Today I gave my maiden speech in Dáil Eireann, it was in relation to the findings of the Moriarty Tribunal.

Government can take further steps in its response to Moriarty.

I stand here, like many of you, as a newly elected member of Dail Eireann. Elected at a time of unprecedented difficulty for our country, and from a desire from people for a new direction in Irish public life.

I’ve been trying to figure out what this means for us now as public representatives. I’ve been trying to understand people’s expectations. And then the findings of the Moriarty tribunal were published.

I have waded through the report, examined the background documentation. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture: crony capitalism; improper influence; a lack of accountability; low standards in high places.

It’s not what public service is meant to be about; that’s not why we were chosen to be here. The recent election can be understood as a direct reaction to kinds of practices described in this report. We can’t erase the contents of it or the actual failings it catalogues. We shouldn’t try to: there are important lessons here, for all of us. We have to make sure that we take those lessons with us, beyond this debate.

I wish to commend the Taoiseach’s swift reaction to the publication of this report:

• in the forwarding of the report to the DPP and the Garda commissioner;
• in the prompt scheduling of this important debate and the time given to it;
• in the Taoiseach’s statement on the matter in this chamber yesterday;
• in the 10 key commitments to transparency and reform contained within that statement – which are also contained within the programme for government (this includes whistleblowers legislation, a ban on corporate donations and a register of paid lobbyists); and,
• in the Taoiseach’s clear direction of the recommendations emanating from the tribunal’s enquiries.

We must extend the principles of open government and honest government throughout the corridors of power. We act for the people. They have a right to know what we do on their behalf, and how we do it. With the commitments given by the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste we make a proper start in that direction.
Of course there is more that we can do:

1. It was brought to my attention on the weekend* that Ireland still has not ratified the UN convention against corruption. When our country is under such scrutiny internationally, our failure to ratify and become full States Parties to such an important convention is embarrassing. And might be seen by others as a lack of proper support for such standards on our part. We must move to rectify this.
2. Domestic legal responsibilities. It is also time that measures under Article 12 of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, relating to ‘trading in influence’, are transposed in to Irish domestic law. We are duty bound to do so under our international commitments. And we must move on this soon as it is integral to our plans to bring in instruments against white collar crime.
3. To protect the objectivity and the integrity of the civil service we need to adopt similar practices here as in the UK, whereby a senior civil servant can formally, and on public record, request written ministerial direction when he/she disagrees with a Minister’s decision so strongly they refuse to be accountable for it. Such occasions would likely be rare, but would serve to indicate to the public where political considerations of the Minister in charge might be contrary to the best interests of the state.
4. The right to represent. It may also be prudent for us, as elected members to this House and thus sharing a collective responsibility to the people of Ireland, to examine whether or not a mechanism may be necessary to allow this House to expel one of its own. We have heard from the Taoiseach this morning that this will require a change to the constitution. That may be something to be explored.

It is right that these findings are debated and the people are held to account. But we may never know the full truth – and we may never find full agreement on the matters described in this report and elsewhere.

But I am confident that we can find agreement on new measures that will render any such future reports unnecessary.

I think that is the very least that we owe the people on this occasion.

Watch my speech here

* My first two points were brought to my attention by political scientist Elaine Byrne in her article in the SBP, March 27 2011

Before I was elected to Dublin City Council I worked for an organisation that was not too dissimilar to it in make-up. We had a secretariat with an executive on one side, and members on the other. The members were there to make the big decisions, to steer policy and to act in an oversight role.

As part of the secretariat, we put transparency at a premium – in everything we did: budgets, policy, contracts, procurement; there was not a piece of information about the organisation, a public one, that a member could not attain. We did this to enfranchise members, co-opt them in to the process so that they would be more interested and involved. While they mightn’t always agree with everything we were doing at least they knew what we were doing and why.

I joined the Council with a personal bias against the proposed incinerator for Poolbeg. I’m from Sandymount, I still run along the causeway regularly, and so my opposition against such a big facility in my part of town was there from the get go. It was visceral, instinctive. Arguments relating to capacity, location cost etc, however sound, came after the fact.

And yet I walked on to the Council with an open mind. I was here to govern responsibly for the City and if a compelling case could be made in favour, if I could be convinced that this was the best way forward for Dublin, then I would support it, confident that I was doing the right thing for everyone and not just pandering to my own personal and local biases.

It has been more than 12 months since I was elected. The incinerator is not yet built. And nothing that I have read, heard or discussed in that time has given me any confidence that this is the right way forward. The complete lack of transparency regarding the contract is astounding. Are we as public representatives not to be trusted? To whom does the City Council answer if not us? Certainly not the people and it appears not even the government.

The lack of clarity, to the extent of secrecy, surrounding the incinerator contract is grossly undermining people’s faith in their city council. There have already been court cases, which have come out negatively for the Council. There have been articles in the paper making claims, which if founded, are very damaging to the Council and completely undermine the process to date. The poison from this episode may well infect others.

What’s going on here? Why don’t I as a Councillor have the full facts surrounding a facility that is to be built in my City and in my area, which I have responsibility for? A facility that is extremely important to the future of the City and country (in one way or another), that has cost serious money to date, and, if all is to be believed, could potentially land tax payers with an open-ended liability for the next 25 years if certain waste targets are not met.

Something is rotten in the State of Dublin. And I’m not happy about it.