Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SUSPENDED GREEN PARTY TD Neasa Hourigan has said she remains undecided on whether to back the government in an upcoming no-confidence vote in the Dáil.
Hourigan and her party colleague Patrick Costello had the whip removed from them in May after they voted against the coalition on an issue related to the relocation of the National Maternity Hospital.
Their votes could be key in Tuesday’s no-confidence motion in the Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Green Party administration.
“I am as yet undecided,” Hourigan told RTE Radio One.
She that government whips had not yet been in contact with her about the confidence vote.
“I would appreciate if I could get some communication from the whips around what is expected when you are suspended.”
The motion, which has been brought by Sinn Féin, comes after the government lost its majority in the Dáil.
Fine Gael TD and former education minister Joe McHugh resigned the party whip after he voted against the government’s controversial Bill to provide redress to homeowners in counties affected by defective building blocks.
The loss of McHugh saw the number of government TDs drop to 79 – one short of a Dail majority.
Hourigan’s insistence that the party whips had not been in contact with her appeared at odds with a claim from Green Party minister of state Pippa Hackett, who said she understood that there had been engagement with the suspended TDs.
Speaking to RTE One, Hackett added: “We have no concerns about next week’s vote of confidence in us, I think this is not surprising from Sinn Féin in the last week of the Dail term to come up with this.”
Last year, Fianna Fáil also lost one of its TDs when Marc MacSharry quit the party.
The three government parties are hoping that he, Hourigan, Costello and McHugh will all back them in the vote.
Taoiseach Micheal Martin is also hopeful of securing the backing of several other independent TDs.
As such, government ministers are confident of winning the vote, despite Labour, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit/Solidarity, the Rural Independents and Aontú all set to support the Sinn Féin motion.
Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald said independent TDs were facing a “big call” on whether they were going to back “bad government” or instead “stand up and be counted” to secure a change in administration.
Fine Gael minister of state Peter Burke branded the motion a “stunt” that would waste Dáil time.
“The Government and Fine Gael are completely focused on tackling the issues that impact on people’s lives, and Sinn Féin’s politically motivated motion will simply take valuable Dáil time away from that work,” he said.
Earlier, McDonald rejected claims her party’s motion was a “stunt” that was unlikely to succeed.
“Democracy isn’t stunts and parliamentary procedures are not stunts,” she told BBC NI.
“The Government has lost its Dáil majority. They’ve been in office for two years and, despite their protestations to the contrary, we have seen a bad situation made worse by their inability to innovate, to deliver, to change and the time has come now and the time is right to call that out.”
She challenged undecided TDs to back no confidence.
“There are others now who have a big call to make and will have a big call to make on Tuesday and it boils down to this – do they believe that this Government is successful? The evidence clearly demonstrates that they are not.
“But those TDs need to now decide will they vote to allow a bad government to continue and for people to suffer, or will they stand up and be counted, back our motion and allow the opportunity for a new government, for a government of change that can actually deliver in the way that people need.”
One issue that could influence how some TDs vote is the government’s plan to tackle climate change.
Rural members are concerned that setting an onerous carbon reduction target for the agriculture setting could devastate the industry.
At the weekend it emerged that Environment Minister and Green Party leader Eamon Ryan will not bring a final plan setting out sectoral emission targets to Cabinet this week as originally planned.
Mr Ryan and Agriculture Minister Charlie McConalogue have yet to agree what requirements will be imposed on the farming sector. They are trying to settle on a target within a range of 22% to 30%.
Hourigan was asked whether her view of the government would be influenced by the ability of the Greens to secure its climate agenda.
She said if the coalition parties could not agree carbon budgets it would represent a failure.
“The effectiveness of the Greens in government of course has an impact on how I feel about voting on all the difficult issues that come across the table and come up in the Dáil,” she said.
“And that of course does have an impact because you want to make sure that you’re doing what you promised your voters that you would do, that you would go in there and you would fight not just for climate change, but climate change that operates in a way that doesn’t hurt the most vulnerable.”
Great initiative. The more tax a worker pays in the more they get out. Moving from the ‘one size fits all’ social welfare approach is a good thing.
@Fionn Darland: good idea but it should be based on time, not money! Otherwise it just drives poverty.
