Defence for Joan Burton false

imprisonment accused say charge is

against human rights
27/09/201

The decision to charge a teenager with false imprisonment of

then Tanaiste Joan Burton during the Jobstown protest was
not in accordance with Irish or European human rights laws,
the boy's lawyers have argued writes Tom Tuite.
The 17-year-old boy denies falsely imprisoning the former
Labour leader and her advisor Karen O'Connell who were
allegedly trapped in two garda cars for three hours during the
demonstration at the Fortunestown Road in Jobstown in
Tallaght, on Nov. 15, 2014.
He was aged 15 at the time.

The Dublin west TD had been at a gradution ceremony at An

Cosan education centre when a water protest took place
outside.
She told the court earlier that she was frightened and did not
think she had the alternative of being able to get out of Garda
cars surrounded by people shouting abuse and banging on
windows.

The State has closed its case and this morning the boy's legal
team asked Judge John King to dismiss the charges.

It is day four of the boy's trial at the Dublin Children's Court.

The boy's barrister Giollaoisa O Lideadha SC told Judge King
that the the case is unprecedented.
Counsel said: If the charge of false imprisonment is not
dismissed, that would amount to a failure to vindicate the
constitutional rights of the accused, failure to uphold the right
to fair trial, failure to uphold the obligation on the authorities
not to abuse their powers and not to act arbitrarily or in a
manner inconsistent with basic fairness.
Counsel has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to
prove their case beyond the necessary proof of reasonable
doubt.
He said there was evidence from a statement of a Garda
superintendent, who was not called to give evidence, that
there was an agreement between gardai and protesters that
they could slow march ahead of a car carrying Ms Burton.
He said that there appears to have been an agreement with
gardai and the teenager was never told he was committing an
offence or committing a public order offence or an offence of

an entirely different magnitude, false imprisonment.

My submission is that the decision to charge in relation to this
matter in the first place was not in accordance with
constitutional rights and the European convention on human
rights.
The prosecution case is that the former Tanaiste and her
advisor were detained by the actions of the teenage defendant
in conjunction with the actions of others.
The case continues.
Earlier, Judge John King was shown video footage of the
protest.
The clips were obtained from YouTube, RTE and a garda 4X4
which at one point had been blocked while carrying the former
Minister for Social Protection and her advisor Ms O'Connell.
Some people were seen chanting slogans while others were
hurling abuse at the former Tanaiste and jostling with gardai.
Ms Burton was hit with a water balloon as she walked from An
Cosan adult education centre across the road to St Thomas's
Church for the concluding part of a gradution ceremony.
She has said there was an "air of extreme hostility" at the
protest and she and her former advisor said it was not safe to
get out of garda cars.
Ms O'Connell said she was hit on the back as gardai bundled
them into a car and that she was upset and began hyperventilating.
The number of protesters grew and garda formed cordons
around the then Tanaiste to protect her.
Det Inspector Derek Maguire described the actions of some of
the protesters as being like a rugby maul. He has rejected
the defence suggestions that there was an agreement with
protesters in relation to a "slow march".
Plastic bottles and eggs were thrown at garda and the

windscreen of a Garda 4X4 was broken while Ms Burton was

in it, the court has heard.
When questioned months after the protest the teenager
denied being an organiser of the demonstration and said he
was sorry for the upset he caused Ms Burton.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/defence-for-joan-burtonfalse-imprisonment-accused-say-charge-is-against-humanrights-756667.html
She is a spoof and doesn't care about the middle earning families.
Most of the times its both parents working from a middle income
family.
While I am lucky to have a grand mother look after ours, there
should be a major tax break for the childcare cost if your kid is in a
creche
Yep, and she was the balance of the vote in the Senate to ensure
support for FGs water charge legislation.
She got her reward from Inda then. And doesn't take the shortest
way to work, which is the only one she should claim expenses for no, make the journey a little longer and the difference is tens of
thousands Euro per annum.
No, Zappone is well bought.
She doesnt care as she is only in it for herself

Brendan Howlin: 'Clearly, the whole water charges issue

was a mistake'
After a crushing defeat in the last election, Labours
Brendan Howlin talks about water charges, Alan Kelly and
how the government nearly collapsed a number of times.
September 25, 16
BRENDAN HOWLIN OPENS the door to his office in Labour
headquarters in Leinster House. The quarters are notably
smaller than their previous haunt.
After a crushing defeat in the last election the worst in
their 104-year history the party saw its representation in
our national parliament fall from 37 to just 7.
Due to the partys massive loss, which meant that they
could neither afford nor fill that much office space any
more, Labours remaining people have been relegated
down a long corridor (which has a secret side entrance
into the Dil bar) to a part of Leinster House known as the
annex.

Their previous quarters the top floor, airy, rooms with a

view are now occupied by Sinn Fin, a bruising that is no
doubt difficult for some in the Labour Party to take.
There is a smell of fresh paint in the offices on Friday as
the recently-hired staff are buzzing around, preparing for
the party think-in which is taking place in Dublins Mansion
House that evening.
Veteran party leader
The party leader also has a pep in his step.
Taking a seat at the grand conference table, he explains
that the room was home to some well-known Labour
figures of the past, such as Dick Spring and the current
President, Michael D Higgins.
If the Labour leader wants a ministerial office on Kildare
Street in the future, things will have to change for the
party, and Howlin knows this.
Cast your minds back just a few years to 2011, and youll
remember Fine Gael and Labour rode a wave of populist
sentiment all the way to Dil Eireann.
But once Labour got their feet under the table, the larger
party in government placed two ticking time bombs in
their lap housing and water charges.
Water charges
Clearly, the whole water issue was a mistake, says
Howlin now.
During the Economic Management Council (EMC) meeting
in November 2014, Howlin says he and Eamon Gilmore
fought trenchantly for charges not to be introduced until
all the metering was completed.
The Labour leader says he didnt want them introduced
until an analysis of cost had been carried out so there
wouldnt be a fear from people.
We should have postponed it, we shouldnt have allowed
for it to go ahead.
Fine Gael were of the view that, no, no, once you started
charging, people would simply accept it.
Howlin admits his party misread the mood of the people
on the water charges issue.
Yes, probably. I think Irish Water became the last straw
for people who were already just hanging on by their
fingernails after going through the worst recession since
the foundation of the state, says the Wexford deputy.

Fine Gaels Phil Hogan set sail for Europe (he is currently
the European Commissioner on Agriculture), leaving
Labours then-Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly to
become the poster boy for water charges.
He [Phil] did go to Europe and there were big issues left in
the housing and water area. We tried to do the best that
we could with it and Alan made a decent fist of it.
Despite being out of government now, Labour is still not
budging or distancing themselves from the issue.
So why are they hitching their wagon to Irish Water, which
remains so toxic in the mind of the public? Howlin says he
is not going to go down the road of populism politics.
The one thing we said after the election the populist
thing for us to do and maybe the simplest thing for us to
do is to take the populist line on everything.
But Irish Water wasnt a mistake. I am absolutely
convinced we needed a single national utility to deliver
water.
Howlin maintains that 4 billion needs to be invested in
Irelands water infrastructure. Its his partys policy that a
charge should be implemented when someone goes over
their allotted free allowance.
But Irish Water is no longer Labours problem. So how
does he think the new government is handling the issue
these days?
I think it is a dogs dinner now. I dont know what the
future holds because Fianna Fil changes its position on it
every second Wednesday. I dont know what will ultimately
happen, but it cant be that whatever is popular this week
is the national strategic approach to a valuable resource,
he says.
Alan Kelly and THAT press conference
As if Labour didnt have enough problems after the
election, it almost immediately started to air its dirty
laundry in public with a squabble over the leadership.
Alan Kelly made his intentions for the leadership quite
clear, appearing on The Late Late Show and stating that
he wanted to take the top job. However, in the end, the
party went with veteran member Howlin.
The culmination was the Labour leadership press
conference, where there was one notable absence: Alan
Kelly.

Was he annoyed that Kelly had tried to steal his thunder

on what would be one of the biggest days of his career?
No, Alan made his own decision not to be there. I was very
happy and honoured to be in that position That day was
an important day for me and nothing blemished it.
We knew how fragile the party was at that stage. We
didnt want a long, protracted, internal introspective look
at ourselves. We had already done that- we had a
leadership election only two years ago, says Howlin.
Throughout the interview, Howlin is keen to drive the
message home that the Labour Party has turned a corner
and is ready to rebuild. Howlin doesnt want to hark back
to those days at the beginning of the summer.
He denies there is no love lost between him and Kelly.
I have a great working relationship with everyone in the
party, he says.
It is all hands on deck, everyone knows how hard we are
going to have to work to win back the trust.
A sore point
The election is clearly a sore point for Howlin. Adjusting in
his seat and clearing his throat, he says:
I think people were shocked at the scale of the defeat. To
lose 30 seats was shattering.
The party has been licking its wounds over the summer
with Howlin travelling the length and breadth of the
country to meet with constituents and assess the damage.
Politics that is the way the game works out sometimes
and you have to dust yourself off and get on with it.
The Wexford TD says he knows where their voters went.
They went all over the shop, he says.
Fianna Fil recovered a few seats, so Howlin acknowledges
the few they took from them in the 2011 election
returned. Others went to Sinn Fin, but the vast bulk went
to the independents, he says.
These are very much parked votes that we have to win
back. I dont take that for granted it is going to be a slow
and steady reach out to people.
It will involve explaining what we did in the last five years
including the mistakes we made, because it is clear that
people had different expectations of us and some people
were disappointed in us.
There were promises made that we didnt keep and that

wounded us, there is no doubt about it. We have to learn

from that and make sure it never happens again.
Howlin maintains Labour is a left, progressive, social
democratic party that strives to protect working people.
He hits back at other left groups who would disagree with
that description, noting that other left parties didnt make
great gains in the last election.
For all their campaigning and all their ranting, the AAAPBP didnt make a great advance, he says.
Ranters of the left
Todays government is a strange new mix of Fine Gael and
independents, backed to some degree by Fianna Fil.
Howlin doesnt think it will last more than a year.
I think we have to be prepared that this government wont
last a year.I know from discussions with senior ministers
that they think the whole thing is dysfunctional
themselves, although they wont say it publically, they
cant.
Not a week seems to go by that there isnt some sort of
crisis in Cabinet hitting the headlines. Did these sort of
disagreements go on between Fine Gael and Labour?
Yes, some of it would have happened behind closed doors
insofar as a clash of views and that is what coalition
thrash out behind closed doors.
We never allowed ourselves to be bullied. The government
came close to falling apart on more than one occasion, but
we kept it internal because it was too important for the
external view of Ireland, to invest in Ireland, to know that
we were holding it together as best we could.
Speaking about some members of the Independent
Alliance have been rocking the boat in Cabinet, Howlin
says:
Once government policy is determined it is either
government policy supported by all or people resign from
government. You cant be in and out at the same time.
I am listening to ministers now talking as if government is
different than themselves that cant be, he says.
What Fine Gael would have done
Despite criticisms that his party did not stand up to Fine
Gael as much as it should have, Howlin maintains the
country would be very different had Labour not been in
power.

There is no doubt about that. I know, because I was the

man charged with looking after the public purse and I
know what they would have done.
We had endless debate about expenditure. On the
taxation and the expenditure side if you look at what Fine
Gael actually said they would do and what we actually did
in government you will see the difference
On the taxation side they were inclined to reduce the top
rate of tax. We said no, we want to reduce the impact of
the Universal Social Charge (USC) on low income earners
because they were brought in by Fianna Fil at a punitive
rate on everything over 4,000.
He also cites the protection of core social welfare
payments, the marriage equality referendum and the
legislating for the X case as some of Labours
achievements in government.
The truth of the matter is, despite what the party or the
people give Labour credit for in the last government, they
have a long path ahead of them.
Theres a knock on the door and time is up. Howlin says he
has to rush to a radio interview.
With the partys annual think-in taking place over the next
two days the party leader is in demand. He was used to
receiving this level of attention during his time as Minister
for Public Expenditure and Reform, but its not as easy to
come by these days.
Labour has risen from the ashes before but can it do it
again? Howlin knows it will be quite the task, but he
seems up for the job.
It is a rebuild, it is a reconnect, we have to do that with a
degree of humility as well and ask people to support us
again.
http://www.thejournal.ie/brendan-howlin-sunday-interview2/
During the Economic Management Council (EMC) meeting
in November 2014, Howlin says he and Eamon Gilmore
fought trenchantly for charges not to be introduced until
all the metering was completed."
Irish Water. Founded by liars
May 4, 2014
Brendan Howlin's election "Manifesto" (tissue of false
promises) during Irish Labour party election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdp2pGo4SeE

Stock up on your tinned goods.....

"There on the hook for 75 Trillion in derivatives. I knew this
was coming for well over a year now the powers to be
know too thats why they enacted the bail in so they can
steal everyone's money. Why do you think Noonan a long
time Deutsche Bank bond holder sold them and invested
in Gold what happens when this goes bang will make 2008
look like a mere bump in the road"

Media Propaganda In Ireland Block The Truth in Ireland

Garda Thug EU Force Brutality against The irish citizens

we are a neutral Country no armed Garda Against
unarmed Irish civilian this is all Illegal

WE Have An Illegal mixed Force here metropolitician Police

from UK in South of Ireland This is Not legal, in fact it is
Treason
The recent police killing of a man in Belfast city centre received
muted coverage in the media.
PSNI used CS gas during the attack, and a post-mortem on Gerard
McMahon has found that he had broken bones in his neck, several
fractured ribs & significant bruising to his body.Other details about
what happened are not yet clear, but the fact remains that an
unarmed civilian died during a brutal arrest and local media have
insulted us with merely reporting this as an incident

Fianna Fil won't back Sinn

Fin's motion to scrap water
charges despite... wanting to
scrap water charges
The party said it has signed up to an agreement with Fine Gael, which
has put an expert commission in place.
Sep 19th 2016,

FIANNA FIL LEADER Michal Martin has said his party

will not back a Sinn Fin Dil motion to scrap water
charges, saying that SF is play-acting on the issue.
The move comes just a week after Martin denied Fianna
Fil had done a U-turn on the issue.
Fianna Fil has claimed its policy on water charges has
been consistent with what they said during the election.
FactCheck: Has Fianna Fils position on
water charges really been consistent?
The party said it wants water charges abolished and the

provision of water funded by general taxation.

The charges are currently suspended as an expert
commission set up to determine the future of water
charges begins its work.
Play-acting
Speaking at the beginning of the partys two-day think-in
in Carlow today, Martin said Sinn Fin is play-acting
with the motion.
No motion can scrap water charges. Only a Money Bill
can scrap water charges, he said.
I think Sinn Fin are play-acting in relation to their
particular motion. Motions on their own cannot get rid of
charges only legislation can.

Source: Eamonn Farrell/RollingNews.ie

Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan today called on Fianna Fil to

be true to their most recent words on water charges and
to support the motion, which will come before the Dil on
28 September.
Martin told the media outside the Seven Oaks Hotel today
that his party would be honouring the confidence and
supply agreement it entered into with Fine Gael.
We are not into optics, we are into action. We are the only
party who has affected an outcome on water i.e. the
ending of the water regime, because that has now

happened as of our entering into an agreement with Fine

Gael.
In other words, as part of a confidence and supply
agreement with Fine Gael, it provided for the introduction
of legislation, which has essentially got rid of water
charges and the only way water charges can be introduced
is through legislation and that is unlikely.
Martin said that due to the current makeup of the Dil, he
could not envisage legislation being approved that would
re-introduce charges.
You need to be honest with people. The only way you can
get rid of water charges is with a Money Bill in other
words, legislation. Only governments can bring in a Money
Bill not opposition.
Before ending the press briefing, Martin made what some
described as a Freudian slip when he stated his party was
not in opposition, but government.
Asked about the Budget, he said: We are not in
opposition sorry, we are not in government.
Smiling, he quickly corrected himself, clarifying
that Fianna Fil is in opposition.
We wanted to be in government but we didnt get the
numbers, he told reporters.
The two-day think-in ends tomorrow. The party plans to
discuss such issues as education, housing, and the impact
of Brexit.

FIANNA FIL ARE NOTHING BUT LIARS AND

EMPTY BROKEN PROMISES,
WE WILL ABOLISH THE IRISH WATER SAYS
MEHOLE, IF WE ARE ELECTED ONCE MORE,
THE FIANNA FAIL FAILED TO DILIVER ON THIS
PROMISE,
FIANNA FIL ARE FAILERS AND LIARS WHO

.
.

FUCKED IRISH PEOPLE OVER AND OVER AND

ROBBED AND SOLD OUR RESOURCES
ILLEGALLY WITHOUT ANY REFERENDUM, THE
BASTARDS SOLD IT TO NEXT DOOR ENEMIES
OF BRITAIN,
QUEEN BEATRICE FROM DUTCHLAND
RELATED TO QUEEN ELIZABETH IS NOW AT
PRESENT ROBBING OUR GAS ANDOIL
RESOURCES ALONG WITH GERMANY, FRANCE
AND IRISH MEDIA RTE AND TV3 O BRIEN NOW
OBRIEN WANTS TO STEAL OUR WATER
RESOURCES, BUT THEY WILL HAVE A BIG
FIGHT ON THERE HANDS AS THE IRISH WILL
NEVER SELL OR GIVE THEM OUR WATER, A
HUGE BOYCOTT WILL STAY, IF WE DONT PAY,
THEY WILL HAVE TO LEAVE THESE
MULTINATIONAL QAUNGOS LIKE VEOLIA,
UISCE, SEAL SEA, NARVA,
week announced a policy of permanently abolishing water
charges, and funding Irelands water system from general
taxation, in their submission to the Expert Commission on
Domestic Public Water Services.
On RTE Radio Ones Morning Ireland, he rejected the
accusation of a U-Turn by the party, claiming:
Our submission is very consistent with our general
election position.
Is that true? Ciaran Sunderland in Co Louth asked us to
check it out.
(Remember, if you hear a politician making claims about
their record, email factcheck@thejournal.ie or
tweet @TJ_FactCheck).
Claim: Fianna Fils policy on water charges is consistent
with what they said during the election
Verdict: Half-TRUE
Fianna Fil told FactCheck Martins specific claim
related only to water charges, and not Irish Water
During the election, the party supported both
abolishing and suspending water charges, therefore

.
.

the claim is Half-TRUE

During the election, the party supported
abolishing Irish Water. It now supports keeping
Irish Water
Therefore, as a whole, Fianna Fils current water
charges policy is mostly inconsistent with its policy
during the election campaign.
What was said:

FactCheck: Has Fianna Fil's position on water

charges really been "consistent"?
You can listen to the Morning Ireland interview in full
here. And you can watch a video containing Michel
Martins comments on Monday, and a rundown of his
partys previous positions on water charges, above.
But for the purpose of this FactCheck, the claim in
question, from Morning Ireland, is this:
Our submission is very consistent with our general
election position.

The Facts

1
2

During the election campaign, and shortly before it,

Fianna Fil articulated essentially two positions on
water charges.
Abolish Irish Water and abolish water charges
Abolish Irish Water and suspend, then reintroduce, water
charges
Here is a selection of significant and illustrative examples
of how the partys public expressions on the subject
vacillated between those two policies.
5 January: Fianna Fil Environment Spokesperson Barry
Cowen tells TheJournal.ie his party plans to suspend water
charges, and says they would come in eventually
possibly seven, eight, 10 years down the road.
(Suspension).

TheJournal.ie: Water charges eventually

16 January: In his Ard Fheis speech, Michel Martin
says: We will scrap Irish Water, and the failed, lossmaking charge which funds it. (Abolition).
(Starts 14.44)

Has Fianna Fil's position on water

charges really been "consistent"?
Sep 14, 2016
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin has rejected accusations that
his party's support for the abolition of water charges
represents a "U-Turn".
On RTE Radio One's Morning Ireland this week, he claimed their
submission to the expert commission on water services, is
"very consistent" with what they said during the election.
Really?
Read the article in full for details: http://jrnl.ie/2976299f
TheJournal.ie is an Irish news website that invites its users to
shape the news agenda. Read, share and shape the days
stories as they happen, from Ireland, the world and the web.
Submit your clips to video@thejournal.ie
Stay up to date with all of the latest videos by subscribing to
our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/thejourna...
Download our free iOS app:
https://itunes.apple.com/ie/app/thejo...
Download our free Android app
https://play.google.com/store/apps/de...
Twitter: twitter.com/thejournal_ie
Facebook: facebook.com/TheJournal.ie
Instagram: instagram.com/thejournal_ie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aaY-CRuwHg

Water charges eventually

Jan 5, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqeIzNd_8l0

Michel Martin TD's powerful Ard Fheis speech.

3 February: General election campaign formally begins
5 February: In a Fianna Fil election campaign video,
Waterford candidate (and now TD) Mary Butler articulates
the commitment We will scrap Irish Water and the lossmaking charge that funds it. (Abolition).
(Starts 1.49)

The Socialist alternative to water

charges
Jan 5, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaIHNpC1fKk
11 February: Fianna Fils General Election 2016
manifesto (page 5) commits to abolishing water charges
and Irish Water.
We willabolish Irish Water and water charges
There is no reference to suspension, reintroduction, a
timeline or time limit, in the manifesto. (Abolition).
However, in a speech to launch the manifesto on the same
day, Michel Martin promotes a policy of suspension:
We willabolish Irish Water and scrap water charges for
the next five years. [Emphasis added].
17 February
Michel Martin appears on the RTE Six One News, and

has this exchange with presenter Bryan Dobson, where he

appears to say his partys policy is abolition, rather than
suspension, of water charges:
BD: Youre saying you want to abolish Irish Water as a
body, but replace it with something else, and you want to
scrap the water charge. Is that basically your position?
MM: That is our position

Follow

RT News

Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin said if his party is

elected to government, water charges would be abolished
J

7:05 PM - 17 Feb 2016

15 15 Retweets15 15 likes

Source: RT News/Twitter

19 February
Two days later, Martin appears on RTE Radio Ones Today
with Sen ORourke, and says Fianna Fil would suspend
water charges for five years, and then reintroduce them.

Follow

RT News

Michel Martin says water charges should be scrapped

during the lifetime of the next government on
11:41 AM - 19 Feb 2016

9 9 Retweets7 7 likes

Source: RT News/Twitter

24 February
Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Barry Cowen reiterates
the view expressed to TheJournal.ie in January, that
Fianna Fil would suspend and then reintroduce
water charges once infrastructure has been improved,
after at least 10 years, and adds that the charge would be
in the region of 50 or 100 per year.
9 March
In a statement, Barry Cowen says:

The Fianna Fil position on water charges is clear. We will

end themAbolishing water charges will save ordinary
families 800 over the next five years.
Fianna Fil is committed to ending water charges and
saving ordinary families 800 over the next five years.
Despite Cowens contention, it is not clear what the
meaning of these statements is. We will end [water
charges], would appear to be a definitive commitment to
abolishing (i.e. ending, as opposed to suspending) them.
However, the phrase over the next five years could apply
to the time period during which they would end (or rather,
suspend) the charges, or simply the time period over
which families could purportedly save a total of 800 from
their abolition.
Later in March and during April, statements by
Fianna Fil and its spokespersons and TDs begin to
coalesce around the position of favouring a five-year
suspension of charges, with the abolition of Irish Water.
3 May

Source: Fianna Fil

Fianna Fil signs a confidence and supply agreement

with Fine Gael, to:
Keep Irish Water in place (with added external
oversight); suspend water charges for nine months; and
establish an expert commission on water services.
12 September
Fianna Fils submission to the expert commission on
water services is leaked to the media. In it, the party
proposes the permanent abolition (not suspension) of

water charges, and the retention of Irish Water.

Unfortunately, FactCheck cannot publish the document at
this time. We try not to use non-public sources, but since
this submission will eventually (probably very soon) be
made public, we are using it as evidence, in this instance.
We will update this article with a link to the document,
when that happens.
It says:
Domestic Water charges should be ended and the revenue
loss compensated by an increase in the exchequer
subvention. Irish Water should remain solely in public
ownership.
This is a clear call for the permanent abolition of
water charges, to be replaced with funding from general
taxation, and a call for Irish Water to remain in place,
and in public ownership, albeit under enhanced external
oversight.
However, as of this evening, the Fianna
Fil website still stated:
Fianna Fil is committed to:
Even though there has been some improvement
Ireland remains a high cost location for many
goods and services. This is putting a severe burden
on family budgets.
While most of the country is improving its price
competitiveness, areas where the Government
influences prices are going up instead of down.
This is counterproductive as it is reducing the living
standards and purchasing power of households.
The main price increases in the past two years
have been in health Insurance, motor tax, tobacco,
third-Level education, electricity, transport related
costs, postal services, licensed premises alcohol
and off-license alcohol. Public transport costs have
increased. Medical inflation is running at multiples
of the wider economy.
Fianna Fil will take the following actions to

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

]
]

.
.

improve the cost of living:

Provide targeted subsidies for childcare costs to
help working parents.
Tackle public transport costs by increasing
subsidies to CIE and Bus Eireann
Reform the banking sector to reduce the cost of
credit and bank charges
Force medical insurance companies to tackle waste
to decrease costs.
Invest in infrastructure to reduce journey times for
consumers and businesses.
Require Government to act on recommendations of
Competition Authority
Increase the supply of social housing to take
pressure off private rented sector.
Force members of regulated professions to meet
strict price transparency requirements including
meaningful cost estimates to prospective
customers.
Increase energy efficiency grants for households.
Require energy companies to improve price
transparency and advise customers when a
discount period has ended.
Make it easier for businesses to operate efficiently
by improving broadband quality
Abolishing Irish Water
Suspending water charges

Conclusion

1
2

It is clear that Fianna Fil expressed two different

positions on water charges throughout the general
election period.
Abolish Irish Water and abolish water charges
Abolish Irish Water and suspend, then reintroduce, water
charges
The position set out in their submission to the expert
commission is, in brief:
Keep Irish Water (with external oversight) and
abolish water charges.
Therefore, Fianna Fils current policy on water charges is
mostly inconsistent with the policies they set out
during the general election campaign.
However, Fianna Fil told FactCheck that Michel
Martins claim on Morning Ireland, that Our submission
is very consistent with our general election position,
referred specifically to water charges, and not Irish
Water.
This is a reasonable clarification, since the question
Martin was answering did, indeed, relate exclusively to the
policy of abolishing water charges.

And later in the interview, he admitted that the partys

position on the future of Irish Water had changed.
Accepting, as we do, that the Fianna Fil leaders claim
was relating only to the abolition of water charges, we rate
the claim Half-TRUE.
This is because the party at times articulated this position
during the election campaign, and at other times
supported a suspension of the charges.
However, Fianna Fils overall water charges policy (on
the charges themselves, and the future of Irish Water) has
been inconsistent since the beginning of the election
campaign.
And the overall policy outlined in their submission (keep
Irish Water, abolish water charges) is mostly
inconsistent with the two positions set out by Fianna
Fil during the election.

SINN FINS MOTION to abolish water charges has again

shone a light on Fianna Fils policy on the issue.
The private members motion to scrap charges comes
before the Dil today.
With the support of Fianna Fil, the government is set to
vote down the motion.

At his partys Ard Fheis last week, Michel Martin said

Sinn Fin was play-acting on the issue by tabling such a
motion.
No motion can scrap water charges. Only a Money Bill
can scrap water charges, he said.
I think Sinn Fin are play-acting in relation to their
particular motion. Motions on their own cannot get rid of
charges only legislation can.
The move comes a couple of weeks after Martin denied
Fianna Fil had done a U-turn on the issue.
FactCheck: Has Fianna Fils position on
water charges really been consistent?
Martin said his party had signed up to the confidence and
supply agreement with Fine Gael when the government
was formed.

It commits to putting in place an expert commission to

examine the water charges issue.
The commissions recommendation will then be debated
by an Oireachtas committee, before the Dil will ultimately
decide if water charges will make a return or be scrapped

for good.
Martin said that due to the current makeup of the Dil, he
could not envisage legislation being approved that would
re-introduce charges.
Counter motion
A counter motion to Sinn Fins motion has been agreed
between Fianna Fil and government.
While the two big parties will be teaming up today,
government sources have been quick to suggest Fianna
Fil is not on the right path in terms of its newfound,
popular stance on scrapping water charges.
One source told TheJournal.ie that the partys plans
should be held to the same level of scrutiny as Fine Gaels
have been a subtle accusation that it is making a
popularity play, rather than solid policies.
Fianna Fils position on refunding thousands of people
who have already paid the charge was called unrealistic
by the same source.
Refunding
Last week, Fianna Fils Barry Cowen estimated that
giving householders who paid their water charges a tax
credit would cost 50 million.
Sinn Fins Eoin Broin accused Fianna Fil of flipflopping on water charges.
He described the partys latest u-turn on water charges as
laughable.

In the space of less than two weeks, Fianna Fil has made
several dizzying U-turns on the issue of water charges.
Last week, Fianna Fil supported the abolition
of water charges. However, once Sinn Fin put a motion to
the Dil calling for the abolition of the charges, Fianna Fil
backtracked
Broin said it is time for the party to clarify its stance
on water charges once and for all and put their money
where their mouth is and vote in support of the Sinn Fin
motion.

9.4 WATER EXEMPTION

(WATER FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE) - USE IT OR LOSE
IT
July 6, 2016

USE IT OR LOSE IT

An all out effort is needed immediately from political parties

who oppose water charges and from anti water charge
groups throughout the country to guarantee that Section 9.4
of the Water Framework Directive is retained.
This 9.4 section includes the Irish Exemption or derogation
which was negotiated by Ireland in 2000 and transposed into
Irish law in 2003. The section exempts Ireland from billing
domestic consumers for water, allowing us to fund our water
infrastructure through general taxation. It is now imperative
that provision for this derogation be included in the ongoing
revision of Ireland's next phase of the River Basin
Management Plan.
Marian Harkin, MEP, in her article 'Use It or Lose It' said
Furthermore, and most importantly, Ireland still has to submit its
second River Basin Plan in which it can activate the derogation for
water charges.
TheMinisterfortheEnvironment,CommunityandLocalGovernment
hasaleadroleundertheEUsWaterFrameworkDirective.RiverBasin
ManagementPlans(RBMPs)areusedinallEUMemberStates.Ireland
isnowpreparingitssecondroundofRBMPswhichwillbeinplacein
2017

Click photo to view full pdf document of the draft RBMP or see link
below to http://environ.ieThe Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government has a lead role under the EUs Water Framework
Directive. River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are used in all EU
Member States. Ireland is now preparing its second round of RBMPs
which will be in place in 2017.

The Irish Exemption is now under threat.

Recent political maneuvers, misinformation and threats from Fine
Gael, the Eu Commission and Irish Water Ltd, telling us that our
exemption no longer exists and that Ireland is going to be
penalised if we do not adhere to the WDF Directive and impose
Water Charges, is partly a smokescreen and partly bully boy
tactics. We believe that the threats and misinformation are not
true, that they are designed to deflect our attention away from the
fact that the Government is now in the process of revising the River
Basin Management Plan for the period 2015-2021 - see full details
at www.environ.ie. This revision had been delayed due to
significant reform in the water sector in recent years and the new
plans would be delivered by the end of 2017.
We believe that former Minister of the Environment, Alan Kelly,
did not include a continuation request for our derogation in the
draft plans but more sinisterly, he included the provision for billing
domestic consumers (Water Charges) and also for the Irish Water
Ltd infrastructure. If this is the case and the RBMP is submitted to
Brussels unchanged, it could possibly do away with the Irish
Exemption thus making water charges legally binding under
European law.
It is imperative now before the new RBMP is finalised that this is
investigated. Pressure must to be put on Minister Coveney to
come clean about the contents of any revised plan especially in
relation to the Irish Exemption, the method of funding and the
model of water infrastructure. It would seem obvious that any
revised plan can not be finalised or submitted until an agreed water
management structure is in place. We must not allow our

derogation to be surreptitiously given away.

Fianna Fil must support this call
Fianna Fil has a major responsibility in this process to ensure that
our derogation remains in tact and that the Government is not
doing anything to jeopardise it. Fianna Fil's 'Core Principle' on
Water Charges, their commitment to the electorate, their position
and legal advise on the Water Framework Directive and their
responsibility in agreeing the setting up of a minority Fine Gael
Government, should make it incumbent on them to ensure that the
derogation remains and that the process is clear, open and
transparent.

Sean Flemming

Sean Fleming, on Fianna Fil website 'EU Water Directive does not
force imposition of water charges FF', insisted that the Water
Framework Directive does not bind Ireland to the imposition of
domestic water charges and that Fianna Fil absolutely contests
the advice being put forward. He says "Its important to recognise
that this legal advice was commissioned by Irish Water, and it
should be examined with caution in light of this. However Member
States have a clear opt-out clause (Article 9.4) from domestic
water user charges, which allows that Member States may take
account of the social, environmental and economic effects of water
usage in recovering the costs of water services. Fianna Fil
position on water charges has not changed. We do not support the
continued imposition of water charges on households."
It is also incumbent on all other TDs who support the Anti Water

Charge campaign to scrutinise the 9.4 Water Framework Directive

and the RBMP, to support this call and demand that Ireland
includes the provisions for the derogation to remain in it's second
River Basin Management Plan.
Ireland has to make sure it uses our hard won exemption or it
will lose it.

Water Framework Directive

This article was last reviewed 3 months 13 hours ago
It is due for its next review in 1 day 10 hours

www.catchments.ie

www.catchments.ie
(link is external)
supports the on-going work to protect and improve our
natural water environment from a water quality
perspective. It is a shared resource that has been
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Department and the Local Authority Waters and
Communities Office (LAWCO). It allows for public access
to information on rivers, lakes and coastal waters that has
been gathered by the EPA and other bodies.
The website contains guidance, maps, data, resources,
case studies and water related news from around Ireland.
It demonstrates the joined-up governance approach now
in place for the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive in Ireland. You can also sign up for a quarterly
Catchments Newsletter and for updates about relevant
events in your county.

What is the EU Water Framework

Directive (WFD)?
The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) requires
all Member States to protect and improve water quality in
all waters so that we achieve good ecological status by
2015 or, at the latest, by 2027. It was given legal effect in
Ireland by the European Communities (Water Policy)
Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003).
(link is external)
It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, and transitional
coastal waters. The Directive requires that management
plans be prepared on a river basin basis and specifies a
structured method for developing these plans.

