions of Part 5, which would have made land available for affordable houses.

And they have allowed builders and developers to buy their way out of their obligations to the loss of young familes trying to get their first home.

They promised 40,000 affordable houses, including 10,000 under social partnership. They have delivered 2000. They are so out of touch from the real needs of hard working families that they do not even seek to defend their record in this area- and if only the delivery of affordable houses grew at the same rate as their arrogance, then things would be much better for all our communities.

Good housing policy and good planning policy go together. We need to build sustainable communities. Communities where people can aspire to live close to their parents, and children to their grandparents. Communities where you don’t spend all day in a car or a bus. Communities, in short, where hard working families can afford to buy their own home.

Labour has set out clear proposals on how to control the cost of building land. We have made it clear that we will drive ahead a real programme of affordable housing. In places like South Dublin, that may mean high density, but it does not have to mean high rise. It does mean better planning at every level. It means understanding how real people live their lives and a vision of how things can be better. Labour has that understanding, and we have that vision.

JUST BUY THE BUSES!

2006-03-27T20:45:00.000+01:00

Minister Cullen should quickly grant Dublin Bus’s request for 200 extra buses. This is not rocket science. If we want fewer car journeys to protect the environment and alleviate traffic congestion, the quickest and cheapest way to do it is just to buy the buses for Dublin Bus. This issue about privatisation and what percentage of the routes should be privatised is distracting from the really urgent issue – getting buses on the road.

While south Dublin area had the Luas and the Stillorgan QBC, rapidly developing areas of new housing in Sandyford and Stepaside were being left without a service. It’s important that families moving into these areas are provided with proper public transport – that it’s provided now, and not when the traffic has got to intolerable levels.

It’s not just about Dublin South. All over the Dublin area, families are moving into new houses and apartments. Getting public transport right from the start is important. Rail is wonderful, but it takes time. Buses can be got on the road quickly. Let’s do it.”

Privatised services are going to have to be subsidised anyway. Dublin Bus gets one of the lower subsidies of public transport companies in Europe. All this wrangling about privatising new bus routes is just leading to further delays in gettin buses on the road.

Planning corruption; politicians are not all the same!

2006-03-07T21:02:00.000Z

Really, really annoyed this morning listening to "Morning Ireland". For years, the Labour Party fought the fight against bad planning, and indeed many of the rezonings currently before the Mahon Tribunal.

However, on the programme this morning concerning the evidence of Tom Kitt to the Mahon Tribunal, in an interview with Trevor Sargent, the question was asked as to ‘why aren’t the parties involved, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael … Labour, paying a price at the polls’.

No Labour Party councillor of the time stands accused of any wrongdoing at the Mahon Tribunal. The Labour Party fought a long, hard war against indiscriminate rezoning on Dublin County Council, and indeed on its successor councils. Indeed, the party was traduced and mocked for being ‘anti-development’ by the very people who now stand before the Tribunal.

It is wholly wrong to say that the Labour Party was in any way involved, implicated, or in any other way associated with wrongdoing in the rezonings that have formed part of the Mahon Tribunal investigations.

There is no possible reason for Labour to ‘pay a price at the polls’ for its stance at this time. My predecessors in this area, Frank Buckley and Eithne Fitzgerald, fought bad planning tooth and nail. By including Labour in this way in this question, Morning Ireland fell perfectly into step with the FF ‘sure, everybody was at it’ strategy of slinging the mud as widely as possible. Many of those facing traffic jams on the M50 and long commutes every day have the bad planning of this time to blame. The politicians who took those decisions are answerable. But the Labour Party is not to blame, stands accused of nothing, and has nothing but the proudest record on this issue.

A Small Thing in the Scheme of Dublin's Transport Problems, but ...

2006-03-07T21:00:00.000Z

Dublin South Labour candidate, Cllr Aidan Culhane, has expressed disappointment at the decision to turn Luas trams into moving billboards. Entire trams will be available to advertisers to “paint” as they wish, paving the way for corporate coloured Luas trams at a cost of €200,000.