There are also other factors like age (easy) and location (not so easy).
It’s a good idea but it needs to be well thought through!
@Gus McIntosh: great point on time being more of a factor. That said it does take away from the “more in, more out” type of social contract. So long as a CEO on the dole does not get 200 times the average payment it will be a step on the right direction.
@Dennis Laffey: yes, and in fairness, people from better paid jobs tend to have bigger bills so, indeed, money needs to be a factor also. It’s a tricky calculation.
@Dennis Laffey: why not, if the ceo has paid 200 times tax than the average
@Gus McIntosh: Why age? Do you think someone that is 25 won’t have the same outgoings as someone that’s 40 or 60?
@Tony Humphreys: because ppl only care about what those with big incomes recieve not what they pay. Number of ppl used to complain about Michael oleary getting child benefit being a prime example. Prob paid more in tax each morning but never mentioned just how unfair the 140 a month was!!
@Simon Carroll: Age would only come into it if time came into it. As in, an older person should not get more because they have worked more. It would have to be relative!
@Sarah Cullen: No, it’s because there is a finite pot for unemployment benefits and in a period of high unemployment, that pot is less than in normal times as tax receipts are lower.
If it is split pro rata on income tax paid per individual, you would have hard working people left without enough to live on.
Plus, a privileged upbringing is more likely to set you on a path towards high earnings. Employment contacts, expensive training (think pilot for example), university, etc are benefits not easily realised by working class people.
It’s a good idea, but it’s a complicated one.
@Fionn Darland: So, someone who has worked in a minimum wage job for 15 years would get less while someone who was earning fifty thousand a year for seven years is entitled to more – I don’t see any fairness in that.
@Gus McIntosh: I think it’s fair to say there has never been as much support available for people who wish to attend further education. Not every company charges for pilot training one can do it with an agreement to stay in the company for x amount of years. Either way I don’t agree with your sensationalist comment that hard working people would be left without enough money to live on thus inferring that everyone should be on the lowest rate without enough money to live on to be fair to everyone. How is it fair if someone pays 10k a month in income tax for 40 years and is made redundant at the end of their working life and receives the basic rate? This system has been proven to encourage people to earn as much as they possibly can thus increasing the employment rate etc versus the old system in Ireland where some people were actually better off on benefits.
@Sarah Cullen: we’re talking about someone who pays 200x the tax of another receiving 200x the benefits of another. If the top 10% of earners pay roughly 70% of income tax, this argument is suggesting that 90% of people who lose their jobs would be entitled to 30% of the pot (assuming job losses are a consistent spread across the earning spectrum). This would undoubtedly reduce the benefits for minimum wagers to a level that would not support them. I don’t see that as sensationalist.
I am agreeing it is a good idea, and I admit the sums above are a bit simple, but it needs some thought otherwise it could have some pretty negative affects.
As for people from privileged upbringings having a better chance in life to earn well, I don’t think this can be argued.
@Gus McIntosh: No, you simply get a percentage of your last salary before you became unemployed for a certain amount of time. The can work won’t work crowd gets the minimum. There’s nothing unfair about that and it should be applied to the d age contributory pension as well.
@Fionn Darland: “The more tax a worker pays in the more they get out” It’s just a pity that the people who made this rule aren’t subject to it.
I was made redundant in September after 17 years in a company. I didn’t qualify for the bonus at Christmas because I was on the payment less than four months. Someone that never bothered working did get a bonus.. that really says it all about the system!
Oh and I started a new job two weeks ago.
@Tom Kelly: best of luck in the new job Tom
@Tom Kelly: but your forgetting people on pup got it even after couple weeks there are people still on pup that had jobs to go back to but getting more on pup yet someone who worked for years and made redundant getting less then the student who works less then 12 hours a week or the part time worker
@Tom Kelly: water under the bridge enjoy the new start, dont know how people don’t want to work
@nelliekel: great students got a few quid ,they’ll look back as pensioners ,with great stories, how bad, they are meant to enjoy this time in their life
@thomas mitchell: I agree. Students deserve it. The PUP scheme finally rewarded the workers. Students parents struggling to get them through college. Also, students will pay this back when they start working too. And their education is in tatters, their social lives non existant. This is a time they should be meeting future husbands/wives. What will the phychological cost be.