What are River Basin Management

Plans (RBMPs)?
River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are plans to

protect and improve Irelands water environment. They

are prepared and reviewed every six years. The first
RBMPs covered the period 2010 to 2015. We are now in
the process of developing plans for the period 2015-2021.

Who is responsible for

implementing RBMPs?
Following reviews of the first round of plans, the
Government has established a new structure and
assigned responsibility for various tasks in developing and
carrying out the next cycle of RBMPs. The new structure
was given legal effect by the European Union (Water
Policy) Regulations 2014 S.I. 350 of 2014 and is designed
around three inter-locking tiers.
The new governance structure is summarised in the table
below:

>

Tier 1 The minister, supported by a Water Policy

Advisory Committee has responsibility for WFD policy,
legislation and ensuring the provision of adequate
resources for implementing the Water Framework
Directive. The minister will also finalise the second
RBMPs.
Water Policy Advisory Committee (WPAC) Membership of the committee consists of:
Department of the Environment, Community & Local

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Government (DECLG) (CHAIR)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Public Works (OPW)
Geological Survey Ireland (GSI)
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)
Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine (DFAM)
Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht (DAHG)
Department of Health
County and City Management Association (CCMA)
Health Service Executive (HSE)
http://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/water-frameworkdirective/water-framework-directive

Significant Water Management Issues in

Ireland - Consultation Document (June 2015)
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrat
edfiles/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownL
oad%2C41917%2Cen.pdf
ESRI Shapefile Technical Description An ESRI White
PaperJuly 1998
http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shape
file.pdf
EPA Submission on Irish Water's Draft Water Services
Strategic Plan
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/epasub/EPA%20Comments
%20on%20Draft%20WSSP
%2017%2004%202015.pdf
Draft Statement of Waste Policy (July 2010)
EPA submission on the Draft Statement of Waste Policy
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/epasub/00508%20Submissi
on%20to%20DEHLG%20on%20new%20Waste
%20Policy.pdf

EU COMMISSION IS MOVING

THE GOALPOSTS ON WATER

CHARGES PRINGLE
June 28, 2016

POST BODY
The Anti-Austerity Alliance says the Government is rowing in
behind EU diktats to trample on the democratic will of the Irish
people in relation to water charges.

Yesterday the European Commission said Ireland cant legally

abolish its system of water charges under a EU directive.
However, Anti Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy says the EU is a
key driver of water privatisation.
Meanwhile, Donegal Deputy Thomas Pringle says the EU is
moving the goalposts in a bid to support Fine Gaels stance on
water charges.

THE IRISH TIMES REPORTED ON TUESDAY JUNE

28, 2016 "ABOLISHING WATER CHARGES COULD
MEAN MILLIONS IN EC FINES."

Karmenu Vella European Environment commissioner

Environment commissioner Karmenu Vella said the flexibility

offered to Ireland ended in 2010 when the then Fianna Fil-led
government pledged to introduce water charges.
Mr Vellas statement increases the possibility of daily fines being
imposed on Ireland which could reach millions of euro.
In a written response to Marian Harkin MEP, Mr Vella said a
derogation from water charges could have been sought in 2010 but
was not.
He said: On the contrary, in the said plans, Ireland made a clear
commitment to set up water charges to comply with the provisions
of Article 9(1) (WFD).
Ireland subsequently applied water charges and the commission
considers that the directive does not provide for a situation
whereby it can revert to any previous practice.
Original articles; Irish Times, June 27, 2016

SPECIAL CONTENT POST HEADER

EC: IRELAND HAS NO

EXEMPTION FROM WATER

CHARGES
June 27, 2016

POST BODY

The European Commission has confirmed that it

does not believe Ireland has a derogation from
water charges under a key European Union
directive.

The commission has said that it considers the application of water

charges as qualifying as Ireland's so-called "established practice"
under the Water Framework Directive.
The clarification by the commission increases the likelihood that it
could take action against the Government if it abandons water
charges.
In a written statement to Irish MEP Marian Harkin, the commission
says that Ireland cannot "revert to any previous practice" as to how
it complies with the Water Framework Directive.
The commission states: "Ireland made a clear commitment to set
up water charges to comply with [the directive].
"Ireland subsequently applied water charges and the commission
considers that the directive does not provide for a situation
whereby it can revert to any previous practice."
In a written question to the EU Environment Commissioner
Karmenu Vella, independent MEP Ms Harkin asked if Ireland's

method of paying for water - ie general taxation - was still valid as it

was in place when the Water Framework Directive was adopted by
Ireland in 2003.
Specifically, Ms Harkin sought assurances that the directive
acknowledged Ireland's method of paying for water at the time, and
that, according to the wording of the directive, it meant that that
"established practice" still allowed Ireland to opt out of water
charges.
However, the response sent by Commissioner Vella, and posted on
the European Parliament's website, stated that Ireland should have
applied for the opt-out in the river basin management plans due by
December 2009.
Because it did not, and because Ireland introduced the concept of
water charges in 2010, the commission now regarded Ireland as
no longer enjoying "flexibility" under Article 9 of the directive.
The response to Ms Harkin said: "Ireland adopted its river basin
management plans in July 2010. There is no record of a decision
in those plans not to apply the provisions of Article 9 (1).
"On the contrary, in the said plans, Ireland made a clear
commitment to set up water charges to comply with the provisions
of Article 9 (1).
"Ireland subsequently applied water charges and the Commission
considers that the Directive does not provide for a situation
whereby it can revert to any previous practice."
This further clarification by the European Commission means, in
effect, that it regards Ireland as being in breach of the directive.
The commission could, therefore, initiate infringement proceedings
against Ireland if it abandons water charges.
If the commission takes Ireland to the European Court of Justice it
could result in daily fines worth millions of euro.
Opponents of water charges have argued that a previous court
ruling in September 2014 should mean that Ireland still enjoys
discretion in how it applies the Water Framework Directive.

Original article; rte.ie, June 27, 2016

Confirmation from the Commission concerning the Water

Framework Directive and water charges
Answer(s)
In response to Question E-3366/10 regarding the Water
Framework Directive and water charges, the then
Commissioner Janez Potonik stated that Article 9(4)
provides the possibility for Member States not to apply the
provisions of Article 9(1) to a given water-use activity,
where this is an established practice at the time of
adoption of the directive and where this does not
compromise the purposes and the achievement of the
objectives of the directive. Given that the directive was
adopted in Ireland in 2003, the above response means
that the reference to established practice at the time of
adoption of the directive should be taken as signifying
practices that were established in 2003.
Can the Commission confirm Mr Potonik's statement?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+P-2016004707+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=en

MICHAEL NOONAN 'WATER

CHARGES REQUIRED UNDER

EUROPEAN LAW' IS A LIE
March 9, 2016

POST BODY
Article by James Quigley
Former Fine Gael finance minister Michael Noonan's
comments made to RTE on March 07, 2016, have been
exposed as lies by Kathy Sinnott. Ms Sinnott was a member
of the European Parliament from 2006 to 2009 and has written
extensively on the Water Framework Directive and the River
Basin Management Plan, with particular reference to Ireland's
derogation (exemption) to the Water Framework Directive,
2000/60/EC .

Mr Noonan said on RTE News, Mon March 07, that "Under

European law, Ireland was obliged to charge consumers for water.
There was a derogation up to 2010 where Ireland wasn't obliged to
charge for water, but the derogation was ended by the Fianna FilGreen government, so legally now under European law water must
be charged for in Ireland."

KATHY SINNOTT - MR NOONAN IS INCORRECT.

Kathy Sinnott Independent MEP 2004-2009

Ms Sinnott said "Mr Noonan is incorrect. Our derogation is

included in the first Irish River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)
2008-2015. This was supposed to be a 7 year plan but Ireland is
behind schedule. The next Irish River Basin Management Plan
was supposed to come out this year for the period of 2016-2021,
however, there is a delay and it may not come out until 2017"
Ms Sinnott said that "as long as we are functioning under the first
plan that was put in place when I was an MEP, then we have a
derogation, the so called Irish Exemption". She believed that"Alan
Kelly may haveput water charging in the second River Basin
Management Plan for 2016-2021. However, if this new plan is not
activated then we are still functioning under the 2008 plan."
Michael Noonan is misinformed or maybe lying when he says our
derogation ended in 2010. It could be he is getting mixed up
between the Water Framework Directive and the River Basin
Management Plan. A mix up that is quite easy to make for
ordinary folk but for a minister, well, that is another matter.
Ms Sinnot said that" the EU was functioning at that time under the
2008 plan and would have continued for at least the next 7 years.
When I was checking it out I spoke to an official In the European
Commission in the section that deals with the European Water

Framework Directive which the River Basin Management Plan

comes under. I was informed that we still had the derogation. The
official assured me that the EU could not take the derogation away
from us and that the only way we could loose it was for Ireland to
give it up voluntarily."
The official told Ms Sinnott that the then Minister for Environment,
Alan Kelly was going to get rid of the derogation. However, any
detail of the new plan has not been made public. Whether it will be
passed remains to be seen especially in light of developments in
relation to the issues around Irish Water and water charging.
See full details of Kathy Sinnott's The Irish Exemption in
Attack The Tax

NESSA CHILDERS QUERYING ALAN KELLY'S

NEW RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 20162021

Nessa Childers MEP Incumbent

Buncrana Together contacted Ms Nessa Childers, MEP Dublin,

who has written extensively on the Water Framework Directive,
Childers Welcomes Clarification from European Commission
Re Water Charges and European Law.
Bronwen Maher on behalf of Ms Childers said that
" the 2016-2021 River Basin Management Plan was submitted by
the Irish Government last year and included water charges (the
Government thereby opting out of the non domestic charge clause

in the Water Framework Directive). I suspect as the last

Government has submitted the next RBMP that it cannot be
withdrawn but we will table a question with the Commission to
seek clarification on this issue. Please note that it can take up to
four weeks, if not longer, for an answer to be returned to an MEP "
Ms Childers in the above article, December 2015, welcomed
clarification from the European Commission that member states,
including Ireland, do not have to apply individualised domestic
water charges to comply with the Water Framework Directive.
She said "Each EU member state is obliged to draw up plans
under this directive to show how water sources are protected from
pollution, and how the cost of water services is carefully priced,
including domestic usage. It is an extremely good piece of
European environmental legislation and we have much work to
do to improve water quality in Ireland. However I am perplexed
about reports that Ireland will formally submit a plan to include
domestic water charges under our EU Water Framework Directive.
I strongly recommend that we reserve the option to design our
water services funding to suit our needs in Ireland."
Interestingly the article gives a response to Ms Childers questions
to the Commission, Dec 05, 2015 where Mr Vella on behalf of the
Commission stated
" The responsibility for implementation of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) lies with the Member States and there is no
obligation to follow particular schemes or methods. However,
methodologies for calculation of cost recovery of water services do
exist and are being developed further. For example there is work
under way within the Common Implementation Strategy for the
WFD implementation on further guidance on assessment of
environmental and resource costs.
There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost
recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the
Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of

incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well

as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the
Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual
individual water consumption. In this context, water metering
seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the
WFD."
Make of that what you will. Notice the work 'seem' in the last
sentence. It seems to be in the interpretation.

Childers welcomes
clarification from
European
Commission re water
charges and EU Law

NEWS ITEM
Tuesday 9 Dec 2014

Independent MEP for Dublin, Nessa Childers, today

welcomed clarification from the European Commission
that member states, including Ireland, do not have to
apply individualised domestic water charges to comply
with the Water Framework Directive.
Each EU member state is obliged to draw up plans under
this directive to show how water sources are protected
from pollution, and how the cost of water services is
carefully priced, including domestic usage. It is an
extremely good piece of European environmental
legislation and we have much work to do to improve
water quality in Ireland.
However I am perplexed about reports that Ireland will
formally submit a plan to include domestic water charges
under our EU Water Framework Directive plans, and I
have sought clarification from the Department of Foreign
Affairs in this regard.
I strongly recommend that we reserve the option to
design our water services funding to suit our needs in

Ireland.
We also need to ask the question whether the
commodification of domestic water was indeed a first
step towards privatisation, and I fully support the calls for
a referendum to protect water as a public good under the
Irish Constitution. My question to the European
Commission about privatization and EU Treaties can be
viewed here.
This is an opportunity for Ireland to look at alternative
means to upgrade our water services, and I welcome the
news that the Irish Government have submitted a request
that water services development be included for funding
under the new EU investment fund recently announced by
Commission Juncker.
Contact: Mario De Sa 00-32-474 08 80 19 / Bronwen Maher
087-784 1937
Note to Editor:
Priority Question to the European Commission regarding
Water Framework Directive obligations and water charges
The Water Framework Directive requires that each user
must bear the cost of consuming water, and that adequate
water pricing for usage must act as an incentive for the
sustainable use of water resources in order to achieve the
environmental objectives under the Directive.
Under the Directive, Member States are required to ensure
that the price charged to water consumers, both domestic
and non-domestic, for the abstraction and distribution of
fresh water and the collection and treatment of waste
water reflects the true costs. The Directive allows that
Member states may take account of the social,
environmental and economic effects of water usage in
recovering the costs of water services.

Therefore will the Commission describe the various

schemes, or methods, allowed to member states to
comply with the legal obligation to recover the cost of
water services under the Water Framework Directive?
Can the Commission also specify if cost recovery for
domestic users must be linked to individual
consumption?
EN P-008827/2014 Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of
the Commission (5.12.2014)
The responsibility for implementation of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) lies with the Member States
and there is no obligation to follow particular schemes or
methods. However, methodologies for calculation of cost
recovery of water services do exist and are being
developed further. For example there is work under way
within the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD
implementation on further guidance on assessment of
environmental and resource costs.
There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for
cost recovery to rely on individual consumption. However,
for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the
principle of incentive water pricing included in the
provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general
polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires
a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual
water consumption. In this context, water metering seems
to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of
the WFD.
http://nessachilders.ie/2014/12/09/childers-welcomesclarification-from-european-commission-that-irelanddoes-not-need-to-apply-domestic-water-charges-under-

eu-law/

Common Implementation Strategy

for the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/economics/pdf/Guidance%201%20%20Economics%20-%20WATECO.pdf

Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2B:

Drafting Group ECO1
Information Sheet on Assessment of the Recovery of
Costs for Water Services for the 2004 River Basin
Characterisation Report (Art 9)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/economics/pdf/Information_Sheet_ECO1_Cost
_Recovery.pdf

Assessment of Environmental and

Resource Costs in the Water
Framework Directive
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/5337253e-6f26-4d25-84f434b2184f22cf/Final%20version%2005-07-04.pdf
Water Framework Directive Article 9 Recovery of costs
for water services
1. Member States shall take account of the principle of

recovery of the costs of water services, including

environmental and resource costs, having regard to the
economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and
in accordance in particular with the polluter pays
principle. Member States shall ensure by 2010 that waterpricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to
use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to
the environmental objectives of this Directive, an
adequate contribution of the different water uses,
disaggregated into at least industry, households and
agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services,
based on the economic analysis conducted according to
Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays
principle. Member States may in so doing have regard to
the social, environmental and economic effects of the
recovery as well as the geographic and climatic
conditions of the region or regions affected.
2. Member States shall report in the river basin
management plans on the planned steps towards
implementing paragraph 1 which will contribute to
achieving the environmental objectives of this Directive
and on the contribution made by the various water uses
to the recovery of the costs of water services.
3. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the funding of
particular preventive or remedial measures in order to
achieve the objectives of this Directive.
4. Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if
they decide in accordance with established practices not
to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence,
and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph
2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not
compromise the purposes and the achievement of the

objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report

the reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1, second
sentence, in the river basin management plans.
Ends

Questions to the European

Commission regarding water
charges and privatisation
NE

WS ITEM

Wednesday 5 Nov 2014

Earlier this year I took part in a hearing in the European

Parliament on the Right to Water. The hearing was in
response to citizens concern about their ability to access
water services. See the Right to Water campaign
website to learn about the issue. In order to get
information relevant to the situation in Ireland, I have
placed the following two questions with the European
Commission Nessa.

Priority Question to the European

Commission regarding Water Framework

Directive obligations and water charges

The Water Framework Directive requires that each user

must bear the cost of consuming water, and that adequate
water pricing for usage must act as an incentive for the
sustainable use of water resources in order to achieve the
environmental objectives under the Directive.
Under the Directive, Member States are required to ensure
that the price charged to water consumers, both domestic
and non-domestic, for the abstraction and distribution of
fresh water and the collection and treatment of waste
water reflects the true costs. The Directive allows that
Member states may take account of the social,
environmental and economic effects of water usage in
recovering the costs of water services.
Therefore will the Commission describe the various
schemes, or methods, allowed to member states to
comply with the legal obligation to recover the cost of
water services under the Water Framework Directive?
Can the Commission also specify if cost recovery for
domestic users must be linked to individual
consumption?

Question to the European Commission

regarding privatisation of water services

Should the citizens of Ireland decide via a referendum, to

insert the following clause into the Irish Constitution:
The State shall treat drinking water as an essential
resource and in the interests of the common good the
State shall not provide for the privatisation or
commercialisation of water services for the people.
Would this clause be in breach of the Lisbon Treaty and

or EU competition rules?

Nessa Childers warns against

privatization of Irish water at
Right2Water hearing in
European Parliament today

Monday 17 Feb 2014

Speaking at the public hearing for the first ever Citizens

Initiative which calls for the right to water to be enshrined
in EU law, Nessa Childers warned against selling Irish
Water to private enterprise and said the EU must
guarantee that all its citizens have access to a clean and
health water supply.
I am very concerned about the lack of transparency
around the Irish Governments plans for water charges
and about the future of water supply in Ireland, we need a
guarantee that the service will be kept in public
ownership.
Speaking at the hearing in the European Parliaments
Environment Committee this afternoon, during the debate
titled No liberalization of water services, Nessa Childers
also told the hearing: This Right2Water campaign could
not have come at a better time, where a number of
member states such as my own, Ireland, have
implemented water charges and centralized the water
sector as part of the bailout packages imposed by the
troika. Irish citizens could be potentially left with higher
bill prices and lower quality water. The issue also is that
we keep control of access to water as a right for all
citizens and that we do not commodify or liberalize
access to water.
At a time where our citizens are still experiencing the
effects of the economic crisis and the harsh austerity
policies, the challenge and key question here lies in the
affordability of water bills. High quality water is only good
if everyone can afford it. It deserves the status of a
human right.
We need to know what measures, if any are in place to

improve the participation of users and civil society in the

decision making processes on access to water?
Ends
Note for Editor:
The first ever European Citizens Initiative calls for
implementing the human right to water and sanitation in
EU law. www.right2water.eu. Text of inititative:
Water is a public good, not a commodity. We invite the
European Commission to propose legislation
implementing the human right to water and sanitation as
recognised by the United Nations, and promoting the
provision of water and sanitation as essential public
services for all. The EU legislation should require
governments to ensure and to provide all citizens
with sufficient and clean drinking water and sanitation.
We urge that:

The EU institutions and Member States be obliged to

ensure that all inhabitants enjoy the right to water and
sanitation.

Water supply and management of water resources

not be subject to internal market rules and that water
services are excluded from liberalisation.

The EU increases its efforts to achieve universal

access to water and sanitation.
Ends

THIS LB MAN IS A COMPULSIVE

CORRUPT, ROBBING LIAR
U Say Irelands Domestic Water
Charge Exemption Is Safe,

Unless Alan Kelly Gives It Away

On January 1St
Sunday, December 07, 2014

Direct Democracy Ireland challenge a ministerial falsehood on the

attempt to impose water charges.

Alan Kelly

Last week the Minister for he Environment Alan

Kelly said that Ireland did not have an exemption
from domestic water metering and charging as
defined in the EU Water Services Directive. This
was simply untrue, and the EU have confirmed
this.
Alan Kelly was trying to cover up the fact that
he alone is about to give away the peoples
exemption. Why? Because he is doing what he is
told by the Troika banks.

The exemption cannot be taken away, not by the

EU, and definitely NOT by the Troika, who are not
party to the directive; it can only be given away.
This is yet another example of our politicians
spinning and twisting the truth you may say
lying.
Where do their loyalties truly lie? This highlights
once again the duplicity of government while they
work for outside entities to the detriment of the
people.
Alan Kelly must submit a report on 1st January
wherein he is supposed to renew the exemption for
another 7 years. Alan is intending to NOT renew it.
We must make it known that this is not our wish
and he has no authority to do this. Please let it be
known to all representatives that this exemption
must be renewed.
It is the will of the people. It is pertinent to say at
this point that if we had a direct democracy system
of government in Ireland this situation would not
even be happening, because the TDs would know
the people would call a referendum on the issue
and overturn it, and hence with this knowledge
government would not even try to do this.
The following is an update on the situation from
former MEP Kathy Sinnott , who is a former
member of the European Parliament Committee on
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. This

letter outlines the reality behind the spin; and gives

examples of why the privatised model they are
looking to create does not and cannot yield the
results the government are promising.
The Irish Exemption
Update on Current Situation
by Kathy Sinnott
We have one month to save it.
I recently tried to alert people to the existence of the Irish
Exemption, Irelands unique exemption from domestic
water charging based on Article 9.4 of the EU Water
Framework Directive. The exemption is based on the Irish
Department of the Environments commitment, strategy
and budget to rectify the inadequacies in our water
management without metering. This commitment is
recorded in the 2008 Irish River Basin Management Plan.
Former Minister for Environment John Gormley was able to
confirm in 2008 that Ireland had obtained and was availing
of the exemption from household water charges. I was
assured at the time by the European Commission that the
EU couldnt not take the exemption from us but Ireland
could cancel it. This week Minister for Environment Alan
Kelly publicly denied we currently had an exemption from
domestic water charging. He stated We do not have a
derogation because we now have committed to the model
that we have. Fortunately he is wrong. In trying to
confirm the current situation, I contacted Brussels.
The good news is that the Water Framework Directive
Article 9.4 exemption is still in place. The challenging news
is that it is under imminent threat of cancellation by the
Minister for the Environment, Alan Kelly himself! In
accordance with Article 9.4 of the Water Framework
Directive our exemption is embedded in the 2008 River
Basin Management Plan. Any renewal or cancellation of
the exemption is done in the next 7 year RBMP. And it is
the Minister for the Environment who assembles and
submits this plan. This 2015 River Basin Management
Plan is due on be handed into Brussels by New Years Day.
Both the Irish government and the European Commission
are expecting that Minister Kelly will not renew the

exemption and will instead include domestic water

charging as part of Irelands strategy. Why are they so
sure that the plan as yet incomplete and unpublished will
include water charging? Because in 2010 the Troika told us
to privatize and charge for water and both the Irish
government and the EU Commission assume that we will
meekly obey, that is we will state in the River Basin report
that the only way we can protect our rivers is by charging
for domestic water use! But is this true? If the money
spent on metering is spent on pipe work the leaks will be
repaired. And if the money already collected in taxes for
water infrastructure was spent on upgrading treatment
plants we would see a significant improvement to the
water infrastructure to domestic homes and meet our part
of the next 7 year targets on river basin management.
Because the EU water legislation is based on the polluter
pays principle, the most obvious strategy for financing
clean water is to identify the real polluters of water in
Ireland and make them pay. In the 2008 plan, the sources
of pollution are listed. They included agriculture and rural
septic tanks. These sources have been tackled at great
expense to rural dwellers and significant improvement has
been made and progress is ongoing.Other sources like
quarrying, mining including old tailings ponds, leaking
landfills, forestry, industry are still major sources of
pollution. If it is the polluter who is supposed to pay then
it should be these for profit industries which should be
paying for the purification of the water they polluter and
for preventative measures not the ordinary householder
who is already paying. To give an example. We are told
we need domestic water charging to deal with
cryptosporidium in our water supply. But again is this true?
Uplands all over the country were planted in coniferous
forests. Unlike deciduous forests natural to Ireland, these
plantations of Sitka spruce trees acidify the soil and do not
break down animal waste effectively. After a few decades
these forests are clear felled with heavy machinery that
rips up the forests leaving the soils exposed. Heavy rains
wash the animal waste and acid soil down hill to the river
below. The resulting pollution provides ideal condition for
cryptosporidium and other contaminants. Why would the
people in these areas who are innocent of causing the

problem and who are already bearing the expense of

bottled and boiled water asked to foot the bill for cleaning
up water pollution they did not cause. The Department of
the Environment should instead go to the real
polluters,and recover the cost of cleaning up polluted
water, or better preventing the pollution in the first place.
Privatization will not solve our water infrastructure
problems because private companies are geared to profit.
It will make sense to invest in 500 meters of new piping in
a city because it will serve hundreds of paying houses. But
it will cut into profits to replace 500 meters of leaking
pipes in which serves only 5 homes. A privatized water
system will still be a leaky water system! Alan Kelly can
save the Irish Exemption by making the commitment in
the River Basin Management Plan that actual water
polluters will pay, that funds collected for water
infrastructure in existing taxes will be used to upgrade our
systems and by creating incentives for improvements to
domestic water use like rain water collection system.
There is still time to save the Irish Exemptionand the
Irish people are in the mood to defend it because once the
exemption is gone it is gone for good.
We have one
month to save it.
God bless
Kathy Sinnott
kathysinnott@gmail.com
Former Member of the European Parliament
Former Member of the European Parliament Committee on
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

FLIUCH OFF IRISH WATER LTD - ZONES IN ON

ARTICLE 9 OF WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Fliuch Off Irish Water Ltd, a Cork City based anti Irish Water
organisation stated that" Irish people have paid for their water
infrastructure over the years via income tax this was the

understanding that Irish people had now we are being fed the lie
that we must be like our EU neighbours and pay for our water
while 11 billion of water infrastructure is given to Irish Water
gratis.
What Irish media and government politicians fail to point out is that
most other EU citizens get a far higher quality of public services
i.e. a bigger bang for their buck. You simply cannot compare the
current system in Ireland to any other EU country its like
comparing apples and oranges."
Noel from Fliuch Off directed our attention to Article 9 of the Water
Framework Directive and emphasising the complete article pointed
out clause 4 and in particular phrase *established practice*. He
said " what they've done now is tried to say that direct domestic
charges are now and 'established practice'. This is patently
untrue.

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC

Read full text, in particular Ariticle 9 of the Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Article 9
Recovery of costs for water services
1. Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of
the costs of water services, including environmental and resource
costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according
to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays
principle.
Member States shall ensure by 2010
- that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users
to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the
environmental objectives of this Directive,
- an adequate contribution of the different water uses,
disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, to
the recovery of the costs of water services, based on the economic

analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of

the polluter pays principle.
Member States may in so doing have regard to the social,
environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the
geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions
affected.
2. Member States shall report in the river basin management plans
on the planned steps towards implementing paragraph 1 which will
contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of this
Directive and on the contribution made by the various water uses
to the recovery of the costs of water services.
3. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the funding of particular
preventive or remedial measures in order to achieve the objectives
of this Directive.
4. Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they
decide in accordance with established practices not to apply the
provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose
the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use
activity, where this does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of this Directive. Member States
shall report the reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1, second
sentence, in the river basin management plans.

QUESTIONSTHE COMMISSION MUST BE ASKED

As well as Ms Childers submitting questions to the European
CommissionBuncrana Together has already sent questions to Mr
Enrico Brivio, spokesperson for Environment, Maritime Affair and
Fisheries, European Commission. In particular this isimmediate
question we would like answered Is Ireland at present operating under the River Basin Management
Plan 2008-2015?
Other questions are we have to ask is
1. Has the last Government presented a new plan?
2. When and how will it be ratified?

3. Is it possible to view the contents?

4. Has Mr Kelly implemented charging for water and if so has his
submission done away with the Irish derogation as implied in the
RBMP 2008-2015?
5 Last but not least can Ireland revoke Mr Kelly's plan?
The above questions must be asked by all our newly elected TDs
and parties, especially those who have promised the abolition of
Irish Water and Water Charges. However, they must go a lot
further and question the bona fides of Mr Kelly and the former
government in their handling of the Irish Water and Water Charges
issue and in particular the veracity of any submission to the
European Commission. We have to question Mr Alan Kelly and
Mr Noonan's constant misrepresentation of fact especially in light
Mr Kelly possibly not renewing the Irish derogation and his
inclusion of Water Charges into the River Basin Management Plan
2016-2021.

The Pensive Quill

Buncrana Together would like to thank all the above

contributors. We would like to make special mention of
Anthony McIntyre editor ofThe Pensive Quill. He has
tirelessly championed truth and justice. His constant and
recent facebook and twitter posts kept to the fore the question
of the Water Framework Directive. See the article in Pensive
Quill, written by Direct Democracy Ireland EU Say Irelands
Domestic Water Charge Exemption Is Safe, Unless Alan Kelly

Gives It Away On January 1st

Water Framework Directive

>
>
>
>

In response to the increasing threat of pollution and the

increasing demand from the public for cleaner rivers, lakes
and beaches, the EU developed the Water Framework
Directive (WFD). This Directive is unique in that, for the first
time, it establishes a framework for the protection of all waters
including rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and
groundwater, and their dependent wildlife/habitats under one
piece of environmental legislation. Specifically the WFD aims
to:
protect/enhance all waters (surface, ground and coastal
waters)
achieve "good status" for all waters by December 2015
manage water bodies based on river basins or
catchments
involve the public
The Water Framework Directive is linked to a number of other
EU directives in several ways. These include Directives
relating to the protection of biodiversity (Birds and Habitats
Directives), directives related to specific uses of waters
(drinking water, bathing waters and urban waste water
directives) and to directives concerned with the regulation of
activities undertaken in the environment (Industrial Emissions
and Environmental Impact Assessment directives). More
recent directives on topics such as Floods and the Marine
Strategy Framework have significant linkages with the WFD
which is also supplemented by the Priority Substances
Directive and the Groundwater Directive. The Nitrates
Directive forms an integral part of the Water Framework
Directive and is one of the key instruments in the protection of
waters against agricultural pressures. The Sustainable Use of
Pesticides and the Sewage Sludge Directives also provide for
the control of materials applied to land.

Figure 1: WFD Interaction with other EU Legislation (Source:

SWMI, 2015)
The basic measures required by Article 11 of the WFD
include implementation of measures required by the following
directives: Bathing Water, Habitats, Birds, Drinking Water,
Major Accidents (Seveso), EIA, Sewage Sludge, UWWT, Plant
Protection Products, Nitrates and IPPC.

Transposing the WFD into Irish Law

3
4
5
6
7

The WFD has been transposed into Irish law by means of the
following main Regulations. These Regulations
cover governance, the shape of the WFD characterisation,
monitoring and status assessment programmes in terms of
assigning responsibilities for the monitoring of different water
categories, determining the quality elements and undertaking
the characterisation and classification assessments.
European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations,
2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003)
European Communities Environmental Objectives
(Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009)
European Communities Environmental Objectives
(Groundwater) Regulations, 2010 (S.I. No. 9 of 2010)
European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for
Protection of Waters) Regulations, 2010 (S.I. No. 610 of 2010)
European Communities (Technical Specifications for the

Chemical Analysis and Monitoring of Water Status)

Regulations, 2011 (S.I. No. 489 of 2011)
European Union (Water Policy) Regulations 2014 (S.I.
No. 350 of 2014)

The EPA's Role

First Cycle: During the first cycle of the WFD, the EPA was
assigned a large number of tasks under the European
Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, 2003 (S.I. No.
722 of 2003), which come under the category of coordination
and oversight of the Irish WFD programme. This meant that
the Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government (DECLG) has delegated the task of national
coordination of all the technical aspects of the WFD to the
EPA, while retaining ownership of the economic and policy
aspects of the Directive.
Second Cycle: These tasks have been extended during the
second cycle to include drafting environmental objectives,
undertaking catchment characterisation, preparing template
river basin management plans and compiling common
programme of measures for further development and input by
local authorities and finalisation and approval by the Minister
for the Environment.

EPA Actions under the 1st Cycle of the

WFD
>

>
>

Article 5 Water Body

Characterisation
The EPA helped the RBDs delineate the
WFD water management units (water bodies) and in the
characterisation of significant pressures within these water
bodies that could impact on water resources.
Article 8 Monitoring and Status Assessments
The EPA took responsibility for the establishment of
programmes for the monitoring of water status in order to
establish a comprehensive overview of water status within
each RBD.
1

In October 2006, the EPA published the

WFD Monitoring Programme, which assigned tasks to
the EPA, Local Authorities, Marine Institute and IFI, on

the basis of their existing competencies. Subsequently,

the EPA negotiated with the Marine Institute and with
two Government Departments to secure the resources
for the Marine Institute to carry out its monitoring role,
starting in 2011.
2
The EPA advised the DECLG on the
development of environmental standards and the water
body classification criteria that were included in the
respective Surface Water (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) and
Groundwater (S.I. No. 9 of 2010) Regulations. The EPA
also classified the status of water bodies through an
assessment of monitoring data against the standards
and criteria identified in the respective Regulations.
This assessment acted as the cornerstone of the River
Basin Management Plans that were produced for each
RBD.

>
>
>
>

>
>

>
>

Article 10 Combined Use for Point and Diffuse

Sources
The EPA implements this Article through the licensing
function, which is led by the OCLR team.
Article 11 Programme of Measures
The EPA was requested by DECLG to create a national
data management system and to compile a report on the
implementation of measures to prevent deterioration of
surface water and groundwater.
Article 13 River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)
The lead role on implementing this article in the first
cycle of implementing the WFD was assigned to the RBDs
and the first round of plans were prepared in 2009. The main
EPA role was to provide each RBD with classification
assessments for water bodies and to advise the Minister on
the amendments, if any, which the EPA considers ought to be
made to the plan(s). Based on the EPA assessment, the
DECLG has initiated a review of WFD governance for
subsequent WFD cycles.
Article 15 Reporting
The EPA has taken a lead role in reporting on behalf of
Ireland to the EU Commission and to the European
Environment Agency (EEA) on implementation of WFD tasks,
and has delivered in full on the national commitments in this
area. This has been a key deliverable in terms of meeting the

>

statutory objectives of the WFD programme.