“The Luas has become a symbol of a newer, modern, cosmopolitan Dublin”, said Culhane. “It seems a pity to flog off the elegant looking Luas trams as advertising space. “Even though it’s running less than two years, Dubliners have great pride and affection in their new transport system. Rather than looking to make every last penny from ad revenue, we should be looking to keep the Luas ad-free. I have advertised inside the Luas myself, and I think that there are plenty of opportunites for advertisers to get their message out through ads in the trams at at the stops.”

Cllr Culhane said that the issue was minor in the scheme of Dublin’s transport problems, but stressed that there was a benefit to keeping the existing Luas livery. “The Luas is first and foremost a transport system, it goes without saying, but when you look at London’s red double-deckers or Paris’ art deco Metro signs, public transport does contribute to the identity and image of the city. Do the existing sleek silver vehicles not make more of a statement about how the city sees itself than a Vodafone coloured tube?”

WHY NOT INCREASE THE PRICE OF PETROL?

2006-03-01T21:43:00.000Z

... and abolish VRT on cars of two litres or under?

Labour Councillor for Dundrum and General Election candidate Aidan Culhane has called on the Government to take a significant step towards addressing the Irish contribution to global warming by abolishing VRT and increasing excise duties on petrol.

Councillor Culhane said:

“As the latest Kyoto emissions table shows, the FF/PD Government has failed to address what is probably the single most serious issue facing us. It is time to end this paralysis.

I am suggesting that we take a sensible, practical and radical move that changes the way we are incentivised to use motor vehicles. What we need to do primarily is not to penalise the ownership of cars, but to penalise the ownership of high emission vehicles like SUVs and the overuse of cars in general. In short, we should reduce VRT and increase petrol prices in such a way as to seek to neutralise its impact on Government revenue, fears of which have probably acted as the greatest disincentive to change in the past.

Based on 2005 AND 2004 figures, I estimate that a 14c increase in excise duties on diesel and petrol would allow for the abolition of VRT on cars with an engine capacity of under two litres.

The abolition of VRT while conferring an immediate advantage on people buying new cars would also feed its way into the prices paid for second hand cars, thereby conferring an advantage an all users. The move would also increase the price differential between large engined vehicles and small vehicles similar to how the motor taxation system already works. To incentive the use of more fuel efficient vehicles they too could be exempted from VRT.”

Sandyford Link Road Voted Down

2006-02-24T10:44:00.000Z

The Sandyford Link Road was voted down unanimously at this month's council meeting. Eight options were presented to councillors ranging from proceeding with the whole scheme, to building the road to the Drummartin Link, to rejecting the whole thing.

At my proposal, the council agreed unanimously to reject the road.

SANDYFORD LINK ROAD NOT NEEDED

2006-02-13T14:25:00.000Z

There's been loads of correspondence about the Sandyford Link Road recently. Lest anyone be in any doubt, I will be voting against this road. I said from the outset that I didn't think the road was necessary and I don't feel any different about it now.

Press statement reads:

Cllr Aidan Culhane (Lab, Dundrum) said in advance of today’s vote on the Sandyford Industrial Estate Link Road that it was clear that the road was not needed. “The bottom line on this road is that it is not necessary. Not only does the road adversely affect adjoining residents and compromise the Airfield estate, but it simply doesn’t make sense”.

The proposed road would run alongside the Luas line from Sandyford Industrial Estate to Dundrum. Cllr Culhane, Labour’s general election candidate for Dublin South, went on to say that the road would increase traffic through Dundrum, would cause chaos on the Drummartin Link, and would cause untold inconvenience in the wider area. “It’s clear that there isn’t a real purpose to this road except to facilitate development in the Sandyford Industrial Estate, but at the expense of the wider neighbourhood and the environment. We don’t need this road, and I will be voting against”.