Great idea
@Lorrimore: I agree. It is a great idea. A little more for people who have worked all their lives and were unfortunate to lose their job. However, should the pendulum not swing both ways? Perhaps look at something to discourage long term unemployment? Is it credible that a person is unemployed for 20 or 30 years?
@Patrick J. Keating: Totally agree – anyone on Jobseekers Payment for a number of years obviously has no intention of getting a job and should not be given any Jobseekers payment.
@Patrick J. Keating: totally agree. My father worked all of his life, mostly self employed, although not profitably and only qualifies for partial pension. Fella down the road who never worked a day in his life gets full pension!
@Patrick J. Keating: only catch I see is that it looks to be earnings based, not on longevity. Someone who has worked every day of their life on a low wage would likely not receive anything other than basic social. People should definitely be rewarded for their efforts to stay off the dole. I ended up on it once for a little over a year, and I was spoken to like I was dirt, yet others can sit on it their whole lives and it’s fine.
@Katie Wrest: good point ,working is a self respect thing I know some people who work that are not much better off than those that are on the dole but there are genuine cases where people are drawing the scratcher especially at the moment
@Patrick J. Keating: Free education to people struggling to find work. Attendance and gaining a qualification should be required to retain payment for a specific period. However employers must offer proper terms and conditions . 20 to 30 hour contracts and casual hours are driving poverty. So the working poor need to be helped aswell
@Lorrimore: when PRSI was introduced in the 70s, benefits were supposed to be pay related not just deductions. It was one of the austerity budgets of the late 70s that removed the payment aspects, I’m sure as a short term measure at the time. But like the USC, it became permanent. Any future changes would quickly be reversed as soon as we hit the next bump in the road.
@Elaine Fagan: very true. Everyone knows there are vast swathes of locations were the ambition is to get on the most benefits in the shortest amount of time. Free gaffe, med card kiddies allowance. Sorted everything they “earn” after that is in the hand.. Unreal
@Elaine Fagan: help with education and training (to a point) though. I was unemployed for just over a year a few years back and spent the whole time studying at my own expense so that I could find employment in a new industry.
More support for employers to provide work placements too. I have gotten two jobs in new areas through work placements after getting caught in the “must have X amount of experience” trap. How am I supposed to get this magical experience if nobody will give me a job?
@place pages: No such thing as “free gaffes” they pay rent based on their income whether they are employed or not, also every child has childrens allowance paid out to their parents for them, as for medical card, even employed people under a certain income get a medical card, hap has a cut off of 35k per year for single persons so they’re not all spongers as you infer
Government expects some in opposition parties to oppose this new scheme. For one they would want to be mad to oppose it and two Leo is all talk and finger pointing. Put the scheme into action first and see how the opposition parties react. I agree that your social welfare should be judged on your past contributions. And so should sick pay, €203 per week after decades of contributions is just a smack in the face of honest hard working people who happen to fall ill long term.
@IAmSCozzie: Despite the proposal being sensible, logical and fair I’m sure some of the opposition will twist it to make out that it’s oppressive.
Brilliant. Wait for the bleeding hearts on the left to claim this is discrimination.
@Bleurgh: no doubt Mary Lou will use her catchphrase, “it doesn’t go far enough”.
Good man Leo. About time the state recognised people who get up early in the morning.
I feel like this is discrimination towards Sinn Fein supporters
@Ned Gerblansky: Don’t forget People Before Profit!
@Ned Gerblansky: Mr generalisation here really doesn’t get it
About time
If a person who has been gainfully employed all their working lifes (say 40 years paying in to the system) and is laid off permanently in their early to mid 60s due to company reorganisation re corvid I think the best solution is to give them the option of taking their full pension early .
Give long term unemployed food vouchers and roof over there head why should people who don’t work hard get handed so much money every week it’s just ridiculous. These are the same people getting brand new houses from the government and never worked a day in there lifes. All for rewarding hard working people but equally something has to be done for the long term unemployed. Maybe give them jobs around there location cleaning up rubbish on the road or something along those line.
Finally something that makes sense. Next thing is removing the requirement to stay in Irelabd for those receiving unemployment benefits.