In addition to the technical roles assigned to the EPA
under the Regulations, the EPA also coordinates the activities
of the River Basin Districts, Local Authorities and State
Agencies in implementing the Directive. It also facilitates and
carries out necessary research and participates at National
and International meetings in relation to the Directive.

The WFD River Basin Management Planning Cycle

Aquatic Monitoring and

Assessment Programme
Groundwater, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters are
the four water categories of the aquatic monitoring and
assessment programme that the EPA and Ireland report on
when assessing whether the environmental objectives of the
WFD are being met. Monitoring and assessment of water
body status are an integral part of the management strategy
for water to meet the WFDs objectives. The first official WFD

Monitoring Programme became operational on 22 December

2006.
You can find further information about the results in the EPA's
Water Publications and Reports.

Is Ireland set to go to war with

the European Commission
over water charges?
The Commission today issued a statement apparently saying that
Ireland is no longer exempt from water charges.
May 31st 2016,

A STORM IS brewing between the European Commission

(EC) and Ireland over water charges.
In response to a European parliamentary question from

Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan, the EC replied that Ireland

no longer enjoys an exemption from EU obligations for a
system of water charges.
However, both Boylan and Fianna Fils Barry Cowen have
today rejected that response.
The ECs written response to Boylan says that Irelands de
facto exemption from water charges no longer applies as
the government of Fianna Fil and the Green Party
introduced water charges and metering in 2010.
The response reads: If the established practice is to have
a system in place implementing the recovery of the costs of
water services, in accordance with the polluter pays
principle, the Commission considers that the flexibility
afforded to Member States would not apply.

That confirmation would seem to tie the governments

hands regarding the scrapping of the controversial charges
and Irish Water itself.
At the implementation of the EUs Water Framework
Directive in 2000, which was designed to improve the
quality of water across the Union, Ireland was the sole
member country which did not introduce water charges.
It was given an exemption of sorts from introducing such
charges provided it could provide evidence that the
directive would eventually be obeyed here.

Boylan, who is more than a little piqued that her question

to the Commission was leaked (see below), denies this is
the case, telling RTs DriveTime that no one in Ireland
would accept that Irish Water is an established practice
here.
Follow

Lynn Boylan MEP

Serious questions re EU Commission leaking info to

media before elected Reps of Parliament. We will be
taking it up with Ombudsman
7:24 PM - 31 May 2016 Elsene, Belgi, Belgium

55 55 Retweets51 51 likes

Source: Lynn Boylan MEP/Twitter

Boylan insisted that if a system was in place for the

recovery of the costs of water charges then the exemption
would not apply.
This is not the case, she said.
For a start Irish Water itself is not in compliance with the
directive. Its not employing full cost recovery, its just
covering the cost of its bills, so its nonsensical to interpret
from the response that the Commission gave out this
morning.
The established practice in Ireland is to pay for water
through taxation, not Irish Water.
Cowen, Fianna Fil spokesman on housing and the
environment, meanwhile told the same programme that
his party will refute and contradict the ECs response.
The same Commission replied to Alan Kelly of all people
in 2010 by referencing the established practice to the date

the current framework was implemented, which was

2003, he said.

Anyone who believes the current regime, which failed the

Eurostat test, is the established practice really needs to
check this out.
Assuming the EC applies the letter of the law, it could in
theory impose daily fines on Ireland for non-compliance
with the water directive.
If it were confirmed that Ireland isnt in fact exempt from
applying water charges it could deal a significant blow to

the setting up of an expert committee to review Irish

Water and the charges system, a key component of the
confidence and supply arrangement which saw Fianna
Fil electing to support a Fine Gael-led minority
government.
Should that happen, the new government would probably
be on very shaky ground indeed.

EU Water Directive
does not force
imposition of water
charges FF
29th March 2016

Any claim that the EU Water Framework Directive

will force any new government to retain water
charges is entirely false, according to Fianna Fil
Spokesperson on Public Expenditure and Reform
Sean Fleming.
Deputy Fleming has said the polluter pays
principal in the directive does not bind Ireland to
the imposition of domestic water charges.
We absolutely contest the legal advice being put
forward by Irish Water. Its important to recognise
that this legal advice was commissioned by Irish
Water, and it should be examined with caution in
light of this. Its extraordinary to see Irish Water
quoting EU rules as sacrosanct considering they
failed to meet the key Eurostat market test last
year, said Deputy Fleming.
Under Article 9 of the Directive, Member States
are required to ensure the price charged to water
consumers, both domestic and non-domestic, for
the distribution of fresh water and treatment of

waste water reflects the true costs.

However Member States have a clear opt-out
clause (Article 9.4) from domestic water user
charges, which allows that Member States may
take account of the social, environmental and
economic effects of water usage in recovering the
costs of water services.
Even without the opt-out clause in Article 9.4 of
the EU water directive, the governments own flatrate water charges would not be compliant with
the principle of incentive water pricing included in
the directive. We do not believe there is any basis
for concluding from the directive that any future
Irish government is tied to water charges. In fact,
we believe it is entirely possible for the next
government to suspend water charges and invest
in our water infrastructure.
The Fianna Fil position on water charges has not
changed. We do not support the continued
imposition of water charges on households. It
remains Fianna Fils position that priority must be
given to investing in our water infrastructure,
repairing leaks and improving water quality.

What does household charges suspension

mean?

The Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016 provides for

the suspension of household water charges, to provide
time for an extensive deliberative process to be
undertaken on the funding of household water services.
Firstly, the Government will establish an expert
commission, which will make recommendations on a
sustainable long-term funding model for the delivery of
household water and wastewater services by Irish Water.

Secondly, a special Oireachtas committee on the funding

of domestic water services will then consider these
recommendations and endeavour to make its own
recommendations.
Finally, the Oireachtas will consider and vote on these
recommendations.

Water Conservation
Grant
This article was last reviewed 3 months 2 days ago
It is due for its next review in 6 months 9 hours

The Water Conservation Grant was introduced by the

Government in 2015 with the aim of promoting water
conservation and environmentally-friendly use of water
services in the home.
Applications for the 2015 Water Conservation Grant
have now closed. It is too late to apply for the 2015
grant.
Due to the suspension of domestic water charges in 2016,
the Water Conservation Grant is also suspended this year.
The grant will not be available in 2016.
The conservation of water in the home is critically
important in protecting national water sources and the
efficient use of our water resources. The department has
produced a leaflet for householders on low-cost ways to
conserve water and use water services in an
environmentally-friendly way.
2015 Water Conservation Grant
The Department of Social Protection (DSP) administered
the grant on behalf of this department in 2015. Irish
Waters customer data, transferred to the DSP for the
purposes of the grant, is securely protected and is not
used by the DSP for any other reason.
A memorandum of agreement on data protection between
the department, the DSP and Irish Water was signed in
June 2015.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migratedfiles/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad
%2C42488%2Cen.pdf
WATER SERVICES ACT 2007

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/30/enacted/en/
pdf

An Taisce's Rio+20 Submission

An Taisce sent in a response to the EU regarding the

Rio+20 consultation.
http://antaisce.eezines.org/2013/feb2013/documents/Rio
%20submission%20UN%2031%2010%2011.pdf

Destruction of National Monuments

Not Link

Ringfort at Cabragh Copyright Pamela Norrington

and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons
Licence
An Taisce members are advised to report the destruction
of national monuments.
The 2004 Amendment to the National Monuments Act
weakened the protection of our prime heritage assets. The

granting of discretionary powers, in the determination of

preservation in situ or the removal of a National
Monument, to the Minister of the day introduced political
considerations into what had been a straightforward legal
determination. Despite a prolonged process of
consultation the last administration ultimately failed to
rectify this deficiency in the legislation. The active
protection of our extant monuments is thus all the more
important.
The recent successful prosecution of Mr. Pat Desmond in
the Cork Circuit Criminal Court for the demolition of two
ringforts led to the imposition of accumulative fines of
20,000. Earlier this year Mr. John O'Mahony was
convicted of the destruction of a ringfort in Co. Kerry. He
was fined 25,000.
The area occupied by a ringfort can be substantial
(depending on type). The potential gains in land area, and
future earnings from the additional land, have to be offset
by the fines imposed. It is relevant to note that the
defendant in the Co. Cork case stated that he also lost
27,000 in deductions from the Deptartment of
Agriculture's single farm payment as a result of his
actions.
An Garda Sochna is to be congratulated on these
successful investigations and subsequent convictions. The
lesson has to be a hard one, otherwise potential
miscreants will never learn. Ringforts, for example, date to

the 7th-9th century A.D. They are national assets. To

wilfully destroy the heritage of this country is unpatriotic
and does the state no service.
The membership of An Taisce has a role to play. We would
urge all members to report any local acts of destruction to
Tailor's Hall. We will bring the incident in question to the
attention of the relevant Garda authorities.
Dr Mark Clinton.
Chair, Monuments and Antiquities Committee,

ECJ Fines Ireland over Septic Tanks.

Not Link

Voice Irelands' World Water Day www.voiceireland.ie

Ireland fined by European Court of Justice - Over Septic
Tanks and Environmental Impact Assessments
Ireland today became the sixth country to be fined by the
European Court of Justice (ECJ). Ireland was fined twice
today, once for not complying with a Judgement on Septic
Tanks issued in October 2009 and again for not complying

with a Judgement on Environmental Impact Assessments

(EIA) issued in November 2008.
The October 2009 ECJ judgment was on foot of the
'Waste Directive 75/442/EEC' that Ireland negotiated,
agreed and signed up to in 1975 and has dragged its feet
about ever since. The lump sum fine of 2,000,000
(reduced from the amount requested because of steps
taken and because of the fact that Ireland's ability to pay
has to a certain degree been diminished in the context of
economic crisis) is for failing over the last 3 years to
honour the 2009 judgement. The daily fine of 12,000,
calculated from today, represents a Civil Servant's annual
salary every 4 days and will continue until a satisfactory
registration, inspection and maintenance regime is in
place.
Charles Stanley-Smith, Communications Officer of An
Taisce, The National Trust for Ireland stated "It is essential
that Ireland puts in place a satisfactory inspection and
maintenance regime for septic tanks for the health and
safety of our families, our water and our environment and
not just for the fact that we are being fined 12,000 a day".
Charles Stanley-Smith further stated "An Taisce believes
that nobody has the right through inaction to threaten
another's right to clean water and a clean environment and
calls upon owners of septic tanks to register as soon as
possible and suitably maintain their systems." He
continued "The truth is that the wheels of European justice

turn extraordinarily slowly and Ireland has had many

opportunities to sort this problem. An Taisce hopes that
the imposition of daily fines will focus minds on the need to
protect our environment and secure good water quality, as
well as the broader need to tackle other serious
environmental issues."
An Taisce warned of the consequences of the proliferation
of unsewered properties, there have been 170,000 such
planning permissions in last ten years. Most of these
dwellings have been permitted with little regard to our
precious water resources. This has led to increased costs
to homeowners for inspection and maintenance and to the
state in terms of today's fines and Minister Hogan's recent
announcement of grants to suitably qualified applicants.
The November 2008 judgement on the EIA case related to
the need to ensure proper environmental impact
assessments in projects such as the removal of
hedgerows and old stone walls. The ECJ believes that
current legislation now deals with the issues raised and
has fined Ireland 1,500,000 (reduced from the amount
requested because of steps taken and because of the fact
that Ireland's ability to pay has to a certain degree been
diminished in the context of economic crisis), for delay in
the period since the 2008 judgement.
An Taisce Press Release 19/12/2012

City Streetscapes.
Not Link

One outcome of the poor enforcement regime in Galway is

the deteriorating streetscapes in the city. The submission
below, addressed to the City Manager last October brings
this issue into focus.
Dear Sir,
"Shop fronts can be the making or the undoing of
historical streetscapes. They provide life, visual interest,
social interaction and amenity to locals and visitors alike
through the practice of trading, which is as old as
civilisation itself."
So begins the introduction to Howley Hayes Architects,
Draft Shop-front Guidelines in preparation for adoption by
Galway City Council. (30th May, 2012).

"Shop-fronts are the single most important element in

shaping the visitors perception of retail areas."
An Taisce are very concerned about the seriously
deteriorating condition of certain streetscapes in Galway,
owing to an absence of effective Planning Enforcement in
relation to compliance with planning permissions validly
given, and installation of unauthorised shop-fronts,
signage and usage.
If allowed, this situation will begin to seriously hamper
efforts to promote good shop-front design and present an
attractive, sophisticated face to the city centre. We submit
that the situation must be addressed before it becomes
out of control and Galway begins to look like anytown
Europe.
An Taisce have previously written to express our serious
concern for the future of Galways diminishing shop-front
heritage, we have on many occasions made submissions
to particular planning applications dealing with their
renewal and replacement. Now in a growing flush of
developments, referring increasingly to the retention of
works which have already been done, but without the
formality of going through any public planning process.
In fact, a culture seems to have developed of altering
shop-fronts/erecting signage for new shop/restaurants and
then applying for retention afterwards. And the City
Council don't seem to have any problem with this - as any

new shop opening is viewed as welcome economic

development!
How right is it to see certain older shop-fronts, as well as
interiors being removed from Protected Structures, some
before the city Heritage Officer has even had an
opportunity to inspect, give advices and to make any
photographic record of what is to be removed; only
notifying him of such changes when an application for
retention is submitted and evidence has been dumped in a
skip is not good enough?
It would appear that some applications still fail to comply
with the requirements of Article 23 (2) Planning
Development Regulations 2001 as they are neither
accompanied by photographs, plans, or other particulars
necessary to indicate how the development will affect the
character of the Protected Structure or ACA. With
supporting reports from Conservation Architects being
attached only after work has been completed.
The number of applications for retention after interiors and
frontages have been ripped out of Protected Structures
without any apparent permission, has determined that we
again bring to your attention our concerns over this lack of
care for the city's architectural heritage.
Where the character of shop-fronts has been put under
threat by reason of planning neglect, the responsibility for
heritage protection lies with the planning authority.

It should be said, that An Taisce recognises that many

retailers in Galway continue to face serious threats to the
future of their businesses by reason of this broken
economy; being required to keep their costs down in order
to survive, for some, is a daily chore.
However, there can be no excuse for neglecting the
responsibility to maintain, adapt if required, and to
preserve Protected Buildings, and those that are within
Architectural Conservation Areas; through proper
application of the planning process. To do things right
should cost no more surely!
In order to allow the public, as represented by An Taisce,
achieve a better understanding of the current planning
status and to ensure the following situations are properly
regularised; we would appreciate hearing your intitial
comments in response to this submission and to welcome
your proposals for a detailed review and full investigation
into the list we have prepared for you below:-

The following list is indicative, but is not by any means

exhaustive, there may be other unauthorised shop-front
developments we have missed and not listed here.
Pl. Ref. No 12/262 - Permission for retention of
replacement timber windows and doors signs etc, etc. This
is an extremely important Protected Structure (the Thimble
Castle), to which no changes should have been made in
the absence of a full and open public planning process.

Current.
Pl. Ref. No: 12/231 - Retention of revised shopfront within
an ACA. Despite an improved outcome with a better
external appearance, there is concern for the lack of use
of the normal public planning process. Current.
Pl. Ref. No: 12/259 - Retention of change of use in a
Protected Structure. Again, a very important Protected
Structure which has undergone some serious changes
without the advantage of having any assessment made on
the application by the citys Heritage Officer. Current.
Pl. Ref. No: 12/213 - Permission for retention for a change
of use from Retail use to Cafe/Wine Bar/Restaurant use
including shop front changes and signage. This building,
situated within an important 19thcentury terrace, has had
its shopfront and interior fixtures removed without any
apparent prior permission, before any record was made of
its former interior. How did this happen? Current.
Pl. Ref. No: 12/140 - Permission for exposed brickwork
facade with rendered reveals at windows to hide
decomposed brickwork. The above property had its
application for retention refused. When will the Lime
render that was removed without permission be
restored? 31st July, 2012 Refused .
Pl. Ref. No: 11/272. Permission for retention of a new gas
storage chamber with louvered door to front of building,
and changes to layout of approved cafe/bistro and
alterations to rear extractor fan. An earlier application for a
new shop-front using timber was substituted by use of a
uPVC, or anodised steel one. Still in situ four years after
the original application. How has this situation been

allowed continue for so long? Current

Pl. Ref. No: 11/48 - Retention refused for changes to
facade which ordered removal of uPVC coated steel
doors, in an ACA. Still in place today. Split decision given
which refused retention of unauthorised doors that are still
in position. Enforcement required? Permission given
with conditions, 8th December, 2011 .
Pl. Ref. No: 07/572 - Where permission given for timber
doors, saw uPVC coated aluminium ones put in.
Enforcement required here surely? Permission given
18th Sept, 2007
Pl. Ref. No: 07/758 - Timber doors granted - uPVC
installed. Enforcement required. Permission given 28th
Feb, 2008 .
Pl. Ref. No: 07/819 - Timber double opening doors
permitted. Electric aluminium opening doors fitted. Also,
windows blocked off with excessive use of non-permitted
plastic adhesive window graphics and signage.
Enforcement required. Permission with conditions
given 1st May, 2008 .
Finally.
Two particular, rapidly deteriorating Protected premises
need to be given consideration under Derelict Buildings
regulations, and protection/conservation measures taken
before buildings fall down. No. 23 Quay St, and Taafes
shop, William St. Both buildings have damaged/roofs and
are open to all weathers and in need of immediate
conservation. Rapid enforcement is required.
In cases where a shop-front is found to be unauthorised,

or has undergone unauthorised alteration, appropriate

enforcement action should follow swiftly.
The Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for
Planning Authorities 2005 Section 7.9 states the aim of
good conservation practice is to preserve the authentic
fabric which contributes the special interest of the
structure, therefore where damaged or deteriorated
features could reasonably be repaired, its replacement
should not be permitted. Applicants should therefore
submit valid justification for the replacement of the existing
shopfronts/interiors.
An Taisces Galway Association members would
appreciate your full attention in taking appropriate action
on the above list and await your advices on actions to be
taken.
In line with An Taisce's right to comment, you might attach
a copy of this submission to each of those applications
detailed in our list above marked as 'current'.
We request that the Local Authority provide an
acknowledgement to this submission in line with this legal
requirement as provided for under Article 28(4) of the
Planning & Development Regulations 2001.
Yours sincerely, Derrick Hambleton, Chair An Taisce
Galway

Car Parking and Town Centre Degredation

Not Link

An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland asks Ministers

Hogan and Varadkar to bring forward proposals to levy
charges on out of town retail parking and for that levy to be
passed on to car based customers of those out of town
centre. An Taisce's proposal will help level the playing field
between town centre and out of town venues. An Taisce
notes similar proposals by RGDATA in their report
'Nightmare on every street, Town Centres, Car Parking
and Smart Travel' .
An Taisce has long fought for Irish Town Centres, their
vibrancy and viability is so important to the quality of life of
their inhabitants, their tourists and those in their hinterland.
Ireland is one of the world's most car dependant nations
and so the ease of parking one's car has a considerable
influence on where to shop. Town centre viability is thus

threatened as councils impose parking charges in town

centres, whereas out of town centres provide free parking
to their customers.
Following the success of the Dublin Bicycle scheme there
is the opportunity for a rebate to out of town centres that
provide a similar bicycle hire scheme.
Urban sprawl and dispersed settlements make it
impossible to provide economically viable public transport,
so many people are car dependent by necessity. The
combination of Climate Change and Peak Oil is going to
severely impact on our ability to afford to drive our cars.
We must now turn away from the mistakes of the past and
align planning and development with the long-term
interests of the public. We must return to strong and
vibrant town centres, which are currently under stress but
which should provide a community where the majority of
one's needs are available within walking or bicycling
distance.
An Taisce Press Release 31/12/2013

Rural Development and Greening the CAP.

http://www.iiea.com/ftp/environmentnexus
%20papers/Greening%20CAP%20Payments_A
%20Missed%20Opportunity-IIEA-environex_project2013.pdf

The Government is currently reviewing the Rural

Development Programme 2014-2020 which covers CAP
budgets and improving the competitiveness of sustainable
farming. It also covers maintenance of rural life through
economic and social supports. This programme is the
bread and butter of the Partnership Companies who
distribute leader funding amongst other things and of
course many of our members are on these companies
representing the Environmental Pillar.
Rural Development Programme Ireland (2007-2013)
Submitted to Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food and the European Commission
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/ruralenviron
ment/ruraldevelopment/strategiesandprogrammes/MidTer
mEvaluationoftheRuralDevelopmentProgrammeIreland200
72013.pdf

Butterfly Conservation
Not Link

Large Copper.
J.Harding
Unless the government stops illegal peat-cutting on
protected bogs the Large Heath will become extinct. An
article reprinted from the website of
www.butterflyconservation.ie
In the mid-nineteenth century Reverend F.O. Morris,
author of a book on butterflies, commented on the
drainage of the wetlands of East England in
Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire and specifically
about the drainage of Whittlesea [now in the modern
county of Cambridgeshire]. In 1851 Morris wrote:
"Science, with one of her many triumphs, has here truly
achieved a mighty and valuable victory, and the land that
was once productive of fever and ague, now scarce yields
to any in broad England in the weight of its golden harvest.
The entomologist is the only person who has cause to
lament the change, and he, loyal and patriotic subject as
he is, must not repine at even the disappearance of the
Large Copper butterfly, in the face of such vast and
magnificent advantages. Still he may be pardoned for
casting "one longing lingering look behind," and I cannot
but with some regret recall the time when almost any
number of this dazzling fly was easily procurable."
The last record of the British Large Copper comes from
1864, from the Norfolk Broads, a famous wetland where
the British Swallowtail butterfly still survives.

Reverend Morris's mixed feelings of delight at seeing land

brought into production and regret at the extinction of the
British Large Copper [Lycaena dispar dispar] surely cannot
be shared by today's butterfly lovers. To highlight the
disaster that happened when the English fens were
destroyed it must be emphasised that the Large Copper
found there was a unique subspecies. Furthermore, from
the 1920's to the 1990's reintroduction attempts were
made using Dutch Large Coppers [these are most similar
to the extinct British Large Copper]. Despite enormous
effort all of these attempts failed. The programme is
currently suspended. It is now hoped that fen restoration,
which involves a huge flooding of 3,700 hectares of
farmland to reconnect two former Large Copper sites,
Woodwalton Fen and Holne Fen will provide sufficiently
large habitat to allow a successful reintroduction. This
initiative is known as the Great Fen Project.
This sad story contains very important lessons for our
wetland habitats, especially our bogs. Eminent
lepidopterist and author of " The Butterflies of Britain and
Ireland" Jeremy Thomas has written about the Large
Heath butterfly in Ireland:
"No-one doubts, however, that the widespread loss of
peatlands in Ireland is causing numerous local extinctions
in the species' stronghold, and is a very great cause for
concern" .

Once lost, a butterfly can be difficult or even impossible to

reintroduce. Many butterflies need large areas of suitable
landscape for long-term survival. Continuous destruction
of habitats creates greater distances between areas of
suitable habitat and causes disappearance of habitat
specialists. This biodiversity crisis is avoidable but unless
the government stops illegal peat-cutting on protected
bogs the Large Heath will become extinct. Despite
warnings not to cut peat that the government made earlier
this year peat-cutting went ahead on protected sites and
according to a recent report all SAC [Special Area of
Conservation] bogs in Roscommon were cut with a T.D.
claiming that he had vindicated turf-cutters' rights. Too few
turf-cutters have signed up for the compensation scheme
[just under 1,500 payments were made by the government
to turf-cutters who entered the compensation scheme,
according to the statement Minister for Arts, Heritage and
Gaeltacht Jimmy Deenihan made in the Dil on October
3rd].No farm payments have yet been withheld from those
who cut peat this year in breach of EU and Irish law,
according to a recent report.
It may well be that the issue will be resolved and that turfcutting will cease but if the case of the fens in Britain is
repeated here, the conservation will come too late, when
there are such small isolated areas remaining that the
habitats will not be worth protecting or capable of being
conserved. Such bogs are incapable of supporting species
that need extensive areas.

If you want to see a British Large Copper butterfly today

the zoological department at Cambridge is the place to
visit. Perhaps a visit to the Natural History Museum in
Merrion Street, next-door to the Dil will be the place to
see the Irish Large Heath in a few years' time.
[Note: The photograph above is of the Large Copper
subspecies that occurs in central and eastern Europe

Keep Ireland Open

Not Link

The Boyne river in Meath (from the Ireland Genealogy

Projects website)
Keep Ireland Open, now a member of An Taisce, is the
only national organisation, lobbying for better access to
the countryside. KIO has welcomed the adoption of the
new six year plan for Co Meath which contains a list(with
maps) of 24 public rights of way. Meath is the first county
to honour their obligation under the 2010 Planning Act.
The Plan also provides that further rights of way will be
added from time to time.

Chairman Roger Garland said that: "This is a win/win

situation for recreational users and landowners as it
defines tracks where people have a legal right to use
which should mean that accidental trespassing on private
property will soon be a thing of the past. We expect that as
well as providing an important recreational facility for
residents it will assist in promoting tourism in the county" .
For further info contact Roger Garland at 01-4934239 or
085-7222915

The reform of Local Government and a review

of the National Spatial Strategy
Following the publication of the Government's policy
document Putting People First, which was noted in last
months e-zine there has naturally been some attention to
these matters.

The Regional Studies Association recently organized a

conference on Regional Economic Resilience, which was
attended by Judy Osborne and Charles Stanley Smith
from An Taisce.
You can see some notes here...which summarise the key
components of the plan, which will ultimately aim to
coordinate economic and spatial plans.
An aspect that will be very important for An Taisce
members is that, as yet, there does not seem to be any
place for representatives advocating on behalf of the
environment in the structures. The proposals speak of

economic and social development only where as

'Sustainable' Development would take the wider issues of
environmental damage, destruction of biodiversity and the
use of scarce resources into consideration. The
Environmental Forum, one of the pillars of Social
Partnership, of which An Taisce is part, has picked up on
this and is currently speaking with government about this
serious oversight. More information on this will be sent as
it emerges.
For the plans for local government reform to be coherent it
will also be necessary to review the National Spatial
Strategy and the National Development Plan and the latest
issue of Administration covers these subjects.
Administration is the peer-reviewed journal of the Institute
of Public Administration of Ireland. It has been published
quarterly since 1953. As the principal journal concerned
with Irish public administration and its development, it
seeks to combine original scholarship on public
administration from a variety of disciplines with the insights
and experiences of practitioners.
The latest issue, Volume 60 Number 3 features "Revisiting
the National Spatial Strategy ten years on" .
Notes from the guest editors can be seen here...
It costs 25 and can be ordered here
http://ipa.ie/index.php?

lang=en&p=product&id=240&prodid=266
The articles include one by our own built environment
chairman, Gavin Daly who writes with Rob Kitchin on
Ireland after NAMA. Planning for spatial selectivity in
population growth in Ireland .

J
J
J

Other articles are:

The National Spatial Strategy: Rationale, process,
performance and prospects, by James A. Walsh
Economics - The missing link in the National Spatial
Strateg, by Edgar Morgenroth
Perspectives on Ireland's economic geography: An
evaluation of spatial structures by David Meredith, Jim
Walsh & Ronan Foley
Gateways, hubs and regional specialisation in the National
Spatial Strategy by Chris van Egeraat, Proinnsias
Breathnach & Declan Curran
Urban specialisation, complementarity and spatial
development strategies on the island of Ireland by Des
McCafferty, Chris van Egeraat, Justin Gleeson & Brendan
Bartley
Governance and the National Spatial Strategy - Placing
spatial policy at the heart of the diagonal public service by
San O'Riordin

Rebuilding Ireland: Address

Homelessness
Sep 22, 2016
Rebuilding Ireland's plan to address homelessness includes

early solutions to rectify the unacceptable level of people in

emergency accommodation, the delivery of new rapid-build
homes, the sourcing of vacant sites, the expansion of the
Housing Assistance Payment's homeless tenancies and a
tripling of the 'Housing First' programme's target.
www.rebuildingireland.ie
@rebuildingirl
#rebuildingireland
This is an initiative of the Government of Ireland.

6,170
people were recorded as
homeless in May 2016

Pillar Actions
>
>
>
>
>
>

The first six months of 2016 have seen 1,350 exits from
homelessness, Pillar Ones key actions include early solutions
to address the unacceptable level of families in emergency
accommodation and the provision of housing:
Well build at least 1,500 rapid delivery homes by 2018. 320 of
these will be under construction or completed by 2016s end.
1,600 existing vacant units will be sourced by the Housing
Agency.
Well expand the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP)
homeless tenancies to 550 in 2016 and 1,200 in 2017.
Well triple the Housing First programmes unit target in
Dublin from 100 to 300.
Well put an additional 200 emergency beds in place for
individuals and rough sleepers by the end of 2016, at a cost of
up to 4 million.
The HSEs annual budget for homeless services will be
increased by approx. 20% 6 million. This will provide
health, mental health and addiction supports to rough sleepers

and people in emergency accommodation, who often have

complex needs that must be addressed in tandem with the
provision of stable housing.
Well keep people in their homes where possible, with financial
and legal support for people in mortgage arrears and a
nationwide free-phone service for tenants by end 2016.
Supporting Homeless Families
Well phase out the use of hotels by mid-2017, except for
emergency cases, and provide more supports for families with
children.
The prevalence of homeless families and the use of hotels for
emergency accommodation is a much more significant issue
in the Dublin Region than it is in the rest of the country
approx. 90% of homeless families are in the Dublin Region.
Our intention is to move the existing group of families out of
these hotel arrangements as quickly as possible and, by mid2017 hotels will only be used as emergency accommodation
in exceptional circumstances.
Rapid-Build Housing
Rapid-build housing offers a more stable environment than the
use of hotels for families in need of emergency
accommodation. By 2018 at least 1,500 rapid delivery units
will be delivered. By the end of 2016, 300 will be under
construction or completed, with a further 700 in 2017 and the
remaining 500 in 2018. Enabling works have been carried out
in Ballyfermot, Drimnagh, Belcamp and Finglas with
construction expected to commence in October.
Expanded Housing First Programme
Through Housing First we will provide permanent, stable and
supported housing to our long-term homeless individuals and
thus reduce the reliance on emergency accommodation over
time. We are tripling the Housing First unit target in Dublin
from 100 to 300 and strengthening the approach in other
major urban areas throughout 2017.
Sourcing Vacant Housing Units
The Housing Agency will acquire 1,600 vacant properties, a
number of which will be used to provide permanent homes for
homeless families. The Housing Agency will be directly funded
with 70 million in capital Exchequer funding to find and

acquire suitable portfolios of vacant properties for social

housing, including homeless families, directly from financial
institutions and investors. These 1,600 units will be delivered
by 2020.
The Housing Agency has already acquired 171 properties on
behalf of Local Authorities and more than 730 homes have
been offered to the agency for sale. So far bids have been
made in respect of 96 of these homes and 49 of these have
been accepted.
The increased supply of social housing targeted in Rebuilding
Irelands plan, 47,000 homes by the end of 2021, will also
ensure that more homes are provided for those who are
homeless and for those at risk of homelessness.
Housing Assistance Payment for Homeless Households
(HAP)
The Homeless Pilot of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP)
scheme has been operational since February 2015 and we will
expand it to increase the transition of households from
emergency accommodation into private rented tenancies. This
expansion will see 550 tenancies created in 2016 and 1,200
created in 2017. So far this year in excess of 450 tenancies
have been secured and we are confident we will exceed this
years target. 69% of the households accommodated under
the pilot are families with children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpyPdFHZSjk

Understanding the financialization of the city

September 5, 2016

The role of finance and financial actors in shaping the city is increasingly key
to understanding some contemporary urban problems. Why are rents rising?
Why is office space being built when were in the middle of a homelessness
crisis and desperately need to increase the supply of affordable housing? How
and where is profit being produced from urban space and what are the likely
outcomes of this type of model? All of these questions in some way relate to
how finance shapes the city.
These questions have somewhat complex answers. Moreover, these are also
quickly shifting sands. Indeed, the crisis (both in Ireland and internationally)
and government responses to it has also created new opportunities for
financial actors (Vulture funds, Real Estate Investment Trusts etc) to invest in
and profit from the production of urban space. To understand the
contemporary city requires us to understand the role that finance plays.
In a previous blog post I looked at the concept of the financialization of the
city. There were two key arguments put forward in that post. The first was

that it is important to grasp precisely what is being financialized when we say

the city is being financialized. It is the capacity of urban space, or rather
property ownership over urban space, to generate rent by capturing socially
produced value. The issuing of credit and other financial products secured by
or underpinned by income streams arising from property is ultimately
underpinned by this singular monopolistic feature of place as a commodity,
to use Molotch and Logans term.
The second argument relates more specifically to the contemporary context of
financialization, understood as a specific phase of the development of
capitalist political economy. Here, the argument is that what is decisive about
the current conjecture is the tradability of income streams arising from
property. The classic example here is the securitisation of mortgages, whereby
mortgage repayments are bundled together and traded on international
financial markets. This argument has been put forward by a number of the
most insightful commentators on this issue, including John Coakleys (1994)
early and extremely prescient work on property as a financial asset and the
empirically rich analyses of Guironnet and Halbert (2014; see also Gotham
2006; 2009). Fine and Saad-Filho are particularly succinct in their analysis
here:
[A] mortgageremains a simple (transhistoric) credit relation between
borrower and lender. However, it becomes embroiled in financialization once
the mortgage obligation is sold on as part of some other asset
In my previous post and elsewhere (e.g. Byrne, 2016) I also but forward the
above argument. However, there are problems with this approach that Id like
to address here briefly.
The principal problem with the focus on real estate as a tradable income
yielding asset (Guironnet and Halber, 2014) is the fact that it is overly reliant
on the US case and especially on the example of securitization. This is
understandable given the role of securitization in the financial crisis. But it
presents a particular problem for understanding the financialization of the
city in the European context, where securitization played a relatively minor
role. Understanding the role of property in the European financial system
leads us in another direction. Here, the key driver of the property bubble was
flows of finance between core and periphery (Flassbeck and Lapavitsas,
2015). This mainly took the form of inter-bank lending.
Essentially, northern European banks invested in the over-heating property
markets of Ireland and Spain (and elsewhere) by lending to banks in those
countries. Securitization did play a role in Spain (Lpez and Rodrguez, 2010;
Norris and Byrne, 2015), but it was far from the main vehicle through which
credit flowed into real estate. Nor was it the vehicle through which income
streams arising from Irish residential and commercial real estate flowed bank
into the international financial system.
Most of the credit issued in Ireland during the property boom was nonsecuritized, more or less old fashioned development finance, investment loans
and residential mortgages. The main driver was thus not financial innovation
and the tradability of property as a financial asset, but economic and
monetary union and the deregulation of financial flows, elimination of
exchange rate risk and low ECB interest rates that accompanied it.
If the transformation of real estate into a tradable income-yielding asset is not
the definitive feature of financialization of the city then what is? Drawing on
the Irish and Spanish cases, the key feature relates to the way in which income

streams arising from local real estate took on a structural and systemic role in
the European financial system and its expansion as well as in European
political economy more generally. As has been argued by others
(Hadjimichalis, 2011; Flassbeck and Lapavitsas, 2015; there also many
parallels with David Harveys work on the built environment as the secondary
circuit of capital here), investment in and returns from real estate canalized
the flows of capital from the current account surplus core countries to the
current account deficit peripheral countries.
What is novel, then, is the systemic role of real estate in the circulation of
interest bearing capital at a European level. The massive increase in the
volume of credit flowing into real estate in Ireland and Spain reflects this role.
From this point of view, securitization and inter-bank lending are two
different mechanisms or avenues through which global financial capital can
flow through local urban spaces, but not the cause or essential factor of the
financialization of the city. Instead, the key factor is the structural and
systemic role that income streams arising from property take on in the
accumulation of capital at the European level.
One concluding note which is interesting, however, is that the aftermath of the
financial crisis has seen huge trading of financial assets linked to property in
Ireland, Spain and across Europe. This has mainly taken the form of bad
banks and other wind down operations selling distressed assets to US private
equity and hedge funds (Byrne, 2015; 2016; forthcoming). This may mean
the importance of property as a tradable income yielding asset will grow in
the aftermath of the crisis and the role of inter-banking landing and structural
flows of capital between core and periphery may diminish. For the moment it
is too early to draw any conclusion.
Articles referenced
Byrne, M. (2015). Bad banks: the urban implications of Asset Management
Companies, Journal of Urban Research and Practice, 8(2) 255-266.
Byrne, M. (2016a). Asset price urbanism and financialization after the crisis:
Irelands National Asset Management Agency. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 31-45.
Byrne, M. (Forthcoming) Bad banks and the urban dimension of
financialization: theorizing the co-constitutive relationship between finance
and urban space. City.
Coakley, J. 1994. The Integration of Property and Financial Markets.
Environment and Planning A 26 (5): 697713.
Flassbeck, H., & Lapavitsas, C. (2015). Against the troika: Crisis and
austerity in the Eurozone. Verso Books.
Gotham, K. F. 2006. The secondary circuit of capital reconsidered:
globalization and the U.S. real estate sector. American Journal of Sociology
112(1): 231-75.
Gotham, K.F. 2009. Creating Liquidity out of spatial fixity: the secondary
circuit of capital and the subprime mortgage crisis. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 33(2): 355-71.
Guironnet, A. and Halbert, L. 2014. The financialization of urban development
projects: concepts, processes, and implications. Working Paper n14-04 URL:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- 01097192/document
Hadjimichalis, C. (2011). Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial
justice and solidarity: European regions after the 2009 financial
crisis.European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(3), 254-274.