More on Planning

2006-02-03T09:54:00.000Z

The recent assertion by Hooke and MacDonald that An Bord Pleanála is acting in breach of government policy in refusing a number of large-scale, high-density schemes, particularly in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, is simply wrong. The Board has permitted a number of these schemes in the recent past, and in turning down a number of developments recently has echoed a widespread concern among the public and public representatives about planning in the county. The debate in last week’s Irish Times Property Supplement between Ken MacDonald and John O’Connor of An Bord Pleanála reflects one of the hottest political topics in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown – just how do we manage to strike a balance between increasing the supply of housing while ensuring proper planning and development.

There is a widespread view among the public in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown that “anything goes” in terms of planning. Proposals for residential developments of up to 27 storeys have become almost routine. As councillors, we must uphold public confidence in the planning system, and it is clear that that public confidence has taken a severe dent over the past eighteen months. A recent public meeting in Stillorgan on the issue of planning was attended by over 400 people. This was not about any specific development. Those attending were not from any one estate complaining about a particular proposal. They were drawn from a wide area, and all were concerned with the state of urban planning in the county. If the supply of housing is to be increased, we must see higher densities, but in doing so, the public must be brought along.

High density cannot be avoided for the following reasons. First, the city cannot expand outwards forever, and the need to avoid further urban sprawl and rezoning of green fields necessitate higher densities. Secondly, Government policies and the Planning and Development Act require higher densities in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. Thirdly, the advent of the Luas, together with the Dart and the Stillorgan QBC make Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown the possessor of the best public transport in the country. Fourthly, many parts of the county are actually losing population, with the growth of “empty nest” households, and new families are generally smaller than those of the previous generation. Even if you wanted to keep low-density, it can’t be done. There is a need for higher density housing in the county, but the manner of its implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

High density does not mean high rise. Increased height is inevitable, but excessive height is unnecessary. The Residential Density Guidelines state “it is possible, however, to increase density significantly with modest increases in height”. How can this be done? At its most basic, terraced houses with smaller gardens; three storey terraced houses with shared open space; duplex apartments over single level apartments, etc.

The planning process must ensure that the needs of present and future communities are met. There is a widespread concern that this is not being done. The Board’s recent refusal of developments such as the Premier Dairies site in Churchtown and the 17-storey tower at Glencairn, Sandyford, have been widely welcomed by the public.

The key word is balance. There is a need for one- and two-bedroom accommodation. High buildings, suitably located, also have their place. The Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan states that “the existing built form, scale, character, heritage and residential amenity” of an area must be respected in considering new developments. Proper application of this would result in a much lower level of appeals to the Board in the first place, and would thereby increase the supply of new housing coming to the market. A more measured approach by developers, particularly with regard to very high components of schemes, would also lead to less resistance from the community. There are many ways to build better, sustainable communties than trying to shoe-horn as many apartments as possible onto a site.

The function of the planning system is to regulate what is being built to ensure it is of a high standard. The business of property developers is to maximise the return on their investment, providing for the needs of the market at a given time. That’s fine, but planning must take into account many more factors. Policies in favour of high density cannot be allowed to turn into a free-for-all for property developers as Mr MacDonald appears to suggest.

The Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan will be re-examined this Spring, and it appears that changes towards a more prescriptive approach will be required to find the balance between the need for more housing at higher densities, and the way in which those developments knit with the existing built environment.

Development Disquiet

2006-01-27T11:13:00.000Z

A recent meeting on the issue of planning in Stillorgan attracted a huge turnout of angry citizens, deeply frustrated at the runaway train that is planning Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. I have dealt with the issue elsewhere in this blog, but the time is now drawing near for the review of the plan.

There will be a review of the plan. Recent comments in the media about this not being the case are wide of the mark. The Planning and Development Act requires the manager to bring a report before the members on the achievement of the objectives of the development plan. There is no other purpose to this report other than for members to consider whether to vary the Plan. There is a clear need for this to happen, though as mentioned elsewhere, the precise formula will be difficult to arrive at.

Clearly height and scale are at the heart of the need for a review. Recent comments by the chairman of An Bord Pleanala are hugely encouraging, and some of the recent refusals by the board are pointing the way towards better quality development.