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: if you’re talking about holidays or something, sure. People should be free to use it as they deem fit. If you’re talking about claiming while not living in Ireland, absolutely not.
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: You receive payment for holidays, outside the country for longer you are not looking for work you don’t qualify.
Like child benifit for children living in a different county.
Pure scams
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: people can move within the EU while holding the unemployment payment for six months after this time the unemployment payment is transferred to the country where the person has lived the six months.
The residency status is gained in six months. Meaning that to make any claim here you need to live six months here before being entitled to, unless you hold Irish citizenship.
You only need to request the transference to another EU country to the social welfare. Once is granted you can leave and then do the paperwork in the other country social welfare
This has existed since the creation of the EU and it’s to facilitate the movement of workers seeking for work. People normally got a job in less of six months so
@Aranthos Faroth: if payments are based on insured contributions people should be free to use them how and from where they see fit. Payments are time-bound anyway and dependant on contributions, plus you can look from work from anywhere. Not that this should be a requirement. This is how it is done in many places accross Europe
This is what we used to have! It was called Pay Related Social Insurance and your benefit started at 75 percent of your previous earnings and dropped after 6 months- it was the politicians that changed it to one size fits all
@John Lyons: that sounds a very fair system, but fairness is no longer part of politics
Was there not something similar years ago. Unemployment benefit if you found yourself newly unemployed and had enough stamps, then you went on unemployment assistance, assistance was if you hadn’t enough stamps. The benefit was paid slightly higher.
@Sue OB: yes there was a benefit payment but it was the same amount as to other payment €203
A long overdue reform, many other countries operate a contribution based welfare system, offers a true safety net for those want to work and lose their jobs, whilst not encouraging welfare as a way of life.
€2 for the lazy
The blueshirts had their lackeys lined up and ready to go this morning. The spin unit is still in existence, bleeding the country. People with soft hands and big mouths who haven’t a clue what real work is.
@Jointheclubtoo: Tell us, o wise one, for what is ‘real work’?
The “left” socialist politicians will likely resist this. We know why. The government should commit to it and plough on.
@Nedwerd: Why?
There was a similar scheme in the 70′s and 80′s
All sounded great until I read “a little bit extra” typical. If they moved to the German model and pay like 60% of salary for sat 3-6 months to help someone get back on their feet it’s just lip service as usual. It’s just not right that people who paid in much more than long term unemployed get “a little bit extra”.
Ill believe it if i see it, but more like another pr spin opportunity from the master spinner. How many times is he allowed to fly this kite, that has been flown since 2017 ?
Ill be in line to congratulate the man if it ever happens, but if it doesn’t will just add it to all his other failed deliveries.
The great reset
Anyone else hot an amended tax cert today?? Mine says as we are a joint tax (married) and my wifes on pup we owe €3600 tax for the year on her €18200 payments if she was to stay on it for the year, fair enough, so they reduced our tax credits to get this money back, but they also reduced my tax band before i go into the 40% bracket by the €18200, so now im having to pay 40% tax on this pup payment even though they’ve taken tax credits off me to cover the tax……my heads pickled for last 5hrs trying to work this out,
@rolyat ecnal: I’d suggest you all check your tax credits…this is alot worse than i thought
This is a good idea and the way it works on h the continent. It’s the way it should work too as designed. Pay in, take out. PRSI pretends it’s an insurance policy.
This is risky, may be Pandora’s box. Now going forward there may be little push to increase the standard rate with inflation as many in decent employment continue to get theirs as a % of salary, driving up inequality.
@Shannon Butler: And why should the welfare system not reward those who’ve paid in for years over those who could have done the same but wouldn’t ?
Thought through in many countries, America, New Zealand, Australia. Get 80 percent of your wages for so many months. Crazy it’s not here already. Making a thousand a week and lose your job get 200 paying 500 to 600 hundred a week in tax more even. Its a well implemented system in a lot of countries in Europe aswell.
Time to introduce a universal health care system. The norm in Europe too.
A great idea absolutely no denying it but are student nurses being paid for rushing their lives yet while it’s being considered?
@Oisín Neary: risking*
One year later? People can’t pay there bills due to how the current system is working, while many many young people are gaining hugely, it’s so wrong and still has t been rectified one year on!
have your say