Lpez, I. and E, Rodrguez. 2010. Fin de ciclo: financiarizacin, territorio y

socieded de propeitarios en la onda large del capitalismo hispano. Madrid,
Traficantes de Sueos.
Norris, M. and Byrne, M. 2015. Asset Price Keynesianism, Regional
Imbalances and the Irish and Spanish Housing Booms and Busts. Built
Environment, 41(2): 227-243.

People interested in urban studies will have no doubt come across the term
the financialization of the city, or similar terms such as the financialization
of real estate or the financialization of urban space. This post gives a sense of
what this means, but also theorizes how financialization relates to urban space
with regard to the accumulation of wealth.
At its most basic, financialization describes the growing power of finance
capital over economic, social and political processes. From an urban point of
view financialization can also be understood as a form of accumulation
characterized by the capturing of value and wealth through the provision of
credit, insurance and forms of financial intermediation.
Debt extracts huge volumes of wealth from across the economy and society,
leading Costas Lavapistas to conceptualize it as a parasitic form of profiting
without producing. Much of the expansion of finance in this regard has
occurred in the spaces left open by welfare retrenchment. The privatization of
social housing, pensions, transport, education and healthcare have all been
fundamental to the emergence of new financial markets. This draws attention
to shift from welfare to debtfare and thus to the ways in which finance serves
to sink its teeth into the social reproduction previously sustained by public
services. Here the literature on financialization shares much with concepts
like enclosure and accumulation by dispossession (although these have
taken aim at neoliberalism and privatization more so than at financialization).
While financialization refers to a vast and varied set of processes, urban space
is especially important. There has historically been a strong link between
finance and the built environment due to the large upfront capital costs of
development and the need to manage risks across long time spans. However,
the highly place-based nature of real estate has also traditionally posed
obstacles for finance. Every property is unique and hard to measure against
other properties and this has made property markets more local and
idiosyncratic than, say, the market for cars, washing machines or pizzas. High
transaction costs and the large amount of time required for property

development, relative to other commodities, add to this.

Financial innovation and deregulation has, however, made property
increasingly liquid. This works by disembedding property assets from local
contexts as well as more complex mechanisms for managing risk. Real estate
as an investment asset can now be easily traded on global markets (e.g.
securities, mortgage bonds, large scale commercial real estate, loan portfolios)
and investors have come to view property as a tradable income yielding asset.
As one private sector informant told me, property sits nicely between equities
and bonds in that it produces a fixed income stream (like a bond) while at the
same time offering possibilities for capital appreciation (like shares). At the
same time, the wider financial system itself has grown rapidly because of
deregulation, the liberalization of capital markets and currency exchange, and
a prolonged period of historically low interest rates in key economies.
There is a large and growing literature on all of the above, but what has
received less attention is what this relationship between finance and urban
space means in terms of accumulation (i.e. the accumulation of capital). The
fact that real estate allows the owner to capture socially produced wealth has
long been recognized, for example in the pioneering work of Henry George.
The late 19th century political economists wrote that if you speculate on land
You may sit down and smoke your pipeand without doing a stroke of work,
without adding one iota to the wealth of the community, in ten years you will
be rich. What makes this possible is that increasing property prices and rent
reflect value added by environmental improvements, public infrastructure and
services, and social relations. Property values represent, as George put it, a
value created by the whole community.
Because of the monopolistic nature of space, land and property values capture
wealth creation happening in and around them. This parasitic quality of real
estate has featured prominently in debates about gentrification, where
property speculation both feeds on and undermines unique locational
qualities and forms of social and cultural wealth.
The financialization of urban space essentially involves the power of finance
capital (especially credit and products linked to credit) to embed itself within
spaces monopolistic appropriation of value, and thereby to extract and trade
claims over income streams arising from property assets. What is financialized
is not simply urban space, but more concretely space as an apparatus for
capturing collectively produced wealth. And this process is not neutral, there
are winners and losers here. The wealth appropriated by finance capital,
whether in the form of job creation, environmental improvements, public
infrastructure/services, or social relations, is central to social reproduction. It
also has important spatial implications for the political economy of space. In
particular, when the income streams captured by property become tradable on
international markets they go global, integrating the places we make our lives
in with transnational circuits of capital.
Finally, the state is anything but a hapless bystander in all of this. Scholars
and social movements in cities across the world have highlighted the role of
the state in the financialization of urban space and fomenting property
bubbles. This research has primarily focused on how housing and urban
development/planning policy serve to drive financialization. A smaller body of
work has examined some forms of state intervention relating more specifically
to financial assets, identifying how such interventions may lead to the creation
of new products and markets (witness our own NAMA at the moment).

So, what can we do about all this? There has been lots of discussion about the
right to the city in recent years. This term is associated with Henri Lefebvre,
but I think Henry George put it best when he said:
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to
breathe the air it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we
cannot suppose that some men have right to be in this world and others no
right.
Property values, rent and financialization are all the flipside of the exclusion of
all of us from housing and from free and equal access to and enjoyment of our
cities. We cant take on financialization, without taking back urban space.
Mick Byrne
Mick Byrne is an IRC postdoctoral researcher in NIRSA NUI Maynooth. He is
also an activist involved in various housing issues, including the Dublin
Tennants Association.
Dublin Tenants Association is a peer-advocacy and tenant support group
based in Dublin 7. We believe that housing is a social right for everyone,
including those who rent. Our aim is to educate and empower ourselves as
tenants in the private residential sector to advocate for ourselves and secure
our right to housing. In our group, we work together to educate and inform
ourselves of our rights; to access relevant services; to support each other in
negotiating with landlords; and to take cases to the Private Residential
Tenancies Board.
We meet Tuesdays at 7pm at the Holy Family Parish Centre, Prussia Street,
Dublin 7.
If you want to contact us before the meeting, send an email to
dublintenants@gmail.com

Irelands New Transnational Landlords

Posted by irelandafternama under Commentaries | Tags: finance,

Landlords, Nama, rental market, Tenants |
[6] Comments

We have heard a lot about the crisis in Dublins rental sector in recent months.
On the surface, a lack of properties for sale or to let on the market has
contributed to rising rents and the crisis of homelessness. But underneath
this, a less visible, though no less worrying, change has been taking place the
rise of the transnational landlord.
Traditionally Irish landlords have been small-time amateurs. 65% of landlords
have only one property with most others having just two or three. Many
landlords work full time in addition to renting properties and up to one third
are described as accidental landlords such as people renting out their own
principal residence due to mortgage arrears. But recently a new breed of
landlord has entered the scene, referred to as professional or institutional
landlords. The most prominent is Irelands largest landlord, I.RES, a Real
Estate Investment Trust focusing on long term investment in the rental sector.
Other examples include global real estate companies such as Hines, Kennedy
Wilson and Oxley Holdings, all of which are pursuing build to rent strategies
across Dublin.
Like much of whats going on in the Irish property market, this development is

driven by three interacting sets of dynamics.

Firstly, Irish property is being sold en masse at bargain basement prices . The
sellers are financial institutions seeking to deleverage rapidly. These include
foreign lenders such as Lloyds who sold their mortgage book to private equity
firm Lone Star Capital. But the main players have been the Irish bad banks
Anglo and especially NAMA. Indeed 800 of the 1,200 apartments owned by
I.RES were bought in one go from NAMA under Project Orange. The largest
asset class held by NAMA is development land, and much of this has been sold
to global property companies seeking to become long term investors in rental
accommodation. For example, NAMA was one of the main owners of 400
acres of suburban land in Cherrywood sold to Texas based Hines. Hines plans
to develop up to 3,600 apartments on the site.

Map of the boundary of the Dublin Docklands SDZ

Secondly, there has been plenty of money washing around the global financial
system and seeking to find its way into Irish property. As a PWC report earlier
this year put it, European debt markets are awash with capital. The global
financial environment continues to be characterized by some of the core
dynamics that drove the financial boom of the 2000s: very low interest rates
and low yields in traditional asset classes such as government and corporate

bonds. Add to this significant quantitative easing in the US, UK and now the
EU. There is a lot of money out there looking for somewhere to go, and heavily
discounted real estate looks like a good bet. Hence, much of the money buying
up Irish real estate is flowing in from the global financial system. Hines, itself
a Texas based company, is backed financially by New York private equity firm
King Street Capital. I.RES has funded its property shopping spree through its
Canadian backer, the Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment
Trust.
Thirdly, and finally, the transformation of the Irish housing system has turned
the rental sector into a viable investment for international players. The sector
continues to expand rapidly, increasing by over 100% in the Dublin region
since 2002, as do rents. Most importantly, however, the collapse of the
mortgage market means yesterdays first time buyers are todays top end
renters. The new class of landlord is chasing the high rents paid by a new
class of renter, e.g. two income professional couples who are renting long
term.
The business strategies of all the new institutional landlords thus work around
these three axes: using global sources of capital to buy discounted Irish assets
and rent them to relatively well-off renters. Lets look in a little more detail at
just what theyre up to.
I.RES (Irish Residential Real Estate Investment Trust) has spent around 400
million in the last year or two acquiring 1,200 apartments in Dublin. They
hope to expand their portfolio to around 3,000 apartments. The company
claims it is focused on consolidating the fragmented Irish rental market by
targeting high quality property assets To deliver superior customer service,
enhance tenant retention, and deliver quality homes. They have been widely
reported to be seeking rent increases of up to 20% across their portfolio this
year. They are also considering expanding into affordable housing, social
housing and student residence, all of which are potential new asset classes for
global property investment in Ireland. You can read more about their plans in
their investment brochure.
Oxley Holdings are also pursuing high end renters, but are even more focused
on the top of the market. The Singapore based developer describes itself as a
lifestyle property developer that caters to the upwardly mobile homebuyer and
entrepreneur and is building 200 apartments at 72 80 North Wall Quay in
Dublins Docklands, bought from NAMA last year.
Hines, which opened its Irish office last year, articulated its motivation for
entering the Irish property market as follows:
The firm made the decision to set up in Dublin to acquire single assets,
portfolios, or debt; to enter into joint venture arrangements where
appropriate; and to look at opportunities emerging from the de-leveraging in
Ireland.
In two years they have acquired over 1 billion in commercial, retail and
residential property. As mentioned they look set to become a huge landlord
under the Cherrywood development and are also building apartments in the
Docklands, where they are completing the Spencer Dock development in
conjunction once again with King Street Capital. Hines also sees themselves as
a targeting the high end of the market and providing the high quality rental
property. Their developments will also include special facilities and property
management.
Finally, LA based Kennedy Wilson has aggressively entered Ireland chasing

distressed assets but also developing major projects. While they have only a
small residential portfolio (mainly investing in offices) they have snapped up
around five apartment blocks in Dublin and are building the Clancy Quay
complex near Island Bridge. KW have also entered a joint venture with NAMA
to develop the Capital Docks project on Sir John Roggersons Quay in the
Docklands. They submitted planning application in April 2014 for a major
development on the 5 acre site. One of the buildings will be a nineteen story
tower while overall the development will provide 300,000 sq. ft. of office
space and 204 apartments (check out the commercial brochure for more
details ). Interestingly, Deutchse Bank issued the first Commercial Mortgage
Backed Security backed by Irish rental properties in 2015. The MBS was
backed by loans linked to KWs apartment investments.

Plans for Capital Dock

But what does this all mean for tenants and for housing more generally? While
its too early to say, international research certainly gives cause for concern.
The pioneering work of Desiree Fields has documented the impact of private
equity firms on residential rental properties in New York and elsewhere.
Issues include high rents, high rates of tenant turnover and other aggressive
business strategies which hit tenants hard. In the Irish case, given that
institutional landlords are focused on relatively well-off tenants, we might be
tempted to think that their impact will be negligible. Given the chronic lack of
affordable rental accommodation, however, we should certainly be concerned
about the opportunity cost associated with this new form of investment. Every
apartment block or development site snapped up by global companies with
significant financial fire power is a lost opportunity for affordable housing.
From the point of view of the city as a whole, it would have been better to see
heavily discounted apartment blocks and cheap development land being
bought by local authorities and housing associations. Instead, affordable
housing is being crowded out by a few large players whose only interest is in
top end tenants. Thus, while the possibility of professionalization raised by
institutional investors has been welcomed in some quarters, the early
indications are that they will do little for the majority of tenants.
Mick Byrne

Mick Byrne is an IRC postdoctoral researcher in NIRSA NUI Maynooth. He is

also an activist involved in various housing issues, including the Dublin
Tenants Association.

Some of the big names behind the Irish bubble are coming
back into the spotlight, but we need to be careful about
the globalisation of the property market, writes Michael
Byrne

SINCE 2010 most big Irish developers have been out of

action. Having fallen under Namas spell they existed in a
twilight zone where they were allowed neither to perish
nor to be let loose again .
Since 2014, however, the spell is weakening and some of
the big names behind the Irish bubble are lurching back
into action. The backdrop to this is the remarkable
recovery of Irish commercial real estate offices, retail
units and development land have been selling like hot
cakes in large part driven by vulture funds.
While many of us will baulk at the return of our high-flying
builders, we should also remember that what gave the
developers the capacity to wreak such damage on our
cities and towns (and eventually our economy as a whole)
was the massive increase in international credit flowing
into Ireland during the boom. With the arrival of the global
funds, international finance has found a new route into
Irish property once more potentially posing systemic

risks to financial and property markets.

advertisement

To understand the dangers the renaissance of commercial

property poses, we need to understand more fully just how
it has come about. Last year transactions in commercial
property in Ireland surpassed levels last seen at the height
of the boom, hitting more than 4.6bn. But this figure was
itself dwarfed by the size of the loan sales market, which
soared to 21bn. The hottest sector is office property, and
its not hard to see why.
Following the crash prices in the office sector collapsed by
up to 67%. While office rents initially dropped by 45% and
vacancy shot up to 23%, more recently strong office takeup (2.3m sq ft in 2014) and minuscule new supply have
pushed rents back up rapidly. Rental growth has been
strong, rising from a trough of 27 per sq ft in 2011 to 35
per sq ft in 2013, and increasing by a further 30% to 45
in 2014. Many analysts believe this trend will continue and
may hit 60 per sq ft for prime office space within a few
years.
At the same time, huge volumes of distressed debt linked
to real estate has been offloaded by a range of financial
institutions. The foreign lenders led the way with Danske,
Ulster Bank, and Lloyds all rushing to reduce their
exposure to commercial property in Ireland. But these
were quickly followed and surpassed by the two quasipublic wind-down agencies. Out of 96.7bn of
commercial property loan sales in Europe in 2013 and
2014, an incredible 36bn related to assets sold by Nama
and IBRC. This is an astonishing figure for such a tiny
country.
The many financial institutions eager to get rid of real
estate debt have been selling at big discounts.
IBRC was operating in the context of liquidation while
Nama has been under pressure (partially from the troika

and partially from the Government) to meet stringent debt

redemption targets. With office take-up and rents rising
and essentially no new supply coming on stream,
investment in office property became hugely attractive in
2014. As one property insider told me, the stats were
jumping off the page. However, with our own domestic
banking sector still in a state of paralysis and many
developers bankrupt or in Nama, there were few Irish
players in a position to take advantage of the open goal.
Enter the vulture funds. Global private equity firms, hedge
funds, and property companies with huge financial fire
power have invested heavily in distressed real estate debt,
putting them at the centre of a property market once
dominated by homegrown investors.
There are essentially two types of new international actor
on the scene:
On the one hand, the private equity firms and hedge funds
who focus on buying bad debt at big discounts. They can
then restructure loans, take over underlying property
assets, flip or a combination of all the above. They have a
very short term focus. The biggest in Irish terms is Lone
Star Capital, but there are many others which should be
household names including Blackstone, Oaktree Capital,
Starwood Capital, and King Street Capital.
On the other hand, international property development
companies buy both distressed debt and direct properties
and focus on more long-term investments, often
undertaking very large new developments. The big names
here are Hines and Kennedy Wilson. The former is a Texasbased family-owned firm which bought up more than 1bn
worth of property in recent years and is set to develop the
huge Cherrywood development in Dublin 18. The latter is
the LA-based company behind the Capital Docks and
Clancy Quay developments.
Its important to remember that this isnt just a case of
the market sorting itself out. The Government and public
agencies have played a crucial role here. Nama has stated
that it is keen to attract international capital interested in
acquiring loans or property assets. The Department of
Finance has also been busy meeting with the so-called
vulture funds. Needless to say our tax system is also a big
draw.

10

11

To be honest, it makes little difference to me if the city I

call home is owned by a financial fund or Irish developer.
But there are dangers here we need to consider very
carefully:
Firstly, international firms may escape Irish regulation. We
have seen this where funds buy mortgage debt but are not
subject to the terms of the Governments code of conduct
around arrears.
Second of all, international funds are financial institutions
without a retail presence in Ireland. They have no longterm interest in developing client relationships or a
positive brand. In short, they can squeeze debtors as hard
as they like.
The main concern is the third one, and it relates to what
we might call the globalisation of real estate. Irelands
bubble was driven by international credit. Between 1999
and 2007, Irish banks net borrowing from abroad went
from 10% to 60% of GDP. The lesson from this is that when
you plug local real estate into the international circuit
board of finance you can get sharp shocks. The amount of
credit available can rocket, causing a bubble, but can also
disappear just as quickly, causing an economic and social
crisis. The solution to that crisis, as argued here, has been
to connect the Irish market to a new source of finance
the global funds. In other words, weve found a new way
to attract global finance into Irish property.
But what if this risks exposing us to sharp fluctuations in
available credit? Sadly, our political and economic
systems addiction to the property market means were
extremely unlikely to see any attempt to consider these
risks and implement appropriate regulation, leaving the
rest of us to pray that the markets dont behave according
to the destructive, short-term logic with which we are all
too familiar.
Dr Michael Byrne is an Irish Research Council postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute for Regional and
Spatial Analysis at Maynooth University
Irelands investor Presentation company-update-june-2015
http://investorrelations.iresreit.ie/~/media/Files/I/IRESIR/presentations/company-update-june-2015.pdf

Revisiting the National Spatial Strategy ten years on David Meredith Rural
Economy Development Programme, Teagasc
http://ipa.ie/pdf/Admin60_3/RevisitingtheNationalSpatialStrategy.pdf

Rebuilding Ireland_Action Plan

http://rebuildingireland.ie/Rebuilding%20Ireland_Action%20Plan.pdf

The Five Pillars

The Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness includes a
comprehensive Five Pillar approach these pillars are the
foundations upon which we will build our plan. They are open
to debate, additions and amendments, but for now they will be
our starting point for immediate action.

Utitise
Existing Housing

Accelerate

Social Housing

Over the period of the plan, 47,000 homes will be delivered

under the various social housing programmes, together with
an expansion of the Housing Assistance Payment scheme
nationwide.
This delivery will be achieved through collaboration between
local authorities, Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs), the
National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) and the
private sector. It will involve new innovative approaches such
as 1,500 rapid build homes, 1,600 homes acquired by the
Housing Agency through a dedicated new fund and a new
vehicle which the NTMA will work with the private sector to
establish to provide such housing off the Government balance
sheet and mixed developments on State lands.
The focus on collaborated delivery will also be a feature of
supporting initiatives such as a special Housing Delivery
Office in the Department of Housing, Planning, Community
and Local Government (DHPCLG) drawing on a range of
expertise within the public sector, as well as the establishment
in the Housing Agency of a centre of procurement excellence
and a one-stop shop for AHBs.
Championing excellence and high standards in housing
provision is a key element of achieving wider planning and
environmental aims, in all areas, urban and rural. The plan will
introduce a new biennial Social Housing Delivery Awards
competition organised in conjunction with local authority,

tenant, housing and built environment professional

organisations.

5.35 billion will support delivery of

47000
social houses by 2021
Pillar Actions
>

>
>
>

47,000 more social housing units by end 2021 Well build

26,000 homes, well buy another 11,000, some of which will be
newly built and well lease 10,000. This will cost 5.35 billion
over 6 years.
Well put in place streamlined approvals, planning
and procurement to deliver these as quickly as possible.
We will accelerate the rollout of the Housing
Assistance Payment (HAP) Scheme.
We will prioritise the creation of mixed communities of private,
social and rented housing on State lands.
Well deliver more housing specifically for older people, people
with disabilities and Travellers.

Utitise
Existing Housing

Ensuring the existing housing stock is used to the maximum

degree possible focus on measures to use vacant stock and
to renew urban and rural areas.
Introducing an integrated plan to bring vacant and underutilised housing stock back into use for both private and social
housing purposes.
A planned investment of 70 million by the Housing Agency to
acquire 1,600 vacant properties, particularly from portfolios for
sale from financial institutions and investors for social housing
purposes.
A new repair and leasing initiative will be piloted by Waterford
City and County Council and Carlow County Council, with a
view to nationwide application. This will allow for grants to be
provided to prospective landlords to bring properties up to
standard, where they are entering cost effective leases for
social and affordable housing.
We will remove existing barriers to the quick conversion and
re-use of vacant or under-utilised city and town centre
commercial premises for residential purposes and support
wider urban regeneration, with new measures to be brought
forward by the end of 2016.

DHPCLG and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional,

Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA) will work together to
provide funding for a range of demonstration projects across
the country as part of the 30 million Town and Village
Renewal Initiative to support local authorities in smaller towns
and villages.

198358
vacant homes in Ireland (CSO)
Pillar Actions
>
>
>
>

Well provide funding to ensure that vacant social housing is

rapidly re-let and put in place a choice-based lettings
approach for people on waiting lists.
Well buy 1,600 empty houses held by banks and financial
institutions for social housing.
Well introduce a Vacant Housing Repair and Leasing Initiative
to incentivise owners to refurbish and rent out vacant homes
for social housing.
Well make it easier for vacant and under-used commercial
property to be used for residential purposes.
Well encourage and incentivise town, village and rural
renewal schemes to revitalise town centres and villages.

Environment Nexus policy briefs by leading experts in the

fields of agriculture, energy, climate change and water
Meanwhile the issues are also being discussed at
European level
EU farm policy reform must distribute EU funding more
fairly, make " greening" measures mandatory but flexible,
better equip farmers to cope with market challenges and

cut red tape. So says the Agriculture Committee's opening

position for negotiations with EU member states, as set
out in texts voted on last Wednesday 24th January. This
will be the first EU farm policy reform shaped by
Parliament as a full co-legislator with member states.
Ahead of this meeting the Institute of International and
European Affairs (IIEA) published a new policy brief on
proposals to green direct payments under the CAP by
Professor Alan Matthews, one of the EU's foremost
experts on the topic.
Professor Matthews argues that proposed greening of
direct payments - the key innovation in the current round of
CAP Reform - look likely to fail. While greening may
survive as a concept, the likely outcome of the
negotiations between Agriculture Ministers and the
European Parliament will deliver little practical
environmental benefit.
The paper examines the rationale underpinning greening,
arguing that it exists to justify the continuation of a large
agricultural budget, explores reasons for the apparent
failure of the proposals, and reflects on the implications for
future efforts to better integrate environmental objectives
into EU agriculture policy.
The European Parliament's Agriculture Committee will
vote on compromise amendments to the Commission's
proposal of July 2011. These compromise amendments

replace the more than 8,000 amendments originally tabled

by MEPs and are designed to achieve a united front for
the Parliament's negotiations with the Council.
This is the first in a series of Environment Nexus policy
briefs by leading experts in the fields of agriculture,
energy, climate change and water.
Alan Matthews is Professor Emeritus of European
Agricultural Policy at Trinity College Dublin.

If right wing politicians displayed what they supported

You Cuts Your Taxes, You Takes Your Choices
The Irish Times reports that Fine Gael backbenchers are
upset that the childcare subsidies proposed by Minister for

Children, Katherine Zappone, are initially focused on lowaverage income households. While unable to judge the
Ministers proposals until details are released, here are two
thoughts on the unsettled TDs.
First, the Minister proposes to start the subsidies at the
bottom of the income scale and then increase the
threshold over a number of years a practical way of
doing things in an era of constrained resources. What the
FG TDs seem to be suggesting is that high-income groups
should crowd out the lower-paid in the initial stage. Not
very equitable.
Second, if the FG TDs are upset, they should direct their
concerns, not at Minister Zappone, but at Minister Noonan
who is proposing to blow 75 million on a subsidy to highincome groups in the form of cutting inheritance tax.
A significant majority of over-64s have net wealth
(property and financial) of less than the current threshold
of 280,000. Raising it to 500,000 is a gift to a small
number of high-income households and their children.
The perturbed FG TDs should call on the Finance Minister
to abandon this ill-conceived tax cut. And while theyre at
it, they should reject the proposed tax cut to high-income
emigrants. With the money saved, resources could be redirected into more productive areas.
Throughout the austerity period we were subjected to
tough choices. Well, this is an easy choice. Money for the
comfortable or money for childcare. In fact, its a nobrainer.
For more on this nonsensical inheritance tax cut:
http://bit.ly/1qqdNRn
Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com//zappone-andfine-gael-at-odds-o

Katherine Zappone denies 'phantom'

reports of Cabinet rift over childcare plan
28/09/2016

Katherine Zappone says reports of a rift at Cabinet do not

reflect what is really going on.
Reports say Fine Gael TDs are concerned that her plans for
childcare will only benefit low income families and not middle
earners.
Katherine Zappone said they are still negotiating, saying: "The
story doesn't reflect the reailty of what is going on in terms of
Budget negotiations. I am in very intense and serious
negotiations with Mr Donohoe, I don't know where these
phantom sources are coming from.
"It doesn't reflect at all what is going on, the negotiations have
been amicable, firm.
"I think with both of us sharing our own commitment to do
something significant."

Earlier: There is a reported Cabinet rift over childcare costs.

The Irish Times says Children's Minister Katherine Zappone
was left out of Budget discussions after she unveiled a plan to
subsidise care for low-income families.

However, the plan was criticised for neglecting the so-called

"squeezed middle" and Minister Zappone was not consulted
about alternatives.
Noirin Hayes, a visiting Professor in the School of Education at
Trinity College Dublin, said: "I think part of the problem is the
effort to polarise the parents and the services in this way.
"I dont think it's forcing parents to do anything, but what I think
it is reflecting is the ad hoc nature of the development of the
supports that we have for families with children."
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/update-katherine-zapponedenies-phantom-reports-of-cabinet-rift-over-childcare-plan756798.html

Dooley welcomes 50
million wind farm
project off West Coast
28th September 2016

Fianna Fils Energy Spokesperson, Timmy Dooley

TD has welcomed the proposal by the ESB to build
a wave energy farm off the west coast of Co. Clare.
This is a very positive development, and should
be seen as an important strategic initiative that will
help us on the journey towards reducing Irelands
reliance on imported fossil fuels.
As well as generating local employment, it will
help bring Ireland on the path towards sustainable
energy production. The pilot project announced by

the ESB has the capacity to generate energy for

4000 homes, said the Clare TD.
We have the means by which to wean ourselves
off fossil-based electricity. Research suggests that
there is four times Irelands total energy
consumption in Irish waters alone.
Successful economies in the 21st century will be
the ones that harness sustainable, renewable
energy sources first. Ireland, as an Atlantic nation,
needs to kick-start its own energy revolution.
One of the great attributes of sustainable wave
energy is the fact that its located away from
communities thereby reducing its visual and
environmental impact, added Dooley.
For our remote, island communities, wave energy
can be a game changer, and protect their viability.
I will be using my position to encourage and
support the ESB in developing this capacity and
would urge colleagues across the political
spectrum to do the same, concluded Dooley.

Emigrant tax stunt is

latest in long list of
Fine Gael kite flying

27th September 2016

Fianna Fil Jobs and Enterprise Spokesperson, Niall

Collins TD has said that Minister spokesperson
Mitchell OConnors emigrant tax stunt is just
another rehashed kite flying exercise by a party
lacking in original ideas.
Fine Gael floated similar proposals in the past. Only
12 months ago, a similar proposal was proposed by
the Ministers predecessor, Richard Bruton, in
advance of Budget 2016.
Theres nothing original in Minister Mitchell
OConnors proposal and its sole purpose is to
distract the Irish people from the real barriers
stopping skilled talent returning to Ireland the
spiralling cost of living.
A severe lack of affordable housing, massive hikes
in health and motor insurance, spiralling childcare
and transport costs are the reasons why Irish
emigrants are slow to return home to Ireland.
Back of the envelope proposals, like this, shows
just how out of touch Fine Gael is. Quality public
services, and a fair taxation system, will act as the
catalysts for people living outside of Ireland to
return home.
The Minister needs to stop rehashing gimmicks
from Fine Gaels failed election playbook. The
election is over and now is the time for Minister
Mitchell OConnor, and her Government colleagues
to come up with concrete, sustainable proposals, to
make living in Ireland a possibility again,
concluded Collins.

Leaked tax deals

damage Junckers

moral authority to
demand cuts
ITEM
Thursday 6 Nov 2014

Yesterdays revelations that hundreds of multinationals

secured secret tax deals with the government of
Luxembourg deny Commission President Juncker any
moral authority to lecture Member States on budgetary
discipline, Independent Dublin MEP Nessa Childers said
today.
Ms. Childers was commenting on the revelations
emerging from almost 30,000 leaked pages, documenting
how big multinational companies saved billions of dollars
in taxes by channelling revenues through Luxembourg.
Ms. Childers said:
As Prime-Minister of Luxembourg over the past two
decades, Mr. Juncker has presided over a taxation system
that prides itself on its competitive nature, offering
hundreds of comfort letters to massive business
conglomerates with favourable tax treatment.
Yet, as chairman of the group of Eurozone finance
ministers throughout the crisis, no comfort was offered to
taxpayers. Working people were saddled with the bill for
the financial train crash that was made possible by this
kind of policy making, and accused of living beyond their
means while having their pockets raided.
Indeed, so competitive is his tax jurisdiction that some
of these companies have had effective tax rates of less
than 1 percent on profits declared in Luxembourg. One of

them paid only an abysmal 0.25% on non-dividend

income.
As we suffer the consequences of austerity, terms such
as Luxembourg Structure, Dutch Sandwich or Double
Irish have gone from a bad joke to an outrage.
As corporate heads laugh all the way to the banks we
saved, they are joined by their political allies in power in a
chorus that keeps on lecturing us about deficits,
budgetary discipline and structural reform, which are all
costing us in public services and welfare protection.
We are urged to coordinate our budgetary cuts with our
EU partners, and undermine our social models, while tax
competition is hailed as a virtue in a twisted notion of
national interest that actually benefits the interests of its
advocates alone.
Those of us who are not too big to fail or too big to tax
are left with the bill, squeezed in a race to the bottom and
accused of living beyond our means on top of all that.
I will make sure to remind Mr. Juncker of this glaring
hypocrisy every time he comes to Parliament to talk about
budgetary discipline, and I expect the new Competition
Commissioner to make full use of the leaked documents
and vigorously pursue unfair tax treatment by any
Member State involved.
ENDS
For more information contact:
Mario De Sa 00-32-474 08 80 19 (Brussels Office)
Bronwen Maher 087-784 1937

This week in

Brussels: Climate
Change, GMOs and
the

Ebola Crisis
PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday 4 Nov 2014

During our meeting of 5-6 November, my

committee, the Environment, Public Health and
Food Safety committee, will vote on a motion for
resolution in preparation for the COP 20 UN
Climate Change Conference taking place in
December 2014 in Lima.
The committee will also vote on a draft
recommendation on the possibility for Members

States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of

GMOs in their territory.
Members will also discuss the current state of
the Ebola crisis with WHOs Regional Director
for Europe.
Nessa

Governments Apple ruling

appeal is profoundly
misguided Childers
#AppleTax
PR

ESS RELEASE

Monday 12 Sep 2016

The Independent MEP for Dublin, has criticised the

Governments response to the European Commissions
ruling on its tax deals with Apple. Ms. Childers made her
remarks today from the European Parliament in
Strasbourg, where the matter will be discussed with the
Commission later in the week:

I find myself astonished by the difference in tone and

assertiveness which our Government has now shown
towards the EU Commission, when compared to their
teachers pet docility in over the prescriptions from the
Troika, following the banking sectors collapse.
The contrast in their stance is stark, but the losing side
remains the same, with common citizens and taxpayers
left to foot the bill for the damage done when big
business acts above the law.
The irony of this lays bare the myth of Fine Gaels
preoccupation with repairing the countrys reputation
abroad.
One moment, its in our national interest to throw good
taxpayers money after bad to save a recklessly insolvent
banking system, and not kicking up a fuss as the promise
of Eurozone assistance for retrospective recapitalisation
failed to materialise.
The next thing, they decide to throw Charlie Haugheys
tax dodging toys out of the pram, without a moments
pause.
This shows the sole intended audience for their
reputation talk are rootless corporate players.
Irish businesses without the global scale and budgets
for the big consultancies so-called tax planning schemes
are simply not big enough to reach for the top shelf where
sweetheart deals are in store.
Common citizens who depend on essential, tax-funded
public services also appear to be beneath the circles
where the latest national interest trends are fashioned.
We need more focus on attracting foreign investment
that seeks us to do real business in, rather than just tax
jurisdiction shopping.