CULHANE TO CONTEST DUBLIN SOUTH FOR LABOUR

2005-12-01T15:16:00.000Z

Delighted to report that I will be the Labour candidate in the next Dail election. I was chosen as the candidate at a selection convention in the Stillorgan Park Hotel last night. This is a huge honour, and an even bigger responsibility.

I promise a campaign the like of which we haven’t seen before in Dublin South, a campaign of imagination, innnovation, energy, and commitment, and I make that promise again tonight.

But ideas matter most. Throughout this campaign, I spoke of Labour’s values, of the need to talk about what it is we believe.

Labour values represent all that is best in humanity: that everyone benefits when we consider the good of society as a whole, that we have a responsibility to look after the weak, that decent healthcare and education is a right, that we have a right to liberty, to pursue our own path in life, but that inequality makes that impossible for many. That we are citizens who have rights – because we are citizens; that we are citizens who have a duty to contribute to society – because we are citizens. In our politics, people are not customers or clients. The state is not a business.

We need to get out and start talking about our values again, start explaining what the Labour Party is and what is stands for.

Above all, we must be positive. Dreary condemnations and ritual complaining about the government are simply not enough. Our supporters need to be persuaded we have real solutions. We have a vision and we need to communicate it forcefully..

Wherever we can go, and whatever we can do, we will go to explain why Labour can make a this country a better and fairer place to live.

Education is not child-minding

2005-11-07T09:49:00.000Z

The current debate about childcare is becoming rather confusing. With the issue widely tipped to be one of the key issues in the election, there is quite a frantic rush for the high ground on the question.

The confusion is between childcare, early education, and a latent debate about "working" and "stay-at-home" parents. The Labour Party document "Putting Children First", encapsulates what everyone says about the debate - that the welfare of children is paramount. But what are the underlying principles that should govern how our children spend their early years?

First, it is fairly well established that those children who are in creches, or with minders etc, are at no disadvantage to those who are at home full time with a parent. Parents do therefore have a theoretical choice as to whether one should stay at home with the children or remain in the workforce. Principles of equality also lead to the conclusion that either option is a valid choice for parents.

Now, the second question arises. Many parents do not have a genuine choice because they can't afford for one of them to leave work. For single parents, it is even harder. Affluent couples have a genuine choice, can afford the creche and can afford to forego one income. The State should therefore take a neutral view of which option parents take. That does not mean that parents should be fully compensated for whichever option they take, but clearly means that equivalent supports should be available to stay-at-home parents and parents in the workforce. It means that parents who wish to stay at home but can't should be subsidised to a point where the option becomes viable. Of course, the affordability question is always moot. Are a couple living a comfortable lifestyle with two cars, etc genuinely unable to afford to forego one income?

The issues of childcare and education become blurred as children get older. Here, some questions need to be addressed. Pre-school education is proven to be very important to children's subsequent success in the formal school system. Approaches such as "Head Start" and "Early Start" in the UK and USA have proven successful in targetting pre-school education in marginalised communities. Direct provision of pre-school education with a particular emphasis on disadvantage is vital to helping children succeed in mainstream education. Therefore commitments to pre-school education are most welcome, particularly when targetted on areas where they are most needed.

However, the childcare issue is a social one about how society responds to and supports families and children. Pre-school education, and after-school activities are education issues. The reason the two issues must be kept separate is that education of any kind should be facilitated and encouraged on its merits, not in response to the economic choices or necessities of parents.

It is entirely right that a holistic approach to children be taken, and that includes a full "early years" package as referred to the Labour Party document. But education must be seen as education, and not as child-minding. See Labour's policy document here.

Planning matters

2005-07-27T13:03:00.000+01:00

Nothing is causing more disquiet at the moment than the planning situation in the greater Dundrum and Stillorgan areas. A huge amount of development is underway, and the height and scale of the buildings is causing real worry and fear among residents.