In contrast, our governments rush to attack and

challenge a state-aid decision sends a signal that they
dont believe in our locally-based business community,
nor in smaller operations who set up shop here to achieve
more than rent-seeking.
What the government is signalling to the world outside is
panic at the prospect of losing appeal for a certain kind of
business model, based on homoeopathically diluted tax
rates.
Is that all we have to show for our industrial policy under
Fine Gaels watch?
European Commissions findings against tax
benefits granted in Ireland to the Apple
corporation.
However I am utterly puzzled at the Irish
Governments plans to challenge this ruling in
the European court. Are we so lacking in selfconfidence in our abilities to attract FDI that we
need to provide fractions of 1% through
corporate tax deals to have companies move
here?
Instead of challenging the European
Commissions ruling today, the Irish Government
should recognise the sheer injustice involved in
these special deals, including the immense
damage they cause to peoples trust in
government and public administration, and the
losses to public service provision from the
uncollected revenue.
The changing attitudes regarding corporate
taxation across the EU will not go away, and the
Irish Government and Fine Gael needs to
understand this new consensus!
The European Commission argue that these
types of tax arrangement are simply illegal, and
this sends a clear message both to the
multinationals and to the member states which

conclude tax deals at the expense of others.

Furthermore, other member states throughout
the EU will be looking into this case and
determine whether they might be eligible to
recover lost taxes from Apple as well, and this
will further weaken the Irish Governments
position in defence of the special Apple tax deal.
Last June I welcomed and voted in favour of
the European Parliament report prepared by the
special committee on tax rulings, which included
a raft of recommendations for fairer and more
transparent corporate taxation. MEPs
supporting these measures want to ensure
payment of tax owed where profits are made,
that double non-taxation loopholes are plugged,
and that intra-company loans are not made to
evade taxation.
ENDS

Public wants referendum

on TTIP - poll
Colm Kelpie Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
25/07/2016

2
Thousands of demonstrators protest against the planned
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in Hannover.
Photo: AP

The vast majority of Irish people want a

referendum on the proposed US-EU free
trade deal if it looks like it could become
law, a survey suggests.
The survey was commissioned by lobby group Uplift,
which has campaigned against the US agreement.
Talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP), a sweeping US-European free trade
deal, started three years ago - but the two sides have been
unable to settle differences over various issues, including
agriculture.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(CETA) between Canada and the EU has also taken years
to negotiate, and could come into force next year.
Uplift commissioned Red C to conduct a poll on public
attitudes in Ireland towards certain potential aspects of

both the TTIP and CETA trade agreements, with a random

sample of 1,004 adults across the country interviewed by
telephone earlier this month.

2
Young people aged between 18 and 24 are the most
sceptical of the two proposed trade agreements, and are
most in favour of a referendum to accept or reject them.
Read more: No endgame in sight on TTIP negotiations
They're also the age group most in favour of EU standards
not being changed to match US or Canadian standards.
Siobhan O' Donoghue, Uplift director, said that if passed
into law, TTIP and CETA will affect every Irish citizen "in
ways never imagined before".
"A referendum on TTIP and CETA would balance the
power of corporations and put the decision on the future
of our democracy in the hands that matter - the people,"
Ms O'Donoghue said.
In June, Uplift started an online signature campaign to
urge Taoiseach Enda Kenny to call a referendum on the
two trade agreements.
Members of the group also campaigned outside Leinster
House last year, warning that the proposed agreement
threatened "to increase the power of multinationals at the
expense of people, democracy and the planet".
It argues that the Government is only serving the needs of
big business.
However, a report commissioned by the Government said
TTIP will boost the economy and trade, and help create
thousands of jobs.
TTIP is primarily an agreement to cut tariffs and
regulatory barriers to trade between the US and EU
countries, but has encountered opposition from some
quarters across Europe, including trade unions.
Read more: Deal or no deal: Is TTIP good for us?
The US government said last week that it is committed to
concluding the deal this year and believes it is even more
essential after the Brexit vote in the UK.
According to the survey, 69pc of adults state that they
would be concerned if TTIP or CETA were to be agreed as
they don't know enough about the ramifications.

The Irish Independent recently published for and against

opinions from Chambers Ireland chief Ian Talbot and
Unite economist Michael Taft.
Mr Talbot argued that the proposed deal represented an
unprecedented opportunity for two of the world's biggest
economies to remove barriers to trade, increase growth
and create jobs.
But Mr Taft said it would "debase democracy" and would
give global corporations legal privilege over citizens and
governments.

Red C poll 74%

want referendum on
#TTIP & #CETA!
N

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/public-wants-referendumon-ttip-poll-34908749.html

EU and US negotiators gathered in Brussels

last week for a 14th round of talks on a
transatlantic trade and investment

partnership (TTIP).
The aim is to finish talks by the end of the year, but given
the lingering impasse over access to public procurement
and agri-food markets, protections for workers and the
environment, and the trade in services, it seems highly
unlikely.
The UK's decision to leave the EU has also thrown a
spanner in the works.
"Obviously a withdrawal of the UK from the EU market
would affect the value of the EU market," said US
ambassador Dan Mullaney after the talks.
"Imagine if the United States, for instance, said: 'Well,
maybe TTIP will not apply to California'. There is a certain
reflection that the parties need to have on those kinds of
developments."
The US side is eager to get the negotiations finished before
presidential elections in November, and is pushing the EU
to put its most powerful bargaining chip on the table:
agricultural tariffs, which make up 3pc of the tariffs both
sides are seeking to eliminate.
EU negotiators are not budging, indicating talks have not
yet reached their end game, said Liam McHale, director of
the IFA's Brussels office.
"If you want a deal done by the end of the year, as the US
side have said, you need to be negotiating on the 3pc right
now, and that's not happening," Mr McHale said. "So you
have got to believe there's still a distance to go before that
can actually happen."
Negotiators on both sides have tabled proposals in almost
all of the up to 30 areas covered by the deal, citing
progress on textiles and small businesses.
But there is still masses of technical work needed to bring
the two sides together, and new texts have only just been
tabled on how to align standards on chemicals, cosmetics,
engineering, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and cars.
Agriculture ministers were briefed on the state of play of
TTIP at their meeting on Monday, and several EU
countries - particularly Germany, France and Austria - are

still sceptical about the US deal over fears it will lower

European standards.
TTIP also caused a public showdown last week between
Irish MEPs, with Sinn Fin's Matt Carthy hitting out at
comments by Fine Gael's Brian Hayes that "populists"
were the main stumbling block to an agreement.
Mr Carthy claimed the comments were "dripping with
arrogance and elitism" and added TTIP would damage
food safety and environmental standards, and endanger
the rights of workers and consumers.

Energy chief in the firing line

Energy commissioner Miguel Arias Caete, was
questioned by MEPs last week from parliament's legal
affairs committee on his financial interests.
Mr Caete, a former Spanish environment and agriculture
minister, has firmly denied any conflicts of interest, but
MEPs brought up a mention of his wife's name in the
Panama papers and family ties to two energy companies.
Spanish socialist MEP Iratxe Garca Prez alleged the
commissioner had "not acted in a morally acceptable or
transparent way for someone in his position".
Green MEPs called on him to testify in front of
Parliament's special inquiry committee on the Panama
Papers.
The committee meeting came the week before Mr Caete
reveals his plans for how sectors such as agriculture and
forestry can contribute to reaching the EU's climate
change targets.
EU leaders said in October 2014 that they would take into
account the "lower mitigation potential" of agriculture and
look at how forests could offset the sector's contribution to
the climate goals.
And the Paris climate accord this year stated that emission
reduction should be done "in a manner that does not
threaten food production".
Ireland also wants to see a change to the way the EU
measures carbon emission reductions, given the negative

effects of the financial crisis on Ireland's GDP and ability

to spend on climate change mitigation measures. Irish
ministers and officials have met repeatedly with the
Commission to press their case.
http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/
no-endgame-in-sight-on-ttip-negotiations34893475.html

Join the call for a

referendum TTIP &
CETA
09.06.16

Great news!
Uplift, with support from trade union Unite, commissioned a Red C
public opinion poll on the TTIP and CETA trade deals and
the results are pretty amazing 74% of people in Ireland want a
referendum on TTIP and CETA.

NO
Michael Taft, Unite the union
Unite believes that the implications of TTIP are so farreaching that it must be put to a referendum. Traditional
trade issues are only incidental to this so-called 'trade
deal'. TTIP's main thrust is to debase democracy by
awarding global corporations legal privilege over citizens
and elected governments. As a result, the ability of
democratically elected governments to safeguard labour,
consumer, environmental and health standards will be
severely, if not fatally, undermined.
Our main concern is the Investor State Dispute Settlement
(ISDS, now repackaged as the Investment Court System)
which enables corporations to sue governments for

compensation if they believe public policies interfere with

profit maximisation. They can bypass our legal system and
take their case to secret, private courts from which there is
no appeal. This has been done under the umbrella of other
agreements with similar ISDS provisions:
Philip Morris Company sued Australia over its planned
introduction of plain-packaging for cigarettes.
Veolia is suing Egypt for its decision to raise the
minimum wage.
Canada has been sued by corporations over such
decisions as subsidising renewable energy, placing a
moratorium on fracking, banning toxic petrol additives
and temporarily banning toxic waste exports.
This is not about 'trade'. It is about global corporations
coercing governments into subordinating public welfare to
shareholder interests. No wonder the negotiations have
been conducted in secret and there is reportedly an
agreement with the US that negotiation documents won't
be made public for 30 years.
Instead of addressing this substantial democratic deficit,
the Government has focused on TTIP's alleged economic
benefits. However, the Government's own report shows
little economic gain but potentially significant losses. For
example, although TTIP will boost pharmaceutical exports
this will have little impact on employment. Pharmaceutical
exports have nearly doubled since 2000 but sectoral
employment has fallen. Many of TTIP's purported
benefits, like the recent GDP figures, will be only
marginally attached to the domestic economy.
But the losses will be felt in the domestic economy. Even
the Government admits the beef sector will be badly
affected. The Irish Farmers Association has raised
additional concerns about the pigmeat and poultry sectors,
citing threats to standards governing genetic modified
organisms, hormones, pesticides, animal health and
product labelling. Thanks to TTIP's 'regulatory
convergence', these standards are likely to be driven down
to US levels of low regulation. Given the importance of the

food sector, our economy could be badly hit. But that's not
all.
Leaked TTIP negotiating documents indicate that a range
of consumer protections are also in the firing line. The
EU's precautionary principle was dropped (whereby
products must be proven safe before they can be sold) in
favour of the US 'risk-based' approach which puts the
burden of proof on states and consumers to show products
are unsafe. Everything from US-sanctioned lead in lipstick
to chlorinated chickens could hit our shelves after TTIP.
European public service unions have warned that health,
education and other public services could be exposed to
privatisation, race-to-the-bottom competition and secretcourt action. The 'negative list' approach means all public
services can be permanently opened up to TTIP unless the
current government specifically excludes them. This is a
real threat in Ireland where global companies already have
a foothold in our hospital and higher education sectors.
Business groups are waking up to these threats. In
Germany, 'KMU gegen TTIP' (SMEs against TTIP) is
supported by thousands of small companies and
entrepreneurs - including many exporters. They point to
TTIP's hidden additional costs and the disadvantage they
would be placed at vis--vis global corporations.
Throughout Europe there is a rising sentiment against
TTIP. Over three million signed a petition - a European
Citizens' Initiative - opposing the deal. Over 1,800 cities
and regions have declared themselves 'TTIP-free zones'
including Barcelona, Cologne, Milan, Vienna, Amsterdam,
Birmingham and Co Clare. Every month the list grows.
In Ireland there is an emerging, broad-based coalition
opposed to TTIP - from farming, consumer and
environmental activists to ICTU and the trade union
movement. TTIP poses such a fundamental threat to
democracy, public welfare and our economy that Unite
believes people should have the final say in a referendum.
Michael Taft is Unite's research officer.

YES
Ian Talbot, Chambers Ireland
The Brexit decision of the UK electorate has left its
neighbours and allies perplexed if not in shock. In Ireland,
the prospect of our closest trading partner exiting the EU
has now become one of the more pressing risks to our
economic growth.
We can assume that the impact is very likely to be negative
and consequently we must devise a range of alternative
strategies to counteract this.
Irish companies are going to need new markets for
exports. Ireland already has strong links with US and EU
markets and so in the months and years to come we must
look to these partners when it comes to growing our
economy - a simple message of strengthening our
strengths. This is why negotiations for a trade agreement
between the EU and the United States have suddenly
taken on even greater importance for Ireland.
The 14th round of negotiations for an EU-US trade deal
took place earlier this week. This trade deal represents an
unprecedented opportunity for two of the world's largest
economies to remove barriers to trade, increase growth
and create jobs.
The United States is the world's largest national economy
and the world's second largest according to purchasing
power, representing a staggering 22pc of global GDP. A
transatlantic trade deal of this size will benefit not just the
multi-nationals already operating in Ireland, but also our
indigenous industries and SMEs.
According to a study carried out by Copenhagen
Economics on behalf of Ireland's Department of Jobs,
Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland stands to benefit by
more than double the European average, creating between
5,000 and 10,000 jobs in exporting sectors and potentially
increasing real wages by an average of 1.5pc, with low skill
and agricultural wages increasing the most at almost 2pc.
What would a deal mean in practical terms? Historically

trade deals brought about reduced customs tariffs.

However the opportunity in TTIP rests much more in
devising common regulatory standards so that products
and services approved for use in one jurisdiction would
need no further approvals to be sold in the other. This
would have a disproportionately bigger impact and
opportunity for SMEs.
In spite of the rhetoric that this is being driven by "big
business", the reality is that big businesses are much more
likely to have the resources and time available to seek
regulatory approval for a product or services in several
jurisdictions; SMEs don't. This agreement will be the first
to include a dedicated SME Chapter under which each
jurisdiction will commit dedicated resources to support
SMEs trading between the respective blocs.
However, TTIP has attracted a lot of controversy, with
opposition seeming to focus on two core issues - concerns
that regulatory co-operation will result in a dilution of
hard-fought safety and employment standards and
secondly, anxiety that increased trade liberalisation may
benefit some sectors less than others. On these points we
would note that the Commission has repeatedly said that
our current high standards will not be impacted by a trade
agreement and that regulatory co-operation will only take
place in areas where standards are already similar.
With regard to the impact of an EU-US trade deal across
all our sectors, trade liberalisation is a complex process,
but the reality is that trade deals do not have overnight
impact, they can typically take up to 15 years to have a full
impact and therefore in that time period individual sectors
will probably encounter significant change in any event
but will also have plenty of time to adapt.
With 90pc of world economic growth predicted to be
generated outside Europe in the coming 10-15 years,
having an ambitious trade agenda has never been more
important. However, opposition to free trade is growing,
with increased civil society mistrust of international trade
and the rise of populist politics. There are clear signs that

this anti-trade sentiment is already translating into more

protectionist policies globally.
And 2015 saw the biggest rise in protectionist activity
since the onset of the financial crisis - with an estimated
40pc rise in trade barriers introduced compared to 2014.
More recently, IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned that
anti-trade polices championed by Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump risks sparking a dangerous
protectionist movement that could severely damage the
global economy, noting that protectionism "hurts growth,
hurts inclusion and hurts people".
Over the past two decades trade has been a powerful
driver of economic growth and job creation for Ireland.
We should be concerned at growing anti-trade sentiment
in Europe and further afield. TTIP is probably the largest
trade deal to be negotiated in history so it is logical that we
should support it to get the best possible outcome for
Ireland. Brexit proves we must diversify and not obstruct
new trade opportunities.
Ian Talbot is CEO of Chambers Ireland, of the
International Chamber of Commerce Ireland and Deputy
Chair of Eurochambres
If TTIP and CETA (its sister trade deal between the EU and
Canada) are passed into law, every Irish person will be affected in
ways never imagined before. [1] Corporations will be able to sue
our government and food such as hormone injected beef will flood
the Irish market. Irish farming, the environment, and our health will
also be in serious jeopardy.
Legal expert Matthias Kelly has looked into what TTIP would mean
for Ireland. He has concluded that it would be illegal for the
government not to have a referendum on certain aspects of the
deals. Specifically, the part that allows corporations side-step our
court system and sue the government in private. [2]
Right now, our government is only listening to big business.
Theyre working overtime to convince us that a referendum isnt

needed probably because they have a very good chance of

losing. [3] Under pressure, theyve agreed to a Dil debate on TTIP
and CETA. This is our chance to put the demand for a referendum
front and centre of the mainstream political stage.
While thousands of people have already joined the Uplift
community to stop TTIP and CETA, the research shows that Irish
people know very little about it. [4] Thats why were really stepping
up the campaign to raise the alarm about the huge impact TTIP
and CETA will have on our daily lives.
A referendum on TTIP and CETA would balance the power of
corporations and put the decision on the future of our democracy in
the hands that matter the people.
NOTES:
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-youre-worried-about-ttipthen-you-need-to-know-about-ceta-a6671886.html and http://corpo
rateeurope.org/international-trade/2016/02/statement-againstinvestor-protection-ttip-ceta-and-other-trade-deals
[2] http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/referendum-required-intransatlantic-trade-deal-399702.html
[3] http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/no-need-for-referendumon-eu-us-trade-deal-says-government-1.2656688
[4] http://www.cancer.ie/content/fewer-one-five-irish-adults-awaretrade-agreement-may-harm-public-health#sthash.F96SDv4i.dpbs
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/deal-or-no-deal-is-ttipgood-for-us-34888575.html

This week, the US and the EU will resume

negotiations on investment protection in TTIP. The
European Commission claiming to have listened
to public opinion produced its proposal for a new
Investment Court System (ICS) that would
allegedly replace the old ISDS in all on-going and
future investment negotiations. However, we
believe that the proposed changes are just a rebranding of the old ISDS system. The EU has not
addressed the key problems of the ISDS and ICS
systems both of which undermine democratic
decision-making.
Crucially, the new proposal is worse than the
current practice of the member states stand-alone
investment treaties from which it is possible to
withdraw: both the EU and Member States (MS)
would be locked in to the TTIP and CETA. We have
identified five key serious zconcerns that exist in
both the ISDS and ICS mechanisms:
both ISDS and ICS give exclusive rights to foreign
investors, thereby discriminating against domestic
investors, citizens and communities, without any
evidence of benefits to the wider society
both ISDS and ICS can force governments to use
billions in taxpayers funds to compensate

]
]
]

corporations for public health, environmental,

labour and other public interest policies,
government actions and even court rulings. They
do not ensure that private interests cannot
undermine public policy objectives
neither ISDS or ICS are subject to democratic
principles and scrutiny. Parliaments will not be able
to change the rules later on;
both ISDS and ICS undermine the jurisdiction of
European and MS courts as foreign investors can
by-pass them;
both ISDS and ICS ignore the fact that European,
U.S. and Canadian legal systems are perfectly
capable of handling disputes with foreign investors,
based on the law that applies to everyone else in
society.
The number of investor-state cases has recently
sharply increased, with over 50 new claims filed
annually in the last four years. The total number of
known ISDS cases has now risen to 667 claims
against a total of 105 countries in a diverse array
of government policies, many of which are not
traditional trade issues.
One example is the shocking case of Canadian
pipeline developer TransCanada who is seeking to
sue the US government for blocking the Keystone
XL Pipeline as part of its fight against climate
change. It is noteworthy that TransCanada is suing
the US using four investor rights in the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that are
also included in CETA and the EUs ICS proposal.
In addition, the key changes advocated by the
Commission as improvements to the system in its
recent proposal are riddled with legal shortcomings
in two key areas: the alleged independence of the
system and the alleged protection of the right to
regulate.

While the introduction of so-called judges to

investment tribunals appears to be a positive step,
they will be paid lucrative fees on a case by case
basis providing a strong incentive to rule in favour
of the investors in order to ensure future cases.
This investor bias would most likely remain if the
EU and its trading partners eventually introduced a
regular salary for the judges because in legal
systems where only one side can sue, claimantfriendly rulings secure a steady flow of cases,
power and authority for the adjudicators.
The right to regulate in the public interest does not
protect against unlimited backward looking
damages including expected profits and interests.
It is furthermore undermined by the need for
governments to take the measures necessary to
achieve legitimate objectives leaving the criteria
to define what measures are necessary and what
constitutes legitimate objectives open for
interpretation, and ultimately, arbitration by forprofit adjudicators. An ISDS case may not prevent
legislation, but it puts a hefty price tag on any law
or regulation which could potentially cost billions in
taxpayer money when a government is later sued
for compensation. This has already proven to
create a regulatory chill such as has been
witnessed in Malaysia and New Zealand who were
waiting for the outcome of the Phillip Morris ISDS
case against Australia before implementing similar
plain packaging legislation. The EUs claim that it
has protected the right to regulate gives a false
impression of security; health, environmental and
social legislation remain under threat in the EU, the
US and Canada if ISDS/ ICS is included in CETA and
the TTIP.
While existing trade and investment treaties
already severely limit the policy space that

governments have, the inclusion of ISDS/ICS in

CETA and TTIP would massively expand the
investment arbitration system and multiply
liability and financial risks for governments on both
sides of the Atlantic. ISDS in TTIP would newly
empower more than 47,000 of the 51,495 US
owned subsidiaries currently operating in the EU to
launch ISDS attacks on European policies and
government actions.
Even if TTIP did not include the far-reaching
investor rights, four out of five US firms operating
in the EU that is a total of 41,811 could already
become eligible for an ISDS case against the EU
and its members using the CETA agreement if
investments are structured accordingly. The danger
of being sued under TTIP and CETA is even more
real given that US, European and Canadian
companies are already the most frequent users of
investment arbitration. They are responsible for
launching over 80 per cent of all known investorstate disputes globally. Indeed, UNCTADs recently
updated online data shows that foreign investors
launched more ISDS cases in 2015 than in any
prior year twice the number launched just five
years earlier. 52 % of concluded ISDS cases have
ended in an outright loss for the government or a
settlement with the foreign investor.
Not only would the inclusion of ISDS/ICS in CETA
and TTIP most likely lead to a massive explosion of
investment arbitration cases against legitimate
policies; their inclusion is a massive blow to
democracy, human rights and the rule of law in
any trade and investment agreement.
In a time when all attention should be focused on
averting a global climate catastrophe and on
tackling the economic and social crises in many
parts of the world, there is no space for

agreements that would place giant obstacles in the

way of the solutions. Governments must have the
flexibility to put in place measures to protect their
people and the planet without fear of expensive
trade litigation being launched by corporations. If
there is concern about weaknesses in domestic
legal systems, we should be focusing on improving
them in order to combine equal access to the law
with a full capacity for the democratic scrutiny of
the development of law.
We therefore cannot support the foreign investor
protection proposed for TTIP and CETA, and call,
again, for the exclusion of any form of InvestorState-Dispute Settlement from all current and
future trade and investment agreements.
Statement against Investor Protection in TTIP, CETA, and other trade
deals February 2016
https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/s2b_stat
ement_isds_ics_engl.pdf

Brussels, 18 June 2009

Telecoms: Commission welcomes Irish regulator's move to
support increased broadband competition in Ireland
The European Commission today endorsed the Irish
regulator's (ComReg) proposal to lower the prices charged
by Eircom, the incumbent telecoms operator, to its
competitors for granting access to its network and for
migrating customers from one wholesale product to
another. The proposed measures represent an important
step towards facilitating direct investment in infrastructure
and enhancing competition on the Irish broadband market.
"I fully support ComReg's proposal, as I am convinced that
truly cost-oriented prices will be of great benefit to
consumers." said EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane
Reding . "Broadband competition in Ireland is currently
being held-up by the high access prices Eircom charges its
competitors and the Irish regulator is now making very
important efforts to foster competition by promoting direct
investment in broadband infrastructure. This move will
allow for greater flexibility and innovation in the provision
of broadband internet services and ultimately lead to

wider choice and lower prices for consumers."

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said:
"ComReg's proposal is good news for competition and
consumers. Alternative operators will have to pay
considerably less for access to Eircom's broadband
network. They will thus be in a position to make more
attractive retail offers and consumers will get a better
choice."
Today the Commission approved regulatory measures
proposed by the Irish regulator which oblige Eircom, the
incumbent operator, to lower the prices charged for
granting competitors access to its broadband network and
for migrating customers between different wholesale
broadband products.
In particular, Eircom has to significantly reduce its current
Line Share Rental Price a fee paid by an alternative
operator for accessing the last mile of Eircom's
infrastructure (the "local loop") to provide broadband
internet services to its own customers' homes or
businesses. The purpose of this reduction is to avoid
Eircom over-charging for certain "common" costs which
are already being recouped through narrowband (voice)
services provided over Eircom's local loop. Furthermore,
ComReg believes there is no justification for Eircom to
charge its current Intra Migration Premium the payment
charged to its competitors when their consumers change
from one service to another while staying with the same
company . ComReg concludes that this migration premium
shall therefore be abolished.
The Irish telecoms regulator considers that both the Line
Share Rental Price and the Intra Migration Premium are
excessive and run contrary to Eircom's obligation to
charge cost-oriented prices. In today's letter, the
Commission welcomed the price reductions proposed by
the Irish Regulator, as an appropriate means to facilitate
and foster infrastructure-based broadband competition so
that consumers may enjoy lower prices and greater
service choice.

Background:
The measures notified by ComReg concern the obligation
of cost-orientation imposed on Eircom under the firstround market review of the market for wholesale
unbundled access to metallic loops and sub-loops in
Ireland.
Today's Commission letter to ComReg was sent under the
" Article 7 procedure ", of the EU telecoms rules'
Framework Directive ( MEMO/08/620 ). This procedure
leaves considerable scope to national telecoms regulators
on how to achieve effective competition, but requires
them to notify draft regulatory measures to the
Commission. For measures concerning market definitions
and analyses of whether operators have significant market
power, the Commission can require the regulator to
withdraw the measure. For measures concerning
regulatory remedies as in the present case the
Commission may make comments which the national
telecoms regulator should take into utmost account.
For further information:
The Commission's letter will be made available, in
accordance with Community and national rules on
business confidentiality, no later than 24 June 2009 at:
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/infso/ecctf/library?
I=/commissiondecisions
A Radical Planning Reform Agenda?
Posted by irelandafternama under Uncategorized
Leave a Comment

As the lifetime of the current government draws to a close, it is an opportune

moment to review progress in planning reforms over the past five years. Back
in 2011 planning was very much front and centre of the national debate
around the causes and consequences of the economic crisis. The highpoint of
the reforms introduced under the previous government was the Planning &
Development (Amendment) Act 2010, a piece of legislation that current
planning minister, Paudie Coffey, once described as social engineering. The
appearance of planning, on the very last page of the Programme for
Government, almost as an afterthought, was perhaps a portend of what was to
come.
It did not get off to the most auspicious start with the first of three ministers
to hold the portfolio, Willie Penrose, resigning after just a few months. His
only notable act as minister was to terminate the independent investigations

into planning irregularities. Even after the publication of the Mahon Tribunal
report and its findings of systematic corruption, Penroses successor Jan
OSullivan was unmoved, describing criticisms of a cover-up as a
smokescreen. It took a High Court case to force the government into a u-turn.
In the aftermath of the recent RTE Investigates documentary it emerged that
the independent review had been sitting on Ministers Kellys and Coffeys
desks for the past five months. In response, the government sheepishly
announced a package of radical planning measures which included the
belated publication of the independent review, further rehashed details on the
proposed Office of the Planning Regulator (the major recommendation of the
Mahon Tribunal) and a roadmap for the forthcoming National Planning
Framework (NPF). The independent review uncovered considerable evidence
of malpractice throughout the planning system and includes 29
recommendations to improve standards of transparency, consistency and
accountability which the Department has committed to implement. The footdragging on this issue has undoubtedly been a major blot on the copybook of a
government elected on a mandate to stamp out cronyism and low standards.
Despite the introduction of a new planning regulator having being approved
by the government back in 2013 and the heads of the bill published almost one
year ago, the legislation is yet to appear. Bizarrely, in September Minister
Kelly even floated the idea of de-prescribing An Taisce the chief
complainant in the review and which the report concluded had raised issues
of public interest and as such have served the common good in raising these
matters.
In fact, the only planning body which the government has subjected to an
independent review has been An Bord Pleanla one of the few
organisations to emerge from the Celtic Tiger with a semblance of integrity.
More often than not it actually had the temerity to implement national
policies in the face of local populism. It is widely reported that the trigger for
this review was its handling of wind farm cases, a particular sore point for
Minister Kelly. A public consultation on the review of the 2006 wind energy
planning guidelines generated widespread expectations that setback distances
between wind turbines and dwellings would be significantly increased
(ironically an idea first tabled by the aforementioned Willie Penrose following
his resignation). The Minister has been running with the hare and hunting
with the hound on this issue, formally intervening on three occasions to
overturn restrictive setback policies introduced by local councils, prompting
the mayor of Donegal County Council to initiate counter legal proceedings.
The revised guidelines are yet to materialise, and the debacle has done little
for the credibility of the planning system or government leadership in the face
of a critical national policy priority.
One of the few achievements was the publication of a new Planning Policy
Statement (PPS) in 2015 replete with the usual lofty principles which litter the
history of Irish planning and generally utterly ignored in practice. For
example, 40% (over 15,000) of all new dwellings permitted by the planning
system during the lifetime of the government were one off houses a spatial
pattern which is completely inimical to each and every of the key principles of
the PPS. This has not been helped by the Minister Kellys move to effectively
exempt one-off dwellings from building regulations. The PPS also commits to
the publication of the new NPF to succeed the National Spatial Strategy which
was unexpectedly and unilaterally scrapped in a solo run by former Minister

Phil Hogan back in 2013. The roadmap for the new NPF, which is (rather
optimistically) due to be completed by early 2017, continues the recent
trend for planning discourses to depart from their progressive founding
principles, which had social and redistributive justice at their heart,
and folded evermore tightly into narrow neoliberal growth and global
competitiveness agendas. Interestingly, as part of the preparation of the NPF
it is proposed to develop long-term economic and demographic forecasting
through to 2040 (as previously advocated on this blog). Far from being
radical, the roadmap sets out a conventional business-as-usual approach with
scant reference to the foremost spatial challenge of the coming century the
requirement to completely eliminate fossil fuels from our energy and
transport systems (as set out in the recent energy White Paper). There is very
little sense that strategic spatial planning in Ireland has yet to get to grips
with what this actually means in practice.
It is of course welcome that after years of retrenchment in planning
departments at national, regional and local levels that there is a new impetus
for spatial planning. Following the protracted reorganisation of the regions,
new Regional Spatial & Economic Strategies are also to be developed to
replace the Regional Planning Guidelines. The introduction of Core
Strategies in the 2010 Act has assisted spatial coordination but, as the
economy recovers, there are already worrying signs that councillors are once
again emboldened and overriding planning advice to zone land, particularly
adjacent to motorways in contravention of new guidelines introduced in 2012.
This underscores the huge strategic error in opting for a property tax over a
Site Value Tax (SVT) and the governments abolishing of windfall taxes on
zoned land. Just last week the National Competitiveness Council reiterated its
call for the introduction of SVT that works in conjunction with the planning
system. The ESRI has also called for the introduction of land taxes
http://www.esri.ie/pubs/QEC2015WIN_SA_Morley.pdf
citing the example of Denmark where such taxes are shown to act as an
incentive to sell/use underdeveloped or vacant lands in periods of increased
demand. The planning system now has all of the best-practice guidance it
requires but will continue to be a locus for speculation, cronyism and
corruption and hamstrung by shoddy practices in the absence of a strong fiscal
lever. The new vacant site levy introduced in the Housing & Urban
Regeneration Act 2015
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/33/enacted/en/pdf
is hopelessly limited in both scale and scope and a typical Irish solution to an
Irish problem. Regrettably, following a recent public consultation on the issue,
the government have once more been kowtowed to the development lobby and
decided not to introduce any new tax on zoned and serviced land.
http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2016/Documents/Tax_Expenditures_Re
port_pub.pdf
Reducing costs to the developers in order to stimulate market supply has of
course been a persistent theme over the past five years. New guidelines on
Section 48 levies introduced in 2013 sought to reduce financial contributions

from new developments, despite the fact that many councils are in severe
fiscal difficulties and owed hundreds of millions in unpaid levies.
Development Contributions Guidelines for Planning Authorities
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migratedfiles/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad
%2C32162%2Cen.pdf
The Housing & Urban Regeneration Act 2015 also halved to 10% the quantum
of Part V social housing required from new private housing developments a
move which was applauded by the Construction Industry Federation.
Similarly, despite the well documented failures in building standards,
Minister Kelly has fixated on criticising local authorities who impose building
regulations which exceed national minimum standards. Rather than using
scarce Dil time to put through the radical reforms promised, the Planning &
Development (Amendment) Bill 2015
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/10915/b10915smemo.pdf
is instead currently being rushed through to prevent local authorities defying
the Minister in the future. Such measures will obviously make no discernible
impact to housing supply. In the context where the minister has just this week
issued an unprecedented planning policy directive to address the urgent
homelessness and housing crisis and to direct local authorities to do more to
provide social housing it is hard to escape the conclusion of fiddling while
Rome burns rather than any real radical reform agenda.
Media coverage of the 2016 Population and Migration Estimates,
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrat
ionestimatesapril2016/
just issued by the Central Statistics Office, has focused on the return to net
immigration. This, combined with the recent report that 2 million people are
now at work in Ireland
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/qnhs/quarterlynationalhou
seholdsurveyquarter22016/
has been used as evidence of an economic upturn in Ireland.
These headline figures mask an important change that has taken place in
Ireland. That change is shown by the dependency ratio, which measures the
relative size of younger and older populations (under 15 and over 64)
compared to the working age population (between 15 and 64). This ratio is
important, because working people provide funds for public services and
benefits, such as full-time education, health care and pensions, that are used
by the younger and older populations. The higher this figure, the more people
have to be supported by each working person.
The total dependency ratio across the EU as a whole in 2015 was 52.6%
(calculated by Eurostat). This includes the young dependency ratio (23.8%)
and the old age dependency ratio (28.8%). In Ireland in 2016, the total
dependency ratio in 2016 was 55.3%, made up of the young dependency ratio
(34.5%) and the old age dependency ratio (20.8%). On one level, this shows
that there are proportionately more younger people and fewer older people in

Ireland than across the EU. It is possible to argue that Irelands high young
dependency ratio is potentially positive, but this would only be the case if
these young people remained in Ireland. Instead, the CSO figures show us that
many young people have left, particularly those aged between the ages of 20
and 40.
In 2016, total dependency ratios varied across regions. The highest was the
Border region (62.7%), while the lowest was Dublin (49.8%). There were also
considerable variations in the young and old age dependency ratios. These are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Dependency ratios by region in Ireland, 2016
Total dependency Old-age
Youth dependency
ratio
dependency ratio ratio
STATE
55.3
20.8
34.5
Border
62.7
24.6
38.1
Dublin
49.8
18.4
31.3
Mid-East
56.0
17.2
38.8
Midland
56.8
19.8
37.0
Mid-West
58.0
23.1
34.9
South-East
56.8
22.3
34.4
South-West
55.3
21.8
33.5
West
59.2
23.9
35.3
Source: Calculated from CSO Population and Migration Estimates 2016
The geographical variation highlights one problem, since some areas (e.g.
Border, West, and Mid-West) have proportionately fewer economically active
people. A second problem is the dramatic change in total dependency ratio
since 2009, when the average in Ireland was 47.3% (see Table 2). This means
that there has been a significant increase in the proportion of younger and
older people who are supported by working people.
Table 2: Total dependency ratio by region in Ireland, 2009 and
2016
2009
2016
STATE
47.3
55.3
Border
51.5
62.7
Dublin
42.5
49.8
Mid-East
47.0
56.0
Midland
51.5
56.8
Mid-West
48.6
58.0
South-East
50.6
56.8
South-West
47.8
55.3
West
49.2
59.2
Sources: Calculated from CSO Population and Migration Estimates, 2009
and 2016
Across the EU, changes in dependency ratios are attributed to declining
fertility rates and ageing populations. This is not the case in Ireland, which
consistently has one of the highest fertility rates in the EU. While the
population of Ireland is ageing, the country has the lowest proportion of
people aged over 64 in the EU. Instead, the key factor in Irelands changing
dependency ratios is the decline in the proportion of the population aged

between 15 and 65. This is a result of migration: in particular, the net

emigration of almost 170,000 people aged from 15 to 44 in the years from
2009 to 2016. Net emigration is the main reason for the striking change in
dependency ratios in Ireland.
Headline figures, such as a return to net immigration in 2016, mask the
ongoing and persistent effects of austerity in Ireland. The increase in
dependency ratios means that the working-age people who remain in Ireland
have more people to support, particularly in rural areas. These geographical
variations will intensify further in future years. There are long-term
consequences from austerity, and the dependency ratios show this clearly,
through the loss of a significant number of economically active people from
the country. Headline figures must not distract us from this, more troubling,
reality.

Displacement in Dublin some thoughts on Airbnb,

vacancy and the preliminary census

July 15, 2016

Much of the coverage concerning the preliminary Census release from
yesterday has focused on vacancy. This has meant distinguishing between
those housing units classed as holidays homes in each area and units that are
ordinarily vacant. One of the more puzzling statistics to emerge from this
distinction is the 190% increase in the number of holiday homes in Dublin city
since 2011. In that year, there were 322 vacant holiday houses in the city but
those rose dramatically to 937 in Aprils census.
What might account for this near trebling in five years? In particular why, in
the middle of a housing shortage, is there almost twice as many housing units
classed as holiday homes in a dense urban area when compared with five years
previously? Speculation with some others on twitter concentrated on the
possibility of these being AirBnB properties. I decided to put some focus on
this explanation to see if theres any truth to it.
In recent months there has been a number of online features concerned with
how AirBnB (a company which matches bodies with beds across the world)
might be affecting rents. If people are renting their city property through
AirBnB for much of the year, how might this affect people seeking to live and
work in the city full time? For example, in a number of North American cities
there are concerns that full-time AirBnB rentals are displacing residents (e.g.
see here or here) who are in lower paid jobs and subject to ever-increasing
rents. Some city authorities are coming under pressure to restrict the use of
full-time rentals through the company. A property owner can make far more
renting out short term lets to passers-by than s/he can from locals who are
seeking merely to continue living in a city they work and have a life in.
There is a vital politics to this displacement where AirBnB rentals are pricing
people of lesser means out of particular areas of a city bustling with tourists. It
is an extreme example of gentrification by displacement, almost making the
popular term redundant in its bluntness. The uneven geographies of AirBnB
rentals hits home for many in this city too.

In Dublin in June, the city council raised the prospect that full-time AirBnB
rentals in Temple Bar, a particular zone of intense tourist activity, would be
subject to planning permission. The Council argued that a particular property
in the neighbourhood was effectively a material change of use from residential
to commercial. It insisted of course that this ruling was site specific and did
not cover the entire Temple Bar area. The prospect of an imposition of a
change of use for the area as a whole is remote though: this seemed like a shot
across the bow.
Luckily for us, InsideAirBnB allows us all access to data for rentals across a
large number of cities to determine if the company is facilitating
displacement. I took the January 2016 data from this site and, aside from
knowing the first names of each of the renters, the database contains a
number of interesting data.
There are 3,772 properties in the AirBnB database in the four local authority
areas. Of this number, 3,116 (83%) are in the Dublin City Council area. 1,222
or 39% of this subtotal are for rent, according to the dataset available under
Creative Commons, for 300 days or more per year. The heatmap below (Map
1) shows that near-year long rentals are broadly clustered within the Temple
Bar, Cows Lane and north Docklands areas. Those rented 365 days per year
(249 properties) are distributed slightly differently. They are by no means
overlooking the splendour of Dublin Bay.

Map 1: a heatmap of the 1,222 properties available for 300 days or more on AirBnB.
Data: InsideAirBnB and OSM contributors.

They are scattered across the city with some clusters in Drumcondra,
Rathmines and Portobello. Map 2 below shows the distribution of these yearlong AirBnB properties across the Dublin City area, Map 3 shows the
distribution of entire house/apt available for rent for 300 plus days a year (as
opposed to a room in an already occupied dwelling). It is not beyond the
realm of possibility therefore that the >300 days per annum rentals in this

database includes a figure of 937 holiday houses recorded in the census. In

fact, there are 934 properties rented out for 335 days or more per annum in
the database. If you spent the month of December in your own city centre
apartment, and rented it out for the remaining 335 days of the year, you might
well be among the 937 recorded in the Census.

Map 2: Year-long AirBnB rental properties (n=249) in the Dublin city area. Data:
InsideAirBnB and OSM contributors.

Map 3: 300 plus days per year of entire housing unit /apartment for rent on Airbnb.
Data: InsideAirBnB and OSM contributors

But this is a numbers game. Well have a better sense of the distribution of the
citys holidays homes when the more extensive data release begins in April
2017.

How is Airbnb really being

used in and affecting the
neighbourhoods of your
city?
Airbnb claims to be part of the "sharing
economy" and disrupting the hotel
industry. However, data shows that the
majority of Airbnb listings in most cities
are entire homes, many of which are
rented all year round - disrupting housing
and communities.
Browse the data for your city below, and
see for yourself.
City of LA: Incentive Data Shows that Landlords Make More Money
Renting Short-term for as Few as 60 Days Per Year
August 30, 2016
Inside Airbnbs Murray Cox releases data showing that affordable
housing will be lost if short-term rentals are permitted for as few as 60days per year in some Los Angeles neighborhoods.
NYC: Battle Against Airbnb Hosts with Multiple Entire Home Listings
Won, but the War Against Commercial Listings Continues
July 8, 2016
Airbnb re-writes the disappearance of multiple home hosts in NYC to fit
their lobbying, but Airbnb's business model incentivizes commercial use,
regardless of whether you rent one home permanently or multiple.
How Airbnb's Data hid the Facts in New York City
February 10, 2016
On December 1 2015, Airbnb made data available about its business in
New York City, with much fanfare. This report shows that the Airbnb
data release misled the media and the public.

Airbnb hosts can list entire homes/apartments, private or shared rooms.

Depending on the room type, availability, and activity, an airbnb listing
could be more like a hotel, disruptive for neighbours, taking away
housing, and illegal.

6,225
out of 6,225 listings (100%

Airbnb in Dublin
Airbnb data for Dublin
Inside Airbnb
Inside Airbnb provides data compiled from the Airbnb web-site for
listings available for Dublin.
A conservative occupancy model has been built in order to estimate
Occupancy Rates, Income per Month and Nights per Year. More
information on the methodolgy of the occupancy model can be found in
the disclaimers.
Inside Airbnb: Dublin uses the following parameters:
A high availability metric and filter of 90 days per year to align with
the short term letting laws
A frequently rented filter of 90 days per year to align with the short
term letting laws
A review rate of 50% for the number of guests making a booking who
leave a review
An average booking of 3 nights unless a higher minimum nights is
configured for a listing.
A maximum occupancy rate of 70% to ensure the occupancy model
does not produce artifically high results based on the available data
If you are a data scientist, urban or public policy planner, researcher or
journalist, get the data, analyze and publish your results.
If you would like your analysis hosted, or linked to from this site, please
contact murray@murraycox.com.

Airbnb
Airbnb provides NO PUBLIC DATA to help understand the use of their
platform and the impact on cities around the world.
Airbnb also provide NO DATA to cities or states to assist them in
ensuring that Airbnb hosts and Airbnb are following the local laws.

Other data
Tom Slee regularly scrapes the Airbnb site to produce maps and
analysis of Airbnb use around the world.

CSO statistical publication, 14 July 2016,

Population and Migration Estimates April 2016
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/newsevents/documents/pressrelea
ses/prpop2016.pdf
CSO launches innovative new Residential Property Price Index (RPPI)
which creates greater insights by using administrative data
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/newsevents/documents/pressrelea
ses/pressRPPI.pdf
Central Statistics Of ce, Padraig Dalton, discusses the role of statistics
and a changing Ireland
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/newsevents/documents/MacGillSu
mmerschool.pdf

AirBnB wouldn't be beyond the

bounds of possibility for such a
number in Dublin.
Is 19k new houses net of obsolescence? If not, then net
figure is -30k for 2011-2016.

Temple Bar is a popular area for Airbnb listings. Photo by Louisa McGrath.

DOES AIRBNB MEAN

THERE ARE FEWER
HOMES TO RENT IN
DUBLIN?
Youve got to ask whats going on when there are more
and more homeless families living in hotels, and more and
more tourists staying in entire houses and apartments on
their visits.
At least, thats the case if you are Germanys capital city.
Or independent Dublin city councillor Mannix Flynn.
Earlier this month, Flynn asked city council officials to
draw up a report on Airbnb in Dublin.
It seems to have an enormous impact on the number of
apartments to rent out there, he said at the councils
Housing Strategic Policy Committee.
It seems that hoteliers are hoovering up a huge amount of
apartments and keeping them in a basic culture of Airbnb.
And therefore the people on our streets and not just the
homeless cant avail of these, he said.
An Airbnb spokesperson said the vast majority of Airbnb
listings in Dublin are people renting out their own
homes, which earns them a bit of extra cash to help pay
their rent, and doesnt reduce the number of apartments
available for long-term rental.

Crackdown
But Berlin saw Airbnb as exacerbating its housing
shortage, and brought in rules to restrict it, Flynn pointed
out.
In the German capital, owners cant rent out entire
apartments or houses on Airbnb without a permit. Those
are tough to come by, because local tenants are in need of
more rental properties.
As a result of the new regime, Airbnbs lettings in the city
almost halved, he says.
Flynn asked for a full report on what Dublin City Council
intends to do about the situation here. It is, he said, a
free-for-all.
Berlins move to crack down was well-publicised, but it
wasnt not the first city to do so. It follows in the footsteps
of European cities Paris and Amsterdam, as well as
American cities San Francisco and Santa Monica.
In Ireland, there havent yet been similar measures or
research to look at whether Airbnb is causing any
problems here. But as the number of Dublin listings on
Airbnb grows, it might soon become a concern.

Going Up

In a press release sent out last month, Airbnb said that it is

likely to grow along with the number of visitors to Ireland,
and it encouraged more households to open their homes
to guests.
As it is, the number of Irish hosts offering up places to stay
has more than doubled every year since 2010.
The companys latest figures show that Airbnb stays in
Ireland increased 187 percent between April of last year

and April of this year. And Dublin, the most popular spot in
the country for Airbnb guests, hosted 240,000 visitors last
year.
Airbnb says it had 4,700 listings in Dublin last month, an
increase of more than 1,000 since January.
So how many of these properties are entire dwellings,
apartments or houses that could house permanent
residents at a time when Dublins housing stock is
inadequate to meet demand?
Quite a lot of them, according to Inside Airbnb, an
independent data project that draws statistics and
information from the Airbnb website to highlight the makeup of Airbnb properties around the world.
As of January, of the 3,117 properties listed in Dublin city,
47.1 percent or 1,469 were entire homes or
apartments, Inside Airbnbs statistics show. (Airbnb didnt
provide these figures when asked.)
Inside Airbnbs figures also highlight that well over a third
of the citys hosts have multiple listings.

In Temple Bar
The secretary of the Temple Bar Residents Association,
Declan OBrien, says he has seen an increase in
Airbnb rentals around his city-centre residence.
Its become so common that its given life to spin-off
enterprises: management companies for Airbnb lettings,
cleaning services and even concierge services.
Its not just Airbnb rentals that can be seen around the
place though. Hotels are getting in on the action too, by
buying up apartments and letting them out to tourists

directly.
Were not able to ascertain clearly how many large hotels
are now in the business of Airbnb or in the business of
acquiring apartments in apartment complexes, says
Flynn.
The Temple Bar Residents Association have received
quite a few emails from residents in apartment blocks who
have noticed people coming and going instead of steady
neighbours, says OBrien.
And Flynn says some in Temple Bar, and other areas,
have sought his advice, wondering what to do when one
or two apartments in a complex are rented out.
Whether its a stag party or pub crawlers, people who are
just passing through an apartment complex often
dont have the same respect for it as permanent residents
do, he says.
Most residents didnt realise neighbouring apartments
were being let out to tourists until they started having
problems, he says.
And who do you ring? he asks. In a hotel, reception will
deal with it but not in an apartment.

The Home-Hotel Question

Flynn believes some of these lettings may breach planning

laws.
OBrien says some short-term listings received the correct
planning permission, like the Staycity Aparthotel on the
Millennium Walk, but doubts that others have.
Like these ones where youre getting a single apartment
in an otherwise residential block, he says.
Lorcan Sirr, a lecturer in housing studies at DIT, says

renting a room in your house poses no problems. But

renting out the entire property is a whole different thing,
he adds.
If this is the case, Sirr says you need planning permission
to change the property from residential use to commercial
use.
You cant just turn your house into a shop or a hotel
without planning permission, he says. But this is what
people are doing.
I just dont know why these rules wouldnt apply to Airbnb.
Youre providing a commercial accommodation service,
surely the rules that apply to other commercial
accommodation services should apply to Airbnb, says
Sirr.
OBrien points to an old court case from 1996. In that
case, which looked at holiday lettings, it was decided that,
yes, if youre going to turn a residential home into a holiday
home or short-term letting, then you need planning
permission.
Things can get a bit tricky if people argue that a place is
only let on weekends and is a home the rest of the time,
says Sirr, but thats something that planning authorities
should decide.

Is It Hurting Housing?

Theres also the idea that youre taking valuable housing

stock, says Sirr.
He says that if these Airbnb rentals were to go back to the
mainstream private rented sector, those in emergency
accommodation probably couldnt afford them. But it would
have some, however small, effect on the shortage of rental

stock.
As of Tuesday 17 May on Daft.ie, there were just 1,322
properties to let in Dublin. So it seems like adding another
3,117 properties would ease the shortage, though it
should be noted that some of those properties might just
be up for rent while their long-term residents are away for
a weekend or a holiday.
Simon Brooke, head of policy at Clid, says the voluntary
housing body hasnt looked into the effects of Airbnb on
the citys housing situation. But he says it could be a
problem if a significant proportion of accommodation that
would normally be used for private rented accommodation
were used for Airbnb like it was in Berlin.
If its not a sustainable level, and it interferes with the
market, he would suggest following Berlins lead.

A Minority

The vast majority of Airbnb listings in Berlin are local

residents homes, says a spokesperson for Airbnb. And
this is also the case for Dublin, she adds.
Taking these properties off Airbnb wouldnt mean they
would be made available to rent long-term, because
people are already living in them long-term.
Also, the extra income that locals earn through Airbnb is
important for them and helps them stay in their homes,
she said. In Ireland, an average Airbnb host earns 2,600
per year by sharing their home, she said.
[Hosts] arent taking houses off the market, they are
sharing their homes and the cities they love, and using the
additional income to help pay the bills, she said.
Flynn doesnt dispute that, he says. The home-sharing

side of the Airbnb is positive, but its when entire houses

are given over for short-term rent that it becomes
problematic, he said.
Like in Berlin, theres a huge social consequence for it,
he says. I just think for everyones sake this needs to be
regulated.
The Daft.ie House Price Report An analysis of recent trends in the
Irish residential sales market 2016
http://www.daft.ie/report/q2-2016-daft-houseprice-report.pdf

The Unintended
Consequences of the
Best Intentions:
17 Jul 2012
The following scene is becoming a familiar one in
cities throughout Europe. It may differ slightly, but
the mix of ingredients is similar; in a well-known
theater, a professionally curated and highly polished
event or debate is organized at which invited
speakers discuss the future of the city. These
speakers are drawn from various aspects of society,
including the media, academia, planning or
architectural practice. Increasingly, however, it is
representatives from the world of culture and/or the
design community who take centre-stage. The focus of
the event tends to be dominated by the reappropriation of the city, with temporary solutions
being brought to the fore; pop-up shops, installation
art, reuse of vacant land and so on. Yet, beyond this
temporarily is something of far-lasting consequences,
one which pits culture art and design, and other
creative activities as a driving force of urban
change. Moreover, while the way in which such change
is presented is often naturalized as having only a
positive impact, it brings to the fore significant
questions about whom the city is for and who should
lead its transformation.
In rereading Sharon Zukins Loft Living, which was
originally published 30 years ago this month, it is
striking as to just how pervasive the role of culture
has become in reshaping the contemporary city. In

evoking the notion of the artistic mode of

production, Zukin was particularly astute at
highlighting the dangers of failing to look beneath
the surface of the city which places culture at the
centre-stage. The cultural city is attractive, it is
vibrant, it is lively and open. What is not to
celebrate about it? Yet, following from Zukin, behind
the soft exterior of the embrace of the arts world by
city authorities lies a struggle about what the city
is and who it should be for. The message in Zukins
writings from this time was clear; beware of the
unintended consequences of specific social actions:
Nevertheless, the historic compromise between social
groups over the use of space and the form of lofts in
Lower Manhattan remain a cautionary tale. It alerts
us, in particular, to the unanticipated consequences
of urban social movements, especially the
incorporation of their goals as alternative means
of revalorization.
If culture had a significant impact at the beginning
of the 1980s, it is now central to the understanding
of urban processes, with the ways of life with which
it is associated now elevated to the top of the urban
hierarchy. More particularly, recently, the role of
design as both a particular creative industry and
an integral element of the city has taken a central
role and a driver of urban change. Often, it seems as
though this design turn presents the potential for
design as a politically neutral tool for the
betterment of society at large. Yet, design, as with
culture more broadly, cannot be stripped from its
social and political context. While this may not be
as explicit as the use of some form of architectural
symbolism to express a specific ideology, the
mainstreaming of those activities previously deemed
somewhat on the edge throws up some challenging
tensions; whether it be the officiation of terms such
as hacking, or, simply, highlighting notions such as
discovery and unearthing that which is hidden. This
search for elements that are simultaneously edgy
and controllable is one of the defining features of
contemporary approaches to the city. Instead of
kicking over the traces and searching for something
new, the role of culture and design thus seems
somewhat contradictory, presenting some interesting
opportunities and dangers for those at the cutting-

edge. On the one hand, it presents the opportunity

for challenging the status-quo, yet, on the other,
there is the danger that such activities are used as
a means of kick-starting a much wider and farreaching set of processes. As an example, and in
taking note of Zukins warnings, without due care,
the desire to transform vacant space itself the
outcome of prolonged periods of speculation may be
destined to provide the backdrop for the
transformation into something that in the end will
leave nothing left for those seeking such spaces in
the first place, with the designation of under-used
space as a cultural venue becoming a means to an
end of the continued commodification of urban space.
If this is a time to promote the collective impact of
design in society, it is thus also worth reflecting
on what possible impacts various initiatives and
ideals may have on urban society. When viewed as a
whole way of life, design has an impact that goes
beyond its utilitarian objectives, it is one which
although more difficult to discern is no less real
than its explicit use as means of altering the urban
environment in highly visible and invisible ways.
What design interventions say about particular social
groups and for whom such interventions benefit is a
question of significant importance which cannot be
ignored. In as much as design is now becoming more
open and more accessible, new challenges emerge about
how to ensure it is open and accessible to different
social groups. Being reflexive to such questions
would aid in promoting design as an emancipatory and
inclusive process. Philip Lawton
www.philiplawton.posterous.com

Urban
Regeneration
and Social
Justice

May 14th, 2016

There is much debate at present about future

solutions to the housing crisis in Ireland. This is a
crisis of an unprecedented scale, which has been
produced through the structural inadequacies of
the previous boom and bust cycle and, indeed, the
long tail of housing provision in Ireland. Following
from such discussions, there is a necessity to
examine the relationship between planning, urban
regeneration, housing, and social justice.
To greater or lesser extents, design professionals
have a strong role to play in the promotion of more
socially inclusive and just cities. However, their
potential for impact is situated within the wider
economic, social and cultural arenas in which they
are embedded and have to operate. All too often,
whether it be in a design magazine or glossy
property section, there appears an article hailing
how a building or even an entire area that was
once dilapidated has been revitalised with the
historic fabric of the city now restored to its former
glory. For all the worth of such projects, they can
often serve to gloss over and render vastly unequal
processes of urban transformation almost invisible.
While it is understandable that many will celebrate
how an area has been turned around etc., a great
level of care is needed in order not to simply
reproduce a set of highly unequal processes at
various different scales over time.
Debates within the realms of urban design and
planning are not, however, short on theories of
alleviating urban injustices. One of the dominant
approaches of current policy is to introduce social
mix to locations predominated by poorer residents.
In short, the ideal is that mixing different social
groups allows for better life opportunities,
particularly for poorer residents. Such approaches

thus have significant implications for questions of,

and realities of, social justice, but are not without
certain shortcomings, particularly in the context of
the increasingly marketised urban reality. For
example, in advocating for a more just solution to
housing, planning theorist, Peter Marcuse takes
care not to submit to notions of inclusion that are
biased by the housing market: Diversity, for
instance, has specific benefits in itself, in
permitting mixing, mutual enrichment, solidarity
and mutual support; but diversifying public housing
by introducing higher income household at the
expense of those intended to be served by it, with
the result of benefiting higher over low-income
families, is not a just objective of public policy.
Such sentiments are therefore not opposed to the
mixing of social groups but the assumption that it
automatically results in a more just outcome. For
Marcuse, such strategies can either have the
impact of primary displacement, whereby residents
of what was once social housing are directly
displaced in favour of a socially mixed
development, or secondary displacement, whereby
families are displaced via increase in land values
brought about in a surrounding area. Furthermore,
there is little understanding of how this impacts
upon peoples lives in terms of displacement to
other parts of a city or city region.

Vacant space on corner of West Chesnut and North Clark St. in Chicago. This photo seeks to illustrate the
movement of investment from one place to another.

Within wider urban discourse, one of the more

predominant means of engagement in such
theories at present is via the lens of gentrification.
For defenders of gentrification, it is heralded as
providing much needed reinvestment into an area.
Yet, in the context of such radical shifts taking
place via large-scale disinvestment and sudden
influx of investment, important social questions
arise. Notions embedded within policy-oriented
gentrification assume that there will be a trickledown impact for the surrounding community. This
is often given a further sheen via the use of names
like Jane Jacobs and associated notions of well
designed and serviced streets. More often than not,
these ideals are presented as though promoting
inherently inclusive places. Such perspectives
rarely engage in the processes operating under the
surface, particularly the role of finance in dictating
the reality of contemporary cities. In reality,
gentrified areas are often dominated by social
tectonics at various scales with an end game of
furthering residential differentiation and social
segregation. Yet, more often than not, media
debates end up discussing gentrification via
notions of improvement, with the more necessary
discussion of social justice either sidelined or taken
for granted.
Seeking to understand these processes involves
taking a more long-term view of urban change.
Thus, in drawing on key authors such as Neil Smith,
it is necessary to understand the dynamics of
gentrification as a long-term outcome of both
disinvestment and reinvestment. Indeed, both
disinvestment and reinvestment have negative
impacts upon the less well off in society. As an area

is disinvested, residents are forced to deal with far

reaching consequences, ranging from the physical
degradation of the built environment to withdrawal
of the state in terms of upkeep of the public
domain. That the gradual decline of such
neighbourhoods introduces the potential of future
profitability to an area can also be problematic.
Although an area is now being transformed via new
forms of investment, very often this investment
has little to do with long-term residents and is
more to do with the search for profit and the
closely linked shift in social realities of an area.
While often dressed up as saving a neighbourhood
from urban blight, the solutions are thus far
removed from the issues to which they purport to
address. A zero sum game is played out upon a city
as though it is a chessboard. Different actors
compete for different parcels, with disinvestment
moving from place to place for future profitability. It
continues to reproduce a scenario whereby its very
own progress is reliant upon wide swings between
disinvestment and reinvestment. Thus, while some
might deem protest of the Cereal Killer Caf in
London as unfair, such venues become symbolic of
just how imbalanced these processes have
become. High-priced cafes are of little use to those
in severe food poverty.

Amsterdam Eastern Docks as illustrative of ideal social mix. Susan Fainstein sees Amsterdam as an example
of a just city.

With the above in mind, it becomes important to

think through ways of addressing the factors
producing such unequal realities within cities. To
take one example, historic buildings in poor
condition are cheaper to rent, but almost selfevidently, in poorer condition. In choosing to live in
such locations, tenants very often have less choice
about where they will locate in a city. Choice
becomes a factor that is largely dictated by other
factors outside of ones control. Thus, in advocating
for urban regeneration within historic contexts,
pertinent questions arise as to how tenants can
afford to continue living in an area after
regeneration is complete. The detailed historical
rejuvenation of a building should not mean the
displacement of tenants for the sake of
architectural celebration. After all, should we really
be celebrating urban regeneration if those whom it
should serve can no longer afford to live there after
reinvestment has taken place? It is not that there is
a problem to seek new uses for old structures, but
the manner in which this re-use becomes
embedded within pervading societal structures
needs a greater level of attention.
There is a need for policy makers to seek
alternative provisions of housing within the context
of regeneration areas. This can be brought about
through more engagement with alternative means
of provision such as community land trusts,
housing associations and state-led housing. In
order to achieve this, strong government
intervention is necessitated, whereby local
government use legislation such as compulsory
purchase orders as a means of providing housing
for wider societal benefit. With increased calls on

the state to intervene in the current housing crisis,

historic centres provide an ideal environment in
which a significant amount of small parcels of land
could be taken out of the hands of speculators and
used as a means of promoting the common good.
Here, there is the potential to promote
architectural heritage as making a strong social
contribution that goes beyond the market-led
reinvestment in urban space. Such approaches
would necessitate intensification in the power of
public land management to ensure that, from both
a spatial and temporal perspective, the speculative
disinvestment and reinvestment in land does not
continue to dictate very real outcomes in peoples
social lives. This would require a sea change in how
cities are viewed and treated within policies at
various scales of engagement.

30 January 2016: Teachers Club, Parnell Square. 9.30am-2pm

Following on from the first Peoples Housing Forum, which took place on 28

November 2015, the second Peoples Housing Forum will take place on 30
January 2016 in the Teachers Club, Parnell Square. This series of events is
organised by Housing Action Now and the Irish Housing Network and seeks
to build a collaborative and bottom-up approach to tackling the pressing
housing emergency. The Peoples Housing Forum also build on the
discussions during the Towards a Real Housing Strategy event held on 1
Octover 2015, a synopsis of which can be read here. In the first Peoples
Housing Forum, those involved firstly worked towards identifying the current
problems relating to different components of the housing system, and
secondly towards identifying a set of concise Peoples Housing Demands. A
summary of the demands identified by the groups are as follows:
Homelessness
1. Modulars are not a solution. Open vacant Council properties (voids) and
transfer suitable NAMA properties.
2. Create 24hr community and resource centres for homeless families and
individuals. These centres would have 3 functions: a place to be warm and
have access to food and cooking facilities; a place to use resources such as
computers, charge phones, and have general access to facilities; a place to
make contact with frontline physical and mental health services
3. It was felt in this workshop that provision for homelessness was left solely
in hand of private enterprise and charities when it is a public crisis. Our last
demand was an end to governments reliance on private services for the relief
of public need.
Private Rental Demands
1. Rent controls and rent freezes tied to inflation and income
2. Strengthen Tenants Rights: Lift barriers to access and end discrimination.
Strengthen tenants rights regarding probation,conditions of dwelling,
evictions. Enforce these rights.
3. Create infrastructure for tenants to exercise power. Independent
organisation for support, information, and representation and change PRTB
structure to a tenants focused organisation.
4. Break from the markets and stop subsidising landlords and private
ownership. Build and keep public and social housing affordable and in
ownership of public authorities.
Migrants and Direct Provision Demands
1. End Direct Provision. End all institutionalised refugee provision.
2. Let those in Direct Provision, refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants work,
access education, and live in Irish society. Tackle profiteering and standard of
care. End forced transfers.
3. Create support infrastructure for those leaving direct provision and refugee
centres. Grant full state rights including education, housing, social and
community supports and health services. A place where everyone can access
necessary information about their rights.
4. Take a firm anti racism position and tackle scape goating of migrant
peoples.
Mortgages and Evictions Demands
1. No economic evictions. Bring in meaningful and long lasting rent controls
and security of tenure
2. Create a community land trust and use it to write off debt. This would be
overseen independently and not by banks.
3. Create support for those facing courts.

4. Change constitution to emphasise and enforce public good and right to

housing over protection of private property.
5. Use creative and artistic ways to educate people on their rights relating to
housing and change culture.
Social Housing Demands
1. Good quality secure housing as a human right. Supply the housing that is
needed (which meets actual housing stock need) through Public Housing
Agencies. Take housing stock provision out of the hands of councils.
2. Challenge government and private sector propaganda. Clarify and promote
the ideology of housing rights groups.
3. Promote and implement practical measures to raise funding and delivery of
housing. i.e. allocating USC to public housing building.
Traveller Accommodation Demands
1. Recognise Traveller Ethnicity
2. Set up Independent Traveller Accommodation Agency to deliver and ensure
equality and rights in standards of accommodation and facilities. This body
would also maintain halting sites and guarantee standard of facilities.
3. Fire safety analysis carried out on all sites.
The event on Saturday 30 January will seek to build upon these demands and
develop strategies to end the housing crisis. Anyone interested in the issue of
housing, please come along and join the discussion. Details are below.
The housing crisis has become an out-of-control housing emergency.
From rent hikes to evictions to homelessness, the very idea of the home is
under fierce attack.
The Peoples Housing Forum believes that communities, activists and all
interested groups should work together to challenge this crisis and organise
for the guaranteed right to housing for everyone.
Join us at the Peoples Housing Forum on January 30th at the Teachers Club
on Parnell Square to discuss strategies for organising for the right to
housing. This will take the form of power structure analysis workshops,
where we will collectively look at the people actually making the decisions
around housing, and who actually has the power. Then we will discuss how
we can organise and come together to challenge that power, and end this
crisis. PSAs are an extremely useful tool for mapping out campaigns, and
we will be looking at the issues and power brokers in Social Housing;
Private Rental Accomodation; Homelessness; Mortgages & Evictions;
Traveller Accommodation; Migrants & Direct Provision.
The previous Peoples Housing Forum was held on November 28th , and the
goal was to agree upon a common set up demands across those different
dimensions of the housing sector. For more information, and to see those
demands, visit peopleshousingforum.wordpress.com or email us at
housingactionireland@gmail.com.