This is essentially a completely new phase of development for the whole area. Taking the first phase as the suburbanisation of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, this new phase is one of urbanisation, where multi-storey apartments are built instead of houses, and where intensive commercial development replaces the more modest schemes of times past.

The underlying principles of this are basically sound. They are, in summary, that we cannot allow Dublin to sprawl out across the whole of Leinster; that areas like Dundrum which are now well served with high quality public transport (LUAS) should have higher densities of housing; and that the most efficient use must be made of that most precious of resources - land.

However, the realisation of these objectives are coming about in a most undesirable way. I repeatedly made the point that the manner of how this new development knits in with the old would be the most difficult thing to achieve. Unfortunately, little regard is being had to the existing environment in considering planning applications. You cannot have, as one applicant proposed, a six-storey building overlooking a bungalow, nor can you have eight or nine storeys beside two storeys, but these are being considered.

Similarly, the wisdom of 17- and 23-storey developments is, to say the least, questionable in an outlying area of the city, when hardly any such things are happening at the heart of the city. It must always be borne in mind that Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown does not exist "on its own". It is a part of an urban continuum of Dublin.

Some of the schemes work fine. There are sites that can take high buildings without any real problem. High buildings in the heart of the industrial estates might be okay, but putting them at the edges where they are closer to existing houses is not a good idea.

One of the most common difficulties with the type of scheme proposed is so-called "landmark buildings", whereby developments comprise multiple blocks, and then a huge "landmark" tower that causes more disquiet than any other lelement of the scheme. Arguments about architectural "interest", are made in defence of this, but the general quality of the architecture is relatively poor anyway. Besides, there are so many landmarks proposed that they will soon hardly qualify as such.

It cannot go unsaid that higher densities may be desirable, but they must have proper infrastructure attached. It is not enough that they have the Luas and schools; they must also have the play facilities, football pitches, etc that go with this. As an example, it is a good 25-minute walk to a playground from the new developments in central Dundrum. Yet, it is argued, people living so close to the Luas won't need cars so much. And it is also said that this higher density is most desirable within 1km of a major public transport corridor, but no regard is had to other infrastructure that surely also should be available within such a distance.

At the heart of the problem is the gap between the professional planners who decide the issues, and the citizens of the county who have to live with the consequences. That gap is causing a real loss of confidence in the planning system, and breeding a dangerous cynicism about the process.

When all is said and done, height is the real problem. The need for higher densities is generally accepted, and while high density can be achieved with modest increases in height, the headlong rush for high buildings satisfies nobody but the developers. Perhaps rather than looking to maximise builders' profits, we should look to optimise the use of land.

So what is to be done. The above points, and many more, have been forcefully made to the Director of Planning. Some solutions that have been suggested are a cap on height simpliciter, which may not bring about a desirable outcome either, or a return to the rules in the old development plan, which it is said were more stringent. However, many developments which would cause exactly the same amount of controversy were passed under that plan. It is the interpretation of the current development plan, particularly bits about "having regard to existing residential amenity" that are causing the problem. A more conservative and sensitive approach to development would bring about a better environment, in which people could have confidence again in the planning process.

There are grave risks attaching to varying the plan, not least that more land would need to be rezoned. Most profoundly, this may put parts of the Dublin mountains under pressure - an equally undesirable outcome. One way or another, and sooner rather than later, however, a solution must be found. But it is not as simple as it seems.

Sandyford Industrial Estate Link Road Update

2005-03-22T21:05:00.000Z

Just a quick update on this proposal. The plans can be inspected at the council offices in Dundrum and Dun Laoghaire up to 22 April.

There is a non-technical summary of the environmental impact report on www.dlrcoco.ie.

Staff familiar with the scheme will be available to answer questions at the Council Offices, Dundrum Office Park, Main Street, Dundrum (rear Bank of Ireland) between 4pm and 8pm on Monday 4 and Wednesday 6 April 2005.

Objections and observations to the road must be in on or before Friday, 6 May, to Declan McCulloch, Senior Executive Officer, Economic Development and Planning Department, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, County Hall, Dun Laoghaire.