Peoples Housing Demands

(Formed at the last Forum November 28th)
Homelessness
1. Modulars are not a solution. Open vacant Council
properties (voids) and transfer suitable NAMA properties.
2. Create 24hr community and resource centres for
homeless families and individuals. These centres would

have 3 functions: a place to be warm and have access to

food and cooking facilities; a place to use resources such
as computers, charge phones, and have general access to
facilities; a place to make contact with frontline physical
and mental health services
3. It was felt in this workshop that provision for
homelessness was left solely in hand of private enterprise
and charities when it is a public crisis. Our last demand
was an end to government's reliance on private services
for the relief of public need.
Private Rental Demands
1. Rent controls and rent freezes tied to inflation and
income
2. Strengthen Tenants Rights: Lift barriers to access and
end discrimination. Strengthen tenants rights regarding
probation,conditions of dwelling, evictions. Enforce these
rights.
3. Create infrastructure for tenants to exercise power.
Independent organisation for support, information, and
representation and change PRTB structure to a tenants
focused organisation.
4. Break from the markets and stop subsidising landlords
and private ownership. Build and keep public and social
housing affordable and in ownership of public authorities.
Migrants and Direct Provision Demands
1. End Direct Provision. End all institutionalised refugee
provision.
2. Let those in Direct Provision, refugees, asylum seekers,
and migrants work, access education, and live in Irish
society. Tackle profiteering and standard of care. End
forced transfers.
3. Create support infrastructure for those leaving direct
provision and refugee centres. Grant full state rights
including education, housing, social and community
supports and health services. A place where everyone can
access necessary information about their rights.
4. Take a firm anti racism position and tackle scape
goating of migrant peoples.
Mortgages and Evictions Demands
1. No economic evictions. Bring in meaningful and long
lasting rent controls and security of tenure
2. Create a community land trust and use it to write off

debt. This would be overseen independently and not by

banks.
3. Create support for those facing courts.
4. Change constitution to emphasise and enforce public
good and right to housing over protection of private
property.
5. Use creative and artistic ways to educate people on
their rights relating to housing and change culture.
Social Housing Demands
1. Good quality secure housing as a human right. Supply
the housing that is needed (which meets actual housing
stock need) through Public Housing Agencies. Take
housing stock provision out of the hands of councils.
2. Challenge government and private sector propaganda.
Clarify and promote the ideology of housing rights groups.
3. Promote and implement practical measures to raise
funding and delivery of housing. i.e. allocating USC to
public housing building.
Traveller Accommodation Demands
1. Recognise Traveller Ethnicity
2. Set up Independent Traveller Accommodation Agency to
deliver and ensure equality and rights in standards of
accommodation and facilities. This body would also
maintain halting sites and guarantee standard of facilities.
3. Fire safety analysis carried out on all sites.

The housing crisis has become an out-of-control

housing emergency.
From rent hikes to evictions to homelessness,
the very idea of the home is under fierce attack.
The Peoples Housing Forum believes that
communities, activists and all interested groups
should work together to challenge this crisis
and organise for the guaranteed right to
housing for everyone.
Join us at the Peoples Housing Forum on January 30th at the
Teachers Club on Parnell Square to discuss strategies for
organising for the right to housing. This will take the form of
power structure analysis workshops, where we will collectively
look at the people actually making the decisions around
housing, and who actually has the power. Then we will discuss
how we can organise and come together to challenge that
power, and end this crisis. PSAs are an extremely useful tool

for mapping out campaigns, and we will be looking at the

issues and power brokers in Social Housing; Private Rental
Accomodation; Homelessness; Mortgages & Evictions; Traveller
Accommodation; Migrants & Direct Provision.
The previous Peoples Housing Forum was held on November
28th , and the goal was to agree upon a common set up
demands across those different dimensions of the housing
sector. For more information, and to see those demands, visit
Registration will begin at 09:30 and we will finish at
approximately 14:00.
The Peoples Housing Forum is hosted by Housing Action Now
and the Irish Housing Network, in association with the
Geography Department of Maynooth University.
The first conference of what would become the Peoples
Housing Forum was held in Liberty Hall on October 3rd, hosted
by Housing Action Now and the Irish Housing Network in
association with the Geography Department of Maynooth
University and the Dublin branch of SIPTU. This event, referred
to as the Emergency Conference on the Resources tab of the
above menu, was about bringing together researchers,
activists, community workers and people directly affected by
housing difficulties in order to reach a consensus
understanding of the crisis and efforts made to resist it.
The fightback grows
This is the third of a four part series on the Irish housing crisis
and fight back against it; focusing on the rise of the Irish
Housing Network. The third part focuses on recovering and
building after the Bolt and challenges of political strategy. By
Samus Farrell

(Left Catherines Gate: Right, Peoples Housing Forum)

After the Bolt occupation the network and many of the groups
in it took some time to rest, recover and reorganise. Groups
got back to their own work, helping those in emergency
accommodation, legal support, anti-eviction work, research
and soup runs. We also got a chance to reflect about what we
had learned from the Bolt and how we could grow.
Actions started back with a protest highlighting empty
buildings in early September, with Right2Housing driving this
(a People before Profit Housing campaign), and a Network
organised Homeless Protest on September 22nd. Following the
22nd of September an unprecedented upsurge in action,
training, education and organising took place. It would be
impossible to cover all that was done so I want to just cover
four important pieces of work (network structure changes and
growth; actions around homelessness and efforts to engage
with justice for marginalised communities; education and
training; and our engagement with political strategy) and I
want to try tease out some lessons from them.
Network Structures and Growth
We learned in the Bolt that there was huge overlap in the work
being done by different groups despite our best efforts to
support and educate each other. We also found that small
numbers of people were at times taking on multiple roles. This
was leading to burnout for these activists but also limiting the
possibility of new members getting involved, as everyone
came to rely on these few. To challenge these points and to
strengthen the Network four internal teams were set up.
1) Cases: helping families, those affected, and the homeless.
This teams role was to pool resources and knowledge more

effectively. This was modeled on North Dublin Bay HCC who

had already set up a support group which had started to shift
from individual case work to a format that better fostered
group support and collective action.
2) Finance: We needed to be able to sustainably fund
ourselves, particularly for longer campaigns. All grassroots
groups know that money is a mixed blessing: without it, groups
find themselves constantly lowering their expectations
(volunteerism has an exceptionally low glass ceiling), but
money creates its own set of problems. It can lead to infighting
and reliance; also the existence of money can actually
demotivate activists and make them less creative, rather than
vice versa. To avoid these problems we began to experiment
with a format which would not only be open, transparent and
democratic, but also (hopefully) participative and heavily
linked to action and housing awareness and keep us
independent.
3) Media: Along with updates and calls to action released via
social media, we needed to have media contacts at events and
the ability to release good quality press releases. This team
would expand and standardise our information and message,
but also develop and collect relevant research and analysis.
Underneath the suffering that a housing crisis brings, and
behind the resistance that activists undertake, there is a
constant ideological battle being waged against the idea of
stable housing as a right. The media team was set up to
disperse clear, easily understandable, information to counter
the limitations of this pervasive, damaging mainstream
narrative.
4) Outreach: this teams focus was to support new members in
the network; to work with new groups and to support new
groups to join. In areas without groups, there were efforts to
support groups setting up.
The teams allowed us to bring in new faces, spread workload
and plan more effectively. This was boasted by new groups
joining the network. More local groups such as Dublin Central
Housing Action emerging out of the Bolt, joining groups such as
D8HAC and Ballymun-Finglas Housing Action. A national
network seemed possible as groups sprung up in Wexford and
Kildare. Importantly, these groups did not come out of
nowhere. Homeless groups, the remnants of previous
campaigns, water and anti-austerity activists and small
numbers of socialist and republican groups were starting to
take part in broader community-based organisations in a
participative and respectful way.
Homeless Action and Marginalised Communities

Homelessness became and continued to be central to our

organising efforts. The Bolt Hostel focused this on a specific
point, a direct fault line pitching us as a network against the
full force of the council and courts. In contrast efforts after the
Bolt were more diverse and in many ways offered even greater
room for experimenting and building a fight back. The support
groups set up by local groups such as North Dublin Bay allowed
those facing homelessness, those in emergency
accommodation to begin to lead homeless actions. At the
same time the increased profile of the network and credibility
as well the worsening crisis meant that more people were
coming forward either facing eviction or already homelessness.
Local sleep outs started. Agitation began in the hostels, hotels
and emergency accommodation sites. Opposition to the wider
interlinked aspects of the crisis from modular housing (prefabs)
and Housing Assistant Payment (HAP) and low income rental
instead of social housing starting to deepened and spread the
reach of our organising efforts.
By November we were starting to get important links by
supporting those affected, building local organising around
them and with a wider network in support in the background.
In Wexford a NAMA auction was successfully stopped. At
Catherines Gate, a 12 day emergency accommodation stand
off after severe mistreatment of tenants by staff was led by the
family affected support by a new local network member D8HAC
and backed up by the knowledge of the cases and media team
of the network. It drew out a stalemate but organised
opposition to tenant mistreatment in emergency
accommodation was only starting.
As the refugee crisis engulfed Europe many of us in the
network felt that homelessness was being used as an excuse
to refuse refugees their right to shelter. We felt that we had a
duty to fight this. We reached out to the Anti-Racism Network
(ARN) to see how we could work together and they responded
by joining the network. Soon after this the Carrickmines
tragedy put discrimination against Irish Travellers sharply into
focus. For many involved we want housing for all, and even
more then this the most marginalised and suffering are the
greatest target for mistreatment and the most important to
support and build as central to our network. Single mothers,
migrants, young people, the unemployed and travellers, no
one can be left behind or out. We felt we were not experts by
any means and the voice of those affected from these
communities and grassroots anti-racism activists should be
central to our struggle.
Education and Training

Education and Training became a huge part of our work after

the Bolt. It was a key founding principle, that the network
would exist to support, train, educate and show solidarity in
action. It was important to give new groups confidence, to
spread the work of activists and to share the knowledge ever
growing from battle to battle, struggle to struggle. The two
most important forms this took were the internal Strategy Get
Together and the external Peoples Housing Forum. The
Strategy Get Together allowed for a full day of training,
strategy power analysis and then campaign discussion. It
allowed us to reflect together, educate and plan for the short
and medium term. The Peoples Housing Forum driven by
Housing Action Now and supported by the network set out the
building of peoples housing demands. Process in many ways
was important as the outcome and we felt even in progress
circles too much of housing policy and ideas are controlled by a
small number of experts. This was a problem for three
reasons. It created an elite, it detached policy from peoples
experiences and it gave activists and those affected no
ownership over the ideas necessary to change the conditions
we faced. We wanted to begin to change that with the Peoples
Housing Forum.
The Politics Game
As our network grew, our education, strategy and training
strengthen and our action developed an important political
clash happened. A National Demonstration was called by a few
group the National Housing and Homeless Coalition. One group
who left the network Help 4 the Homeless have being calling
for a national demonstration since September. Their approach
was to get the heavy-hitters behind it, i.e left parties, trade
unions and homeless charities. Despite differences within the
network over this being too closely linked with various parties,
we generally supported calls for a national demonstration. The
Demonstration ended up having between 700-1000 people at
it on a cold Tuesday evening in December. Below are a number
of general and hopefully constructive critiques of the
organising and impact of said national demonstration and what
we need to consider moving forward with such actions.
Organising V Mobilising. Mobilisation/demonstrations can serve
a number of important roles. They can be a show of strength,
they can bring groups together in planning or organising of an
event, forging new links and networks and/or they can raise an
issue that is often ignored. With these upsides there are also
downsides. A demonstration does not on its own achieve
anything. In housing for example, it does not stop an eviction,
build social housing, open a vacant building or take a homeless

person off the street. It does not disrupt the day to day running
of the system of the profit making which drives our current
housing regime. In effect demonstrations alone appeal only to
a vague idea of changing public opinion or damaging the
government.
If they dont achieve anything tangible why are they the main
form of political opposition from the radicals left to moderate
forces? The most simple answer is that they are safe. They
give parties, trade unions and charities the change to show
they are doing something and boast their profile without
risking direct disruptive action or more long term deep
organising on the ground.
Demonstration are useful when they are an addition to
organising but they simple cannot be seem as a replacement.
In the water movement they were an addition to pickets, water
meter protests and direct action not a replacement.
Traditionally in trade union circles they were and are an
addition to the strike not a replacement. We made these
arguments clearly to the new coalition, and we asked them to
support organising on the ground and efforts such as the
peoples housing forum as well as the demonstration. Time will
tell if these ideas and demands are heeded.
Democracy. For organising to work large number of people
affected need to be not only engaged but centre to the fight
back. That means that they are central to decision making not
simply used as boots on the streets. Old habits die hard in
many corners of the progressive movement on this
fundamental organising question. We were requested to attend
organising meetings as a network, with leaders of each of the
left parties, heads of the left unions and the main homeless
charities. We requested that such a meeting be opened out.
We requested that rather than two members representing the
network that all groups in the network be allowed to send
representative and that we would be able to choose to rotate
them so that those affected and new activists get to take part
in the decision making process. They requested that two are
selected, and in fact they recommended who they wanted and
no more. This is smart politics in itself as it creates tension
between those selected or picked out as leaders and the rest
of the movement.
Many from the radical left and more institutional left call for
people power and a new democracy in theory but are slow to
act out these ideas in their day to day organising practice.
Without real democracy built into real and sustained organising
effort no movement can or will grow to challenge or transform
the world we have before us. This will be a long fight in our

housing movement and more generally for all movements and

efforts for justice.

No wind turbines within

600 metres of homes as
Cabinet clash over
proposals
Philip Ryan Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
22/09/2015

2
Environment Minister Alan Kelly and Energy Minister Alex White
are at loggerheads over the proposed guidelines

The Government's highly anticipated

planning guidelines for the wind energy
industry prohibit the construction of highpowered turbines within a kilometre of
towns and villages, the Irish Independent
can reveal.

The new rules will enforce a so-called 'setback distance' of

600 metres for turbines from any private residence which is an increase on the 500m set out in the current
guidelines.
Wind energy companies will be also be stopped from
constructing mega-windmills higher than 170m, under the
policy drafted by Environment Minister Alan Kelly.
However, it is unclear when the guidelines will be

published or if these restrictions will be enforced due to an

internal Cabinet row between Mr Kelly and Energy
Minister Alex White.
Mr Kelly and his junior minister Paudie Coffey are said to
be "hugely frustrated" with Mr White, who believes their
guidelines will prevent the development of more onshore
wind turbines.
Mr White insists this will result in Ireland missing EU
renewable energy targets and will leave the country liable
for huge fines.
Talks between the two departments have "broken down"
and it is understood a decision may have to be taken at
Cabinet to resolve the dispute.
It can also be revealed that any further delay in publishing
the rules could result in local authorities being given the
power to set distances themselves.
There is rising public frustration over the wind energy
issue which is affecting many parts of rural Ireland including Mr Kelly's homeland of north Tipperary - and it
is likely to be a key issue when the country goes to the
polls.
Guidelines
Protesters are planning to descend on the Ploughing
Championships in Laois this week to voice their anger at
the Government.
The Irish Independent understands the yet-to-be
published guidelines from the Department of the
Environment will propose a setback distance of a
kilometre from towns and villages. There will be a
maximum height of 170m on flat land and 150m in
mountainous areas. It proposes a setback distance of
600m form any private residence and a similar distance
from lakes or seashores.
The setback distance for high-powered turbines will be
determined by a "height to distance matrix".
A spokesman for Mr White said the proposed guidelines
would result in Ireland missing renewable energy targets
and force the country to pay fines running into "hundreds

of millions of euro".
"It is possible to revise the guidelines, but as they are
currently drafted we would miss renewable energy targets
and it would send a negative message to Europe which will
damage our negotiating position on these issues," he said.
Meanwhile, there is a belief in the Department of the
Environment that the current guidelines, which were
drawn up almost a decade ago, may no longer be "legally
robust".
This means power may soon have to be delegated to
county councils as the legal planning authority to set their
own distances for wind turbines.
Mr Kelly and Mr Coffey are understood to be open to
giving local authorities the responsibility for the setback
distances.
Meath-East Fine Gael TD Helen McEntee yesterday
accused Mr White of "dragging his feet" and stalling the
publication of "more appropriate and sustainable"
guidelines.
Meanwhile, Labour Senator John Whelan, who has
campaigned on behalf of anti-wind turbine protesters, said
community groups were being forced to raise up to
100,000 to take legal challenges against wind energy
firms.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/no-wind-turbines-within-600metres-of-homes-as-cabinet-clash-over-proposals-31547415.html

An Bord Pleanla
Review
This article was last reviewed 6 months 1 week ago
It is due for its next review in 5 months 3 weeks

The Report of the Independent Review Group

was published on 14 March 2016
The Review Group delivered the final version of their
Report to the Minister on Tuesday, 16 February 2016.

Review Group
On 26 July 2015, Mr Alan Kelly TD, Minister for the

Environment, Community and Local Government,

announced an organisational review of An Bord
Pleanla. An expert and experienced external Review
Group was appointed to undertake this independent
review. The Review Group comprised:
Mr Gregory Jones, QC, London (Chair)
Gregory Jones QC (Chair) is in independent practice at
the bar of England & Wales at Francis Taylor Building,
Temple, London specialising in town & country planning,
environmental, European and compulsory purchase law.
He is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. Gregory
is also called to bars of Northern Ireland and Kings Inns.
Educated at New College, Oxford University and
University College, London, Gregory was a stagiaire at the
European Commission and Jean Pierre Warner Scholar at
the European Court of Justice. Elected in 2013 as an
independent Common Councilman of the City of London,
he is a member of its planning and transportation
committee. Gregory is the Deputy Chancellor of the
Dioceses of both Exeter and Truro.
Dr ine Ryall, School of Law, University College Cork
(Vice-Chair)
Dr ine Ryall (Vice Chair) teaches and researches
environmental law and European Union law at the School
of Law, University College Cork. A qualified barrister, she
is a member of the Environmental Protection Agencys
Advisory Committee, the Royal Irish Academys Climate
Change and Environmental Sciences Committee and the
European Commission Expert Group of Academics on
Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. She served
as a member of the Environmental Protection Agency
Review Group which reported in May 2011. Her research
focuses in particular on environmental assessment,
access to justice, environmental law enforcement and
implementation of the Aarhus Convention.
Mr Michael Malone, former County Manager, Kildare
County Council

Mr Michael Malone MBA is the former County Manager,

Kildare County Council. Michael retired from Kildare CC
in June 2014 following a 42-year career in local
government. Starting off at North Tipperary County
Council he worked in Galway City, South Tipperary, North
Tipperary (as County Secretary), Kerry (Assistant
Manager) and in Laois, Kilkenny and Kildare as County
Manager.
Ms Mary Hughes, Director of HRA Planning.
Mary Hughes BA MSc Town Planning Dip. EIA/SEA is a
Director of HRA Planning and current President of the Irish
Planning Institute (2014/2015). With in excess of 17
years experience in planning, Mary spent her first years
working for different planning authorities throughout
Ireland. In 2002 she left the public sector and became
Associate Director of an international transport and
planning consultancy, before establishing HRA Planning in
2005. Mary provides planning services to both public and
private sector clients throughout Ireland. Mary also sat on
the steering group which coordinated the preparation of
the Local Authority Renewable Energy Guidelines
prepared by SEAI.

Terms of Reference

>

>

The review group shall have regard to the following in

compiling its report and in making recommendations to the
Minister to support the Board in its operations, with a view
to ensuring that it is appropriately positioned and fit for
purpose from an organisational perspective to achieve its
legislative mandate:
The anticipated increase in construction activity, including
on strategic infrastructure projects and Strategic
Development Zones (SDZs), and the related volume of
planning applications and appeals as the economy
recovers, including measures to ensure that appeal and
non-appeal cases are discharged in an efficient and timely
manner.
The increasingly complex and changing national and EU

>

>
>
>

>

>

>

legislative and policy context within which the Board

operates.
The need for more effective co-ordination of the planning
permission process with other development consent and
licencing systems to, inter alia, facilitate compliance
with relevant EU Directive requirements.
The increase in litigation in the area of the Boards work
and measures required to address same.
The appropriateness of the current legislation governing
the functions of the Board, its corporate governance
structures and the Board appointment process.
The increase in functions being assigned to the Board,
including foreshore licensing under the proposed Maritime
Area and Foreshore Bill, co-ordination of projects
of common interest (cross-border energy infrastructure
projects) etc.
The systems, procedures and administrative practices
employed in the Board, including decision making
processes in determining planning appeals and
determinations.
The optimal organisational structure, including required
skillsets, ICT requirements, human resource development
and capacity requirements, as well as financial resources,
to enable it to effectively carry out its functions and meet
its statutory remit drawing, as appropriate, on the current
internal business process review as part of the
ongoing implementation of the ABP ICT strategy.
The implications of proposed changes to the planning
system, both legislative and structural, including the
establishment of the Office of the Planning Regulator.

Background
An Bord Pleanla, www.pleanala.ie
(link is external)
, (external link) is an independent body, established
initially under the Local Government (Planning and
Development) Act 1976, responsible for the determination
of appeals and certain other matters under planning

legislation and determination of applications for strategic

infrastructure development. It is also responsible for
dealing with proposals for the compulsory acquisition of
land by local authorities and others under various
enactments. An Bord Pleanla also determines appeals
under water and air pollution legislation and building
control legislation. It is the competent authority for the
granting of permits for Projects of Common Interest,
typically major trans-boundary infrastructure projects.
An Bord Pleanla will have additional functions assigned
to it in the future, including foreshore licensing under the
proposed Maritime Area and Foreshore legislation.
The Board consists of a Chairperson appointed by the
Government and Board members (currently eight)
appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government.
http://www.pleanala.ie/news/ar2014.pdf

Organisational Review
of An Bord Pleanla
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/20160
315-operational-review-an_bord-pleanala.pdf
Yesterday Minister Phil Hogan announced that the National Spatial Strategy
(NSS) is to be scrapped and replaced by a new policy in about a years time.
He said that said the present strategy had failed because the gateway and
hub cities and towns never received the resources to ensure their development
and nothing has happened in the ten years since they were designated.
Continuing that there was no point in having a designation without the
resources.
It is certainly the case that the NSS did not live up to its expectations, despite
its promise and intent. The initiative failed for a number of reasons, of which
resourcing is just one.
First, there were flaws in its initial design with respect to the designation of
too many hubs and gateways and there were accusations of stroke politics in
location selection.
Second, because it was introduced in 2002 it missed its logical initial
resourcing stream, the National Development Plan (NDP) 2000-06. It did
underpin the NDP 2007-13, but then the crisis hit and the NDP got quitely
dropped and funding for NSS initiatives, such as the gateways fund, was one
of the first things the DECLG dropped from its programme.
Third, there was weak political buy-in across the board, especially within
government. This was made abundantely clear by the decentralisation
programme introduced by Charlie McCreevy in 2003 that sought to move

government departments and state agencies to just about every location

except gateways and hubs. Decentralisation seriously undermined the
rationale and impetus of the NSS.
Fourth, the NSS was not put on a statutory basis and up until 2010 planning
authorities only had to give due regard to it, rather than complying with it.
In a period of developer-led, laissez faire, localist planning this was a license
to largely ignore it.
What this meant was a very partial implementation, though the NSS did have
some effects on other policy (e.g. NDP, Transport 21, Rural Ireland 2020, etc)
and was significantly boosted by the introduction of regional planning
guidelines and the Planning and Development Act (2010) and the
introduction of core strategies (in which planning decisions have to
demonstrate they fit local, county, regional and national policy objectives).
So what happens now? Is this the end of spatial planning in
Ireland?
Well one would hope not. If Ireland ever needed a strategic plan to make the
most of limited resources in order to facilitate inward investment, stimulate
and support indigenous growth, produce sustainable development and create
of better places, it is now.
The logic of spatial planning is to align and coordinate sectoral initiatives
(such as transport, energy, jobs, property, utilities, communications, public
services, etc) across territory in order to leverage complementarities, reduce
redundancy and duplication, increase competitiveness, and create multiplier
effects (where the sum is greater than the simple addition of parts). It does
this by selectively prioritising areas for different kinds of activities in line with
its demographics and local resources and distributing funds suitable to enable
targetted investment and coordinating development across sectors.
Rather than abandoning spatial planning and the NSS, we need to do a
fundamental rethink and produce a new NSS that is suitable to the present
context. Localism and ad-hocism is not the solution to the economic and
social crisis and will not create a sustainable, competitive country into the
long term.
The challenge over the next year is to produce a new NSS based on a robust
evidence base, learning from international best practice, and involving
detailed stakeholder consultation, that is strategic and is prepared to make
difficult decisions given limited resources. Once agreed upon, the new NSS
needs to be put on a statutory basis, as advocated in the Mahon Report, and it
needs to be implemented through a series of interlocking programmes and
initiatives.
My hope is that we can rise to this challenge and produce a spatial planning
framework that will serve us well.

ADMINISTRATION: JOURNAL OF THE

INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
OF IRELAND
ADMINISTRATION
Administration is a professional journal dedicated to
improving the study and informing the practice of public
administration.

Administration is the peer-reviewed journal of the Institute

of Public Administration of Ireland. It has been published
quarterly since 1953. As the principal journal concerned
with Irish public administration and its development, it
seeks to combine original scholarship on public
administration from a variety of disciplines with the
insights and experiences of practitioners. Views expressed
in the journal are those of contributors and not of the
Institute. All enquiries concerning subscriptions should be
made to cgormley@ipa.ie. Articles submitted to
Administration should be original work and significantly
relate to Irish public administration. Comments on articles,
opinion pieces, letters, notices, reports and reviews are
also welcomed. For further details and information on
Administrations referencing style and formatting click
here.
Editor: Joanna ORiordan
Copy Editor: John Paul Owens
Administration became fully open access from volume 63,
and to access all articles from this volume onwards click
here.
Correspondence and enquiries:
Joanna ORiordan
Institute of Public Administration
57-61 Lansdowne Road
Dublin 4.
T: +353 (0) 1 2403600
F: +353 (0) 1 6689135
E: editor@ipa.ie
http://ipa.ie/index.php?lang=en&p=page&id=237
Administration: Notes on contributors, Volume 63

http://www.degruyter.com/view/supplement/s24499471_Notes_on_C
ontibutors_Vol_63.pdf
IPA Update on Code of Practice for the Updated Code of Practice for
the Governance of State Bodies 2016
http://ipa.ie/pdf/Update-Code-of-Practice-Regional-SeminarsBrochure-and-Form-2016.pdf

Local Authority Times Local Authority Times Vol20 No.1 & 2 Summer
The Irish Housing Crisis. By Facundo Daniel Mndez and Daniel
Doyle of IPA Publications Division JULY 2016
http://ipa.ie/pdf/LATIMES_JULY2016.pdf
TUSLA CORPORATE COMMISIONERS , EPA, CRIMINAL ASSETS <
INSOLVENCY OF IRELAND AND MORE QAUNGO PUBLIC SERVICE
HERE
STATE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE SERIES

REVIEW OF NATIONAL NON-COMMERCIAL STATE

AGENCIES IN IRELAND- 2010 2015
http://ipa.ie/pdf/StateAgencies_Review.pdf

Cyber Security Courses announced

http://ipa.ie/pdf/IPA-IT-Cyber-Security-Courses-2016.pdf
TIPPERARY_MERGER_REPORT New Research Report- A Case Study of
the Tipperary County Council Merger.
http://ipa.ie/pdf/TIPPERARY_MERGER_REPORT.pdf

Now Accepting Applications for Masters of Arts

(Public Management) for January 2016
commencement
http://ipa.ie/pdf/IPA-Postgraduate-Prospectus.pdf

Organisational Capacity in the Irish Civil Service An Examination of

the Organisation Review Programme
http://ipa.ie/pdf/ipa_report_no3.pdf

Planning for
Regional
Development:
The National

Planning
Framework as a
Roadmap for
Ireland's
Future? Friday
9 September 2016, NUI Galway
Invited speakers:

>

Prof. Leonie Janssen-Jansen,

Professor of Land Use Planning,
Wageningen University, The
Netherlands
Mr. Peter Mehlbye, former Director of
the EU ESPON Programme and
former advisor to the Department of
the Environment on the National
Spatial Strategy

>

Prof. Markku Sotarauta, University of Tampere, Finland

>

Theme:

The island of Ireland is on the cusp of an unprecedented

period of historical importance with the population of the
island set to finally bridge the gap of population loss which
arose through the Great Famine some 160 years ago.
Pre-famine Ireland had one of the densest populations in
Europe and the century following the famine was marked
by a population decline which created a largely rural
population with low densities across the island, most
noticeably in what is now the Republic.
Current trends suggest that the next 30 years could see
the Republics population reach up to 6.5 million while
Northern Ireland's population will top 2 million. The island
and both jurisdictions need to plan for such growth. This is
going to require an enormous shift in thinking in how and
where people live, work, recreate and travel. The
development pressures arising, along with the need to
address development legacies from the past require
innovative and long-term thinking if both jurisdictions are
to avoid unnecessary congestion, inadequate housing
provision as well as meeting the hugely challenging
environment of change from the international arena.
In the Republic efforts are underway to develop a new
National Planning Framework (NPF) while the Northern
Ireland Government is also looking to address the
Region's oncoming growth. Is it possible that both are
finally beginning to grapple with the need for long term
planning underpinned by an effective island-wide
investment programme which will equip both urban and
rural communities to meet this oncoming dynamic policy
environment?
Marking the development of the National Planning
Framework the Regional Studies Association Irish Branch
is using its national conference to, amongst others, look at
the many challenges and possible initiatives which would
help position the island to confront such pressures. We will

examine best international practice in spatial planning and

will look at what should be at the heart of Irish regional
development and planning policy so that the growth
envisaged will, finally, equip the people across the island
to have a real understanding of current spatial processes
and what vision for Ireland should be at the cornerstone of
local, regional and national development over the next 30
years.
Venue:
NUI Galway
Registration and Conference updates:
Conference fees: 70 Euro (including lunch)
Registration and conference updates are available on the
Regional Studies Association, Irish Branch website
at: http://rsa-ireland.weebly.com/
Any queries regarding registration should be send
to justin.doran@ucc.ie.
http://rsa-ireland.weebly.com/uploads/6/9/6/0/6960312/rsa__conference_v_2.pdf
RSA 2016 Conference - Edger Morgenrot, ESRI
http://rsaireland.weebly.com/uploads/6/9/6/0/6960312/rsa_2016_conference__edger_morgenrot_esri.pdf
The Impact of Employment on House Prices- Detailed Evidence from
FDI in Ireland Kerri Agnew1 & Ronan Lyons1 1Department of
Economics Trinity College Dublin September 2016
http://rsaireland.weebly.com/uploads/6/9/6/0/6960312/rsa_2016_conference__kerri_agnew_trinity_college_dublin.pdf

Treasury Delta is revolutionising

the pricing of business and

corporate banking products and
services
08/08/2016

Following a number of informative meetings with Padraig

Brosnan of Treasury Delta over the past few months, I
thought his fintech startup would be a great story to
feature on www.fintechireland.com - Peter Oakes, Founder,
Fintech Ireland.
Those of you following the Irish fintech scene may have
seen our tweet about an article in the Irish Examiner on 8
July featuring Padraig Brosnan, the founder of Treasury
Delta (www.treasurydelta.com) discussing his new
disruptive product which looks to be one of the more
innovative ideas we have seen come out of Ireland this
year.
Rather than follow the fintech herd into the financial
services consumer market, Padraig and his team have
looked to the higher margin element of the banking value
chain, i.e. the business to business market, with a solution
which allows companies and financial institutions engage
in a far more efficient and economic manner when it
comes to the pricing of cash management products and
services. If you run a business youll appreciate the
importance of cash management. Indeed a CEO of a
global bank was recently quoted saying that banks need
to do just three things, and do them well, to compete; (1)
take their customers deposits; (2) manage clients cash
receivables and payables; and (3) finance their customers
needs. Padraig and his team are squarely on the money
(no pun intended) here. To this end, Treasury Delta has
identified a piece of the bank value chain which many
banks have long neglected vis--vis the best interests of
their clients.
Through digital technology, Treasury Deltas platform

revolutionises the complex and overly manual tender

process which companies and financial institutions
currently undertake. Treasury Deltas solution has one
[key] outcome in mind to save companies and financial
institutions significant time and money through its
simplified and streamlined process. For example, one key
feature of the platform is the communication channel
between the company and the financial institution
executed via a highly secure and encrypted IT platform
which is OWASP compliant.
Although the platform itself is enough to capture the
imagination, it is no less interesting than Padraigs
corporate treasury experience with both ESB and Bank of
Ireland. During his time at ESB he gained first-hand
experience of how painful, complex and costly the cash
management tender process is for both companies and
financial institutions. Talking to Padraig I obtained a better
understanding of the interest which Treasury Delta is
generating with SMEs, larger corporates and even
multinational companies. Not only will their platform help
companies identify cost savings but it will save them
significant man-hours on the whole process, particularly
for those larger organisations. As we all know an idea is
just an idea until it has been researched and tested.
Treasury Delta piloted its platform with both SMEs and
corporates in conjunction with some international financial
institutions in a very discreet and controlled environment.
Every company was able to pinpoint cost savings with one
large corporate identifying cost savings of over 50% on
their annual transactional banking charges. Once a
company completes the customer journey on the platform
financial institutions will respond with their pricing within a
two week period. Given the premise of its innovative
business model Treasury Deltas disruptive solution will
give financial institutions, particularly new entrants or
those with a low market share, the opportunity to bid for
new sustainable business in a manner not previously
available which is efficient, economical and - in this new
speed to market world - timely.
There are other upsides. Financial institutions will receive

access to highly valuable data analytics on a companys

overall business banking requirements outside of cash
management for which they can also quote through the
platform, broadening the revenue base for Treasury
Deltas financial institutional clients through the existing
business banking relationship channel. Quite a bonus
when one considers that the existing traditional manual
model does not provide banks with the ability to leverage
up-to-date electronic information on a client companys
financial information. Not only do banks gain valuable
economies of scale, they should benefit from lower travel
costs given the reduced need to perform physical visits to,
and in person verification of data at, a clients office. One
wonders what else Treasury Deltas platform can deliver to
financial institutions looking to provide additional financial
services in a competitive and margin-pressured market.
After all, it stands to reason that the more you know about
your customer, the better you can identify how you might
service it better.
In wrapping up this piece, Ill leave final words to Padraig
Bronson: Treasury Deltas disruptive solution has been
described as a potential game changer for the B2B FinTech
market by both a MNC treasurer and corporate banker.
Based on our extensive research we see an enormous
international market opportunity here. Our solution is very
dynamic and scalable and we are currently positioned for
three markets - Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great
Britain. We are extremely grateful for the support
received to date from both the Dublin City Local Enterprise
Office and Enterprise Ireland which identifies Treasury
Delta as a high potential start-up. One of our next steps is
to bring international investors into our seed round. We
have been very fortunate in having already built a highly
skilled technical team and securing channel partners to
promote and sell Treasury Deltas unique product offering
into this exciting international market opportunity
Vulture landlords: An in-depth interview with
Desiree Fields

Readers of the Ireland After NAMA blog might be interested in this interview,
over on Provisional University, with Geographer Desiree Fields on the topic of

Vulture Landlords. In their introduction to the interview, the Provisional

University state that:
The crisis in Irelands private rented sector keeps gathering steam, and
recent additional regulations introduced by Alan Kelly are not going to
make much of a difference. One of the most novel aspects of whats
happening currently is the emergence of a new type of landlord: financial
institutions buying cheap real estate and becoming mega-landlords. Weve
written an overview of this for the irelandafternama blog. But to understand
what this means for tenants and for tenants organising, we thought wed
have a chat with Desiree Fields, a leading researcher and activist whose
work focuses on this issue in the US context. She was involved in a recent
global action against the vulture fund Blackstone, in which we also took
part. Her work has uncovered the meteoric rise of private equity firms in the
US rental sector, as well as analysing how and why this is happening and
what the implications for tenants activism.