Concern about this road is growing, with various residents' groups and environmental groups particularly concerned.

Do we need another new road in Dundrum?

2005-03-12T08:57:00.000Z

A public consultation has commenced on a proposal for a new road from Dundrum to Sandyford Industrial Estate. You can see the details in the "Council News" section. This is going to be a very controversial proposal, and please let me have your views.

First, there is the question of whether we need a new road at all. The Sandyford Industrial estate is a nightmare at rush hour, but it is difficult to see how a new road will dramatically improve that. Certainly, there is a bottleneck within the estate, but the surrounding roads are relatively free. Is it wise to run another road into Dundrum.

Second, the road more or less follows the LUAS line, and given that this is now one of the best public transport corridors in the country, why is a road necessary?

Third, how will Airfield and the surrounding residents, particularly in Balally and Holywell be affected.

You can see the arguments for the proposal in the "Council News" section.

LABOUR’S VALUES

2005-01-15T17:39:00.000Z

Speech to Labour Party Conference, April 2004

Friends

Commentators say that there is no difference beteen political parties anymore. They say our values are the same. It isn’t true.

Fianna Fail and the PDs may make up the Government but they don’t see Government as a force for good. The PDs describe themselves as progressive, but they are anything but.

Every single advancement in social progress the last century, from the introduction of national insurance in the 1910s to the advent of the welfare state have been won by people like us against people like them.

The Michael McDowells of 1945 were arguing that a universal health service would be too expensive. Today it is free GP care for Irish children.

Labour is the Irish party of progress.

We believe in the freedom of the individual but know that that inequality restricts that liberty. We believe that stronger societies help individuals to reach their potential. We understand that true freedom and equality are not mutually exclusive but mutually dependent.

We demand that people have basic rights and a basic standard of living extended to them, but we insist also that they have responsibilities to themselves, their communities and to the common good. We want people to live their own lives, to help themselves, but we know that to do that people need the help of Government.

In our politics, people are not customers or clients. The state is not a business. People are citizens. They have a duty to contribute to society through their work, through their taxes, and their voluntary activity.

In return they are entitled to support when they’re young, care when they’re sick and protection when they’re old.

That’s the deal. That’s the contract between the state and the individual in a civilised society.

So when you go out and ask people to vote Labour, yes the issues are important, yes they should send a message to the government, yes we have the best candidates, but tell them that when they vote for a Labour candidate, they vote for these values.

Waste Charges

2005-03-09T22:36:00.000Z

Some weeks ago, there was a letter in The Irish Times, castigating Labour "hypocrisy" for daring to call for a national waiver scheme for waste charges, while Labour councils, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown included "voted" for the charges. This letter was written straight from the FF wire, as set out by their councillors in Dun Laoghaire the previous Monday.

I did reply to the letter, as set out below, but the paper of record did not see fit to publish it. So much for the right of reply.

"Madam,

Luke Martin’s letter (February 18, 2004) regarding Labour and the waste charges in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown cannot be allowed to go without reply. I will not dwell on its uncanny similarity with the Fianna Fáil “line” on the issue, and instead concentrate on the facts. Under the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, introduced by FF’s Martin Cullen, the power to make waste charges is wholly the function of the county manager. Councillors have no function in this regard.

Labour’s opposition to charges in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown has always been based on the inherent unfairness of a flat charge where everyone pays the same, irrespective of the amount they throw out.

Eamon Gilmore’s proposal for a national waiver scheme is a wholly necessary response to a problem whereby poor people throughout the country are treated in vastly different ways as far as waste charges are concerned. In Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, there is a partial waiver for pensioners below a certain income, with a further waiver for large families, recognising that they cannot reduce waste below a certain level. In Dublin City, where the waste budget is subsidised, there is a full waiver for those on a certain income; and in many parts of the country, there is no waiver scheme whatever.

It is worth repeating again for Mr Martin’s benefit. Councillors cannot make waivers, and cannot make charges. Government, however, can make sure that there is equitable treatment for its citizens.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Aidan Culhane"