The crisis in Irelands private rented sector keeps gathering steam, and
recent additional regulations introduced by Alan Kelly are not going to
make much of a difference. One of the most novel aspects of whats
happening currently is the emergence of a new type of landlord:
financial institutions buying cheap real estate and becoming megalandlords. Weve written an overview of this for the irelandafternama
blog. But to understand what this means for tenants and for tenants
organising, we thought wed have a chat with Desiree Fields, a leading
researcher and activist whose work focuses on this issue in the US
context. She was involved in a recent global action against the vulture
fund Blackstone, in which we also took part. Her work has uncovered
the meteoric rise of private equity firms in the US rental sector, as well
as analysing how and why this is happening and what the
implications for tenants activism.
The provisional university: Why are private equity firms
currently so interested in investing in the private rented sector
in the US?
Desiree Fields: The private rented sector is attractive right now
because of the fallout from the global financial crisis. The
interplay of depressed and discounted prices, constrained
mortgage credit, and declining rates of home ownership and
increasing rental demand make for some powerfully attractive
market fundamentals. Property can be acquired cheaply,
especially relative to pre-crisis prices. The role property
development played in the housing bubble (in the US we saw
this mainly in the Sun Belt region) means the property is often
new or recently built, and may not require significant
rehabilitation expenses to get it to market. In light of how
mortgage lending has tightened up since the crisis, fewer
would-be owner-occupiers are in a position to take advantage
of depressed prices (or to compete significantly with

institutional capital). Constrained mortgage credit, together

with high levels of foreclosure, negative equity, and mortgage
distress, plus the lingering effects of recession, mean that
homeownership rates are falling (in the US, all ownership gains
since the 1990s have been wiped out) and rental demand is
increasing, so its a good time to become a landlord.
PU: But why are private equity firms in particular becoming
landlords?
DF: In the US the crisis created opportunities for all kinds of
investors, but institutional investors enjoy advantages over
smaller investors in the present landscape. First, they have
access to far greater amounts of capital generally, but they
have also been aided by monetary policy: with central banks
holding interest rates close to zero for close to eight years,
yield-hungry capital (including that of pension funds, who
comprise the largest category of investors in the Blackstone
fund focusing on distressed real estate acquisition) has poured
into riskier investment strategies such as private equity. In
turn, this equity helps firms to access cheap debt from banks
(helped again by monetary policy). Second, acquiring and
restructuring distressed assets is a key private equity strategy,
so private equity firms have considerable experience in
navigating the marketplace for distressed assets. Finally, their
capital and expertise with distressed assets position private
equity firms to take advantage of government programs selling
distressed property and loans in bulk (the Distressed Asset
Stabilization Program in the US, IBRC and NAMA in Ireland,
SAREB in Spain) to quickly scale up their operations.
Given their advantaged position, private equity firms have
emerged as key actors in rebuilding the link between finance
and real estate in the wake of the global financial crisis.
PU: Who are the main players and what are their business
strategies?
DF: The biggest player in the US is Invitation Homes, which is
the rental subsidiary of Blackstone. Invitation Homes rents out
about 50,000 single-family homes. Through Bayview Asset
Management Blackstone has also been purchasing nonperforming mortgages in bulk. There are about six other
private equity landlords akin to Invitation Homes. The second
and third largest firms are American Homes 4 Rent with about
47,000 homes (previously about 38,000 before the company
acquired American Residential Properties in December 2015)
and Colony Starwood with approximately 30,000 homes
(reflecting a larger wave of consolidation in the single-family

rental industry, this is the result of a September 2015 merger

between Colony American Homes and Starwood Waypoint
Residential Trust).
As private equity firms moved in to the rented sector, there
was a lot of debate about whether they really wanted to be
landlords or were engaging in a short-term trade to capitalize
on market fundamentals and then sell off properties once
prices recovered. However, firms are now leveraging their
purchases by selling shares of the future rental stream, which
increases returns on equity. The roll-out of novel rent-backed
financial instruments (rental-backed securitized bonds and Real
Estate Investment Trusts) signal that firms like Blackstone,
Colony Capital, American Homes 4 Rent and others are
engaged in a longer-term project to consolidate and
institutionalize what has long been a fragmented part of the
rental sector in the US.
Private equity and hedge funds are also investing in distressed
real estate in the US through acquiring non-performing
mortgages in bulk; Lone Star Funds is a key player here, as is
Blackstone. Based on recent critiques by housing advocates,
lawyers, and lawmakers, the business model appears to rely
heavily on rapid pursuit of foreclosure, potentially in order to
resell the properties or to package the distressed loans into
bonds that can then be sold on to other investors.
PU: What effects does this have on tenants?
DF: We dont yet have a good base of knowledge about
impacts on tenants. However, some academic and grassroots
research is emerging that gives a picture of what we know so
far. Given the need for affordable rental housing, one important
question is how accessible the units owned by private equity
landlords are to low-income tenants, and how their rent levels
compare to rents in the surrounding area. My research on SFR
securitization shows that only 1% of the 84,000 properties
whose rental stream was securitized as of June 2015 were
rented to tenants with Section 8 vouchers (like Rent Allowance
in Ireland or Housing Benefit in the UK). This implies that rents
are either beyond the fair market rates set by the Section 8
program, or that private equity landlords are reluctant to
accept the vouchers. In either case it is a concern for lowincome renters.
Grassroots research conducted by California advocacy group
Tenants Together and the Ant-Eviction Mapping Project has
investigated property transaction data to map California singlefamily homes now owned by Blackstone, Waypoint, and Colony
Capital and to survey their tenants, who pay higher housing

costs than other renters in their communities. This may be due

not only to rent, but to tenants having to take on
responsibilities of ownership, including paying for yard
maintenance and utilities such as sewer and trash.
One concern rarely addressed in debates about the new
private equity landlords is their reliance on cloud computing
and remote technologies to meet the challenges of managing
large, geographically dispersed portfolios of heterogeneous
properties. Their tenants can pay rent and submit maintenance
requests online or using a smartphone or tablet. This is
convenient for tenants, but also serves an important purpose
for landlords, who need a constant stream of property-level
data to communicate with capital markets. As consumers are
all too aware, such data systems are vulnerable to glitches and
breaches; grassroots research with Invitation Homes tenants in
Atlanta found that multiple tenants received eviction notices
based on a system error that failed to record their rent
payment. Such errors can impact on credit records, potentially
affecting employment, credit, and housing opportunities down
the line. Given the economy of data and information seen in
the practices of technology companies, we should also be
asking whether private equity landlords are selling tenant
information to data brokers for marketing purposes.
Despite the use of technology to support property
management, responsiveness to maintenance issues with
plumbing, insects, and mould have been a concern for
Invitation Homes tenants in Atlanta as well as Los Angeles and
Riverside. Tenants rarely have the opportunity to speak with
company staff in person, and their offices are often difficult to
access without driving a significant distance; the tenantlandlord relationship is truly a corporate one.
PU: Are there any examples of tenants organising against
financial landlords?
DF: Yes, but there is space for much more! I would argue that
the grassroots research mentioned above, all being carried out
by members of the Right to the City alliance, is a critical mode
of organizing. Increasingly housing organizers need to be able
to produce data to substantiate their arguments; elsewhere I
have argued that in a war of ideas dominated by neoliberal
market logics, this kind of alternative knowledge production
helps shape rhetoric and contributes facts to bolster
organizing, make connections with other important actors, and
constitute a public around their concerns. Especially given the
lack of data on private equity landlords, such efforts are hugely
important.

One of the interesting thing about whats happening now is

that private equity firms are snapping up a lot of homes that
have been repossessed or were built for owner occupancy,
what we call single family homes. This is a new development
because while single-family homes have always been part of
the rental housing landscape in the US, they are typically
owned in small numbers by small investors, rather than at
scale by institutional investors. There are some important
challenges that confront efforts to organize single-family
renters. Perhaps most important are questions of space and
geography. Unlike tenants of apartment buildings, single-family
renters are much more spread out, and with each occupying
their own home, opportunities for interaction in common areas
are few and far between. Tenants of private equity landlords
have no way of knowing who among their neighbours has the
same landlord, much less connecting with tenants of the same
landlord in other areas. The lack of legal protection for renters
is also a barrier to organizing tenants against financial
landlords, who have mostly purchased in states without rent
control and just-cause eviction protection (California does have
rent control, but the protections dont extend to single-family
structures). This puts tenants in a very vulnerable position for
organizing efforts!
One arena where organizing has been effective is pressuring
the government to modify its sales of nonperforming
mortgages. A recent report by the Center for Popular
Democracy and Right to the City highlighted that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development was
auctioning government-owned nonperforming mortgages in
bulk at discounts of 25-50%, and argued that their policy of
considering only the highest bids shut out community-oriented
bidders such as non-profit organizations. This research, along
with demonstrations and attention from lawmakers like
Elizabeth Warren, successfully pressured the government to
make changes to the program that will benefit non-profit
purchasers.
PU: US private equity firms have also become major landlords
in Ireland and Spain and have bought up a lot of distressed
mortgages in both countries. What implications might this
have for transnational housing activism?
DF: This is probably the most exciting development in terms of
organizing, because we are seeing housing activists go beyond
relationships of solidarity to actually coordinating actions. Most
visibly, Right to the City in the US and the Platform of
Mortgage-Affected People in Spain co-organized three global

days of action in 2015 targeting Blackstone as the biggest

private equity landlord, with demonstrations in New York, San
Francisco, Barcelona, Dublin, and Tokyo. They also issued a set
of international demands to Blackstone. This kind of organizing
is so important, because what we often see with housing
struggles is that they are very locally-focused, even when the
problems are the result of broader structural forces. While the
impacts of financialization depend on the context, we know
that it is a global process. The emergence of transnational
organizing against private equity landlords not only makes this
clear, it shows how when landlords assemble portfolios of
thousands or tens of thousands of properties, they are also
drawing together the fates of many thousands of tenants with
the capacity to coordinate and make demands globally.

Our International Demands on Blackstone

1. Stop Buying Our Occupied, Foreclosed and Subsidized
Housing
Do NOT destabilize our communities by buying homes that should
be owned by individuals, the government or local entities.
End the purchase of homes owned by banks rescued with public
money or homes that were purchased with sub-prime loans.
2. No Unjust Evictions
Stop unjust evictions of homeowners or tenants in purchased
properties
Stop forcing tenants out of homes due to harassment, your failure
to make repairs and charging unjust fees.
3. Affordable Rents
Do not charge unfair rents
Do not make people pay more than one third of their income to
housing
Ensure that at least 25% of all Blackstone housing in a city is
affordable to poor people who make 0 to 30% neighborhood
median income
4. Quality Conditions and Sustainability
Renovate all purchased homes to a high quality
Maintain all properties in good condition
Make prompt and quality repairs

Ensure all utility systems and materials used in building and

repairs are sustainable
5. No discrimination
Do not discriminate against people of color or immigrants
including by using unfair prohibitions regarding former
incarceration or arrests, and/or immigration status.
Allow equal access to Blackstone homes for all people regardless
of race, nationality, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
family status, immigration status, former incarceration, eviction
history or credit history.
6. Accountability
Provide responsive and quality customer service
Provide full name and contact information for one consistent
person from Blackstones property management company who has
full authority to address tenants issues promptly and effectively
7. Transparency of information
Provide to the public business and industry information including:
Names of all the companies Blackstone has any ownership
in/control over and what properties and real estate they relate to
and how
Terms of purchase of all housing/land/buildings purchased
Regular updated list of which properties are securitized, and who
are the investors including banks that put up any money
Regular updated list of properties that are directly or indirectly
managed by Blackstone worldwide
Regular updated list of all those evicted from each property and
why (names can be withheld if it is required by law)
List of whos application was denied and why (names can be
withheld if it is required by law)

HUD ANNOUNCES CHANGES TO DISTRESSED ASSET

STABILIZATION PROGRAM
HUD requires Investors to delay foreclosure for a year and offers a nonprofit only pool sale
WASHINGTON Today, HUD announced significant changes to its
Distressed Asset Stabilization Program (DASP). In an effort to better
serve homeowners looking to avoid foreclosure, loan servicers will
now be required to delay foreclosure for a year and to evaluate all
borrowers for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) or
a similar loss mitigation program. HUD is making additional
improvements to the Neighborhood Stabilization Outcome (NSO)
sales portion of DASP which are aimed at increasing non-profit

participation. Updates include giving non-profits a first look at

vacant properties, allowing purchasers to re-sell notes to nonprofits, and offering a non-profit only pool.
Previously, loan servicers could foreclose 6 months after they
received the loan and were encouraged, though not required to
assess a borrowers qualifications for loss mitigation programs.
Purchasers of the geographically targeted neighborhood stabilization
pools have always been required to ensure that at least 50 percent
of the loans in a pool achieve outcomes that help areas hardest hit
by foreclosure avoid the neighborhood decline associated with
numerous vacant properties.
These changes reflect our desire to make improvements that
encourage investors to work with delinquent borrowers to find the
right solutions for dealing with the potential loss of their home and
encourage greater non-profit participation in our sales, said Genger
Charles, Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
Housing. The improvements not only strengthen the program but
help to ensure it continues to serve its intended purposes of
supporting the MMI Fund and offering borrowers a second chance at
avoiding foreclosure.
All of these changes will be subject to stronger reporting
requirements including tougher penalties for not complying with
quarterly reporting responsibilities and a new requirement to report
on borrower outcomes, even when a note is sold after the original
purchase.
HUD plans to hold its first sale of 2015 in June.

A
A

Distressed Asset Stabilization Program

FHAs note sales program was resumed in 2010 as a direct sale pilot
program that allows pools of mortgages headed for foreclosure to
be sold to qualified bidders and encourages them to work with
borrowers to help bring the loan out of default. In many cases, this
is a less expensive alternative to foreclosure and sale as a real
estate-owned (REO) property. An FHA servicer can place a loan into
the loan pool if the following criteria are met:
The borrower is at least six months delinquent on their mortgage
The servicer has exhausted all steps in the FHA loss mitigation
process
In 2012, as part of an effort to address its seriously delinquent loan
portfolio, FHA announced that, over the next several years, it would
significantly increase the number of loans it makes available for
purchase as well as add a new neighborhood stabilization pool to
encourage investment in communities hardest hit by the foreclosure
crisis. The Neighborhood Stabilization Outcome (NSO) pools, as
an additional safeguard in distressed communities requires that 50
percent of the loans within a purchased pool achieve a
neighborhood stabilizing outcome. If the servicer and borrower are

unable to avoid taking the loan through foreclosure, the servicer

must achieve some other neighborhood stabilizing outcome, which
may include holding the property for rental for at least three years.
Typically, HUDs Distressed Asset Stabilization Program sales are
broken into two or more sales, consisting of at least one National
Sale featuring loans from a diversified cross -section of the
country, and a Neighborhood Stabilizing Outcome or NSO Sale
featuring loans drawn from specifically targeted geographic areas.
www.hud.gov and http://espanol.hud.gov.
Vulture Capital Hits Home How HUD is Helping wall street anD
HUrting oUr CommUnities
http://homesforall.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/HUD.DASP_.RTC_.v15.pdf
BLACKSTONE- ATLANTAS NEWEST LANDLORD
http://homesforall.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/BlackstoneReportFinal0407141.pdf
The Rise of The CoRpoRaTe LandLoRd The insTiTuTionaLizaTion of
The singLe-famiLy RenTaL maRkeT and poTenTiaL impaCTs on
RenTeRs A Report by the Homes For All Campaign of Right To The
City Alliance July 2014
http://homesforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/corp-landlordreport-web.pdf

NAMA and Northern Ireland

February 23, 2011

NAMA have today revealed a bit more of a detailed breakdown of the NAMA
loan book in Northern Ireland and its geography. NAMA NI loans total
3.35bn (c. 4bn) and relate to 180 individuals and companies. The loan
book is 5% of NAMAs portfolio. Undeveloped land accounts for 2bn (60%),
investment properties 1bn (29%), and land and property under development,
350m (10%). Just 1% relates to residential development. With respect to
Geography: 32% of the loan portfolio is located in Belfast, 21% in County
Down, 19% in County Antrim, 8% in County Londonderry, 7% in County

Tyrone, 7% in County Armagh, 4% in County Fermanagh and 2% in the city of

Derry.
What is striking here is the amount of land in the portfolio. Im assuming that
the 2bn figure is after the haircut is applied and using Nov 2009 prices. Of
course the market has fallen since Nov 2009 and 2bn in todays market will
buy an enormous amount of acreage, so one presumes the NAMA holding
constitutes a very sizeable landbank. Given the geographical spread of the
loans, much of it has to be located in rural areas and around small towns and
villages, and one presumes that its main commercial usage over the short
term is agriculture. It would be very interesting to get a further breakdown of
the size of the landbanks, where they are, and how much was paid by NAMA
for the loans on them, so as to get some idea as to how they view the long term
use of the land Im working on the principle that much larger haircuts will
have been applied to land that has limited development potential and is more
suited to agriculture.
The size of the land holding in the portfolio is what troubles me. It is the part
of the portfolio that has fallen most in value and will be more difficult to sell
on, unless an investor is prepared to sit on it for a while to let it appreciate in
value. Most developers seek to turn land over quickly because its a sunk cost
with no working return. Clearly NAMA has time to wait for the market to
stabilise and recover before selling on, but even so thats a lot of land to be
managed, sold on or developed.
Clearly, one of the concerns for the Northern Ireland property market is for
NAMA to destabilize it through firesales, and Ronnie Hanna, Head of Risk
and Credit, who released the figures today, went on to try and reassure that
this would not happen and that NAMA will act responsibly. To quote him, he
said that NAMA would: assist in the stabilisation of the property market in
Northern Ireland, by providing liquidity to the market and by being able to
take a longer-term approach where necessary. Thats all well and good, but
what I would like to see is a more detailed business plan as to how NAMA
intends to try and realise its assets over the long term in NI given the nature
and geography of the portfolio. This is likely to provide more reassurance to
the property market there. At the minute well still at very broad brush
generalities, though at least its a small step in the right direction.

There was a fairly lengthy piece in the Saturday Weekend Review of the Irish
Times about the philanthropic developer and businessman Niall Mellon. I
have a lot of time and admiration for Mellons energy, entrepreneurship and
housing development works in South Africa. However, his views about the
causes of the crash and the role of developers in Irelands woes seems way offbeam and, at times, contradictory. On the one hand, developers apparently
played little or no role in the collapse and have been the victims of a witchhunt
and, on the other, they have a duty of shared responsibility to pay back debts.
Heres a selection of what he had to say:
What happened was the collapse of the Irish banks in 2008. One day he
was a developer worth more than 150 million; the next he had nothing.
The night the banks collapsed I went to bed a hero and woke up a villain.
Thats what the Irish State did.

Two years after what he passionately describes as a witch-hunt against

developers, he surrendered his Mount Merrion home on five acres to Nama.
And what people couldnt understand I also handed over another dozen
properties I owned, unencumbered, with no bank debt whatsoever, any of
which would have paid my mortgage for several years.
Irish people need to remember there was no property crash in Ireland;
there was a bank collapse that caused a property crash. Two different
things. Fianna Fil were desperate to blame anyone except themselves and
heaped pain on developers. It was an absolutely disgraceful effort by the
then government, and it hasnt been much better under this one. But this
year Frank Daly, the current chairman of Nama, came out and said it was
the banks, not the developers. So developers need to be fairly judged now.
Everyone is forgetting developers only built to satisfy demand.
The last paragraph is the one that many people will have problems with. The
conventional reading would be that the banks collapsed because they had
over-extended themselves by lending finance to developers in a bubble and
oversupplied market (unlike elsewhere where banks were caught in the
maelstrom caused by the complex deriatives of the US subprime market).
Given that developers sought this finance, to intimate that they are an entirely
innocent part of the banking collapse or that the fault lies simply with banking
practice and government policy appears disingenuous.
It was developers who drove property development and borrowed the money
for ambitious and risky property schemes; it was developers that contributed
donations to political parties and strongly lobbied government about laissezfaire planning and finance; it was developers who drove up land prices and
helped egg-on property prices; it was developers that flooded the market with
excess housing and commercial property; it was developers who build estates
compromised with poor building materials and weak safety standards.
Developers did not only build to satisfy demand they created huge
oversupply with respect to residential and commeercial property which still
exists and will do for quite some time in many parts of the country. And
commercial property has been as much the problem as houses and
apartments. The legacy of unfinished estates, zombie hotels, ghostly retail
parks and office developments, pyrite-infected homes, and a reading of
Breakfast with Anglo or Anglo Republic or Irelands House Party or
Namawinelake attests to all of this.
Admittedly, not all developers were the same and they ran their businesses in
different ways and with varying ethos. Nevertheless, as a collective group
developers do share responsibility in the collapse in the countrys fortunes
along with banks and government. The idea that developers are simply
innocent victims of the crash is delusional and smacks of an attempt to rewrite the narrative of history so that they are more favourably judged. It
simply doesnt wash.
Mellon himself does seem to accept this notion of shamed blame and
responsibility. He continues:
I wanted to accept my share of the responsibility. Part of that was moving
out of a big house. Part of it was keeping unencumbered assets and giving
them to Nama.
There has to be a shared responsibility and a shared approach to solving
this. So if you borrowed money you sell your assets to pay back as much of
that loan as you can, and when youve done that you should be set free, in

recognition of the fact that there was a systemic collapse of the financial
governance system with the Irish banks.
He could have opted for the easy choice of bankruptcy in the UK but
decided against it. Pride was one factor; another was a sense that he could
do a better job disposing of assets than a receiver. He has also managed to
pay 95 per cent of debts due to a few hundred small creditors. So thats
nearly finished, he says.
And fair dues to him. Unlike other developers who have run for the hills or
have sought to shift assets or fight Nama, Mellon has seemingly got on with
addressing his various obligations. Having read the piece, Im inclined to try
and judge him fairly, but at the same time Im not prepared to accept many of
his assertions with respect to the innocence of developers in creating the
conditions for the crash or to rewrite history.

Simon Kelly started in property development as a teenager, crunching the

numbers for his father, Paddy Kelly, one of Irelands best known developers.
He quickly progressed to become his fathers right hand man and eventual
partner, specializing in the financial and legal side of the business. In
Breakfast with Anglo he tells the story of the Irish property boom from the
developers perspective, providing a reasonably frank account of how the
property development game worked, focusing especially on the finance side of
things and the relationship between developers and the banks, especially
Anglo Irish Bank.
Breakfast in Anglo is a curious read. Kelly has produced a candid, seemingly
open, and engaging narrative. Whilst many elements of the story will rile
many readers, Kelly has clearly been on a journey of self-reflexivity and hes
able to step back a pace and set out the ins and outs of the business, his role in
it, and to acknowledge his culpability and express remorse for the ensuing
disaster of the collapse of the Celtic Tiger. Thats not to say that Kelly is full of
regrets, though he has a few, or that is he rounds on his former colleagues and
partners, or is apologetic for his lifestyle or the fact that he knows how to work
the system and does, including walking away or sheltering from massive
liabilities. Indeed, its clear that even now he has a soft spot for Anglo Irish
Bank and many of the staff who worked there, and hes generous in his praise
of those he worked with. However, by wearing his heart on his sleeve and
being straight, the result is a book which as much as one would like to hate it,
and as much as the story annoys and riles, and for all its faults and silences,
one has to admit was a pretty good read. Thats not to say that there arent

issues with the story being told, but that the writing craft and narrative was
solid.
As for the story. Breakfast with Anglo principally tells the financial and deal
making side of the building of the Kellys property empire. In particular it
focuses on the relationship between the Kellys and Anglo Irish Bank, how they
built a complex web of partnerships with other developers and financiers to
make different deals work, and how the nature of development changed
throughout the boom years. Told from Kellys personal perspective it also
reveals how he changed as the business grew and became increasingly
disillusioned by the life he was living, but ultimately was unable to extract
himself from it.
Where the book is strongest is in its insight into the way in Anglo, the other
banks, and the deal making side of development worked. Anglo built
relationships that extended beyond simply servicing business. It cultivated its
clients, gave them royal treatment, bent over backwards to help them out and
make financing as easy as possible, but in return demanded loyalty. They
became the bank of choice for developers because they actively facilitated
them by building a relationship, cutting through red-tape, and were reactive to
their needs. They also didnt impose silly rules and restrictions as Kelly puts
it, by which he means sensible and prudent rules and restrictions. Some
quotes gives the flavour of Anglos business strategy.
Anglo was the easiest place to source a draft for your bid, and you knew
that they would be able to follow up and finance the deal if you were
successful. That was part of their unique service. The other banks were
never as free with that kind of money.
We never had to worry about the money for a deal. Once the numbers on
the deal stacked up, Anglo was there and sometimes Anglo was there even
if the numbers didnt stack up.
We heard rumours from other developers of the existence of a head of risk,
but we didnt worry about him because he had no power in the bank. The
ADs [associate directors] all wanted to get their own loans through, so they
would not stop each others. If a deal looked tricky, the bank would put up
the price of the money but lend it anyway.
In the banks heyday, borrowing money from Anglo was easy provided
you were already an Anglo client.
They thought more like developers than bankers.
Where the book is almost completely silent is with respect to politics, vested
interests and planning. Not one single politician makes an appearance in the
story. The much talked about cabal in the media is developer, banker,
politician. Either the Kellys had nothing to do with the politicians or political
donations or political lobbying, or this is conveniently dropped from the
narrative. And whilst Simon Kelly might not have been actively and directly
involved in this, one would find it hard to believe that he wouldnt have known
what other elements of the firm were up to given the level of interaction and
family and partner plotting. Neither is the role of vested interest groups such
as the CIF much discussed and the role of developers in shaping the policy
landscape around planning and tax breaks. And the book is pretty mute on
the business of securing planning permissions and working the planning
system and bullying local communities through threats of compulsory
purchase orders and the like, other than a couple of short notes. There are
hints at how developers played the tax incentive schemes and avoided capital

gains tax and stamp duty, but these are in passing and there is no in-depth
discussion as to how these were played and exploited. The story then is
selective, rather than the full warts and all promised. For the book to have
been the full expose of what went on, then all these issues needed to be
explored in depth.
At the end of the book, Kelly provides ten lessons for the boom. Interestingly,
they all focus on what a developer should remember in order to be successful
and avoid crashing. None of the ten lessons focuses on what Ireland should
do to avoid future boom and bust no mention of the Kenny Report, nothing
about financial regulation, nothing about a more robust planning system,
nothing about political reform, and so on. Ultimately, Kelly cannot see
beyond the developer horizon. If after being at the centre of the property
development boom and bust, the ten lessons are simply about protecting
developer interests, one ultimately feels that despite his self-reflexive soul
searching, Kelly hasnt learnt a lot beyond self-interest. And he is one of the
developers who isnt still in denial, as NAMA accuses in this mornings papers.
Unless the cabal of developers, bankers and politicians can start to see the
bigger picture beyond their own interests, then one anticipates reading a
similar book by a Kelly-wannabe or the next generation of his family in 30
years time.
Overall, a book as interesting for its silences as for what it has to say about
property development in Ireland, but an engaging read nonetheless.
a group of developers getting together to toast the creation of NAMA with
champagne when it was announced by Brian Lenihan. How true it was, Im
not sure, but I can easily imagine it happening. Here was an institution that
was going to keep them from bankruptcy and losing everything in very short
order. Sure, they would still have to pay back the state, but the state had been
very good to them over the past few years and would continue to help them
out on favourable and flexible terms whilst they dealt with the crisis facing
them. Theyd be able to carry-on living their champange lifestyle whilst the
state helped get them back on their feet in time for the next property bubble.
And a lot of the public felt the same thing NAMA was a bail for developers
and failed banks, not simply a mechanism to save the Irish economy.
Frank Daly, the Chairman of NAMA, made a speech yesterday to the Leinster
Society of Chartered Accountants (reported in the Indo, IT, RTE), that noted
that many developers are clinging to their old ways and lifestyles stating,
Certainly not all of them have yet abandoned the extravagant mindset of the
2003-2007 era. A few weeks ago Brendan McDonagh, NAMA Chief
Executive, told a Dail committee that indebted developers were displaying
obvious wealth almost in defiance of us. Both Daly and McDonagh have
made it clear that those developers who think that NAMA is a vehicle for them
to continue to live champagne lifestyles are in for a rude awakening.
Yesterday, Daly detailed that NAMA is going to undertake the due diligence on
loans and business plans that were quite clearly absent during the Celtic Tiger
years, arguing that, Our approach has been fully vindicated by what has
emerged to date in terms of sub-standard loan documentation and of assets
not properly secured, and that developers are fully aware of what is
expected in terms of the thoroughness and stringency of their business
plans. He went on to state that no borrower is too big to fail, which suggests
that there might well be some significant casualities in the coming weeks and
months. Daly also went on to criticise the planning process, questioning how

many shopping centres or apartment developments a medium-sized town

could accommodate? Clearly a question that some towns have answered the
hard way, with hundreds of empty units that may remain as such for quite
some time. A similar question could be asked of hotels and office blocks. Itll
be interesting to see what happens to the sales of champagne in Ireland over
the next couple of years.
CIF and NAMA were never going to be happy bedfellows. The former
represent the interests of developers and builders, the latter is charged with
relieving the banks of property loans to try and address the banking crisis, and
to manage and offload those loans on behalf of the state and taxpayers. Whilst
most citizens view NAMA as a bailout to developers, keeping them afloat when
most of them would have gone to the wall a couple of years ago, CIF views
NAMA as a predator that is trying to radically overhaul and restructure the
building industry, is trying to gain at the developers expense and countrys
best interests, and is a punative instrument that is inflicting more harm than
good on the property sector.
As reported in some of the papers today (here and here), Lombard Street
Research have just published a report commissioned by CIF, attacking the
rationale and practices of NAMA (which makes interesting reading). NAMA
has responded by arguing that the developers are living in denial and they
need to wake up to the new realities of property development and the market.
Whilst there is undoubtedly a number of issues concerning the formation and
operation of NAMA, CIFs principle problem is that there is little public
sentiment for their views given that theyre clearly a vested interest who seem
to care for little else other than the interests of its members (which they try to
spin as, what is good for us, is good for the country the same as they did all
through the boom). From NAMAs perspective it is finding its work tough
because the banks and developers seem very reluctant to work with it, they are
economical with the truth, are slow in coming forward with documentation
and workable business plans, and are clearly more interested in their own selfinterests than acting as good citizens in dealing with the present crisis. No
doubt the spat will continue to run and run. There are unlikely to be any
winners and ultimately citizens will pick up part of the tab. Sounds about par
given the history of the crisis so far.

The property is now worth only around half the price he

paid for it.
The revelation of the financial transaction came after Mr
McCreevy was named in an RTE Prime Time Investigates
programme as being one of several high-profile Fianna
Fail politicians who were given huge mortgages from
Nationwide with minimum paperwork involved. The
1.6m loan was granted to Mr McCreevy even though the
trophy home was worth 100,000 less than that at the
time.
The loan was granted by then-chief executive Michael
Fingelton, even though the building society's own

guidelines did not allow it to grant 100% mortgages.

The Financial Regulator's office last night confirmed it
would be carrying out an investigation into lending
practices at the building society.
Mr McCreevy's spokesperson refused to comment on the
loan or say where the EU Commissioner currently is.
The 20-year mortgage for the K Club property was drawn
down in September 2006 by Mr McCreevy and his wife
Noeleen.
The Co Kildare properties were among the most highly
sought-after homes sold during the Celtic Tiger boom.
Labour finance spokesman Joan Burton said taxpayers
needed answers about the cosy relationship as 8bn of
Irish Nationwide loans are to be covered under the
National Asset Management Agency.
Irish Nationwide said it would carry out a probe into
issues raised on the Prime Time programme.

Actavo Opens New

Dublin Depot On
Killeen Road
Martin ONeill cuts the ribbon for
Denis OBrien firm
24 Sep 2016 Martin ONeill cuts the
ribbon for Denis OBrien firm
24 Sep 2016
Actavo, formerly known as Siteserv and owned by
Denis OBrien, has opened a new 8-acre flagship

depot on Killeen Road in Dublin 12.

The facility was officially opened by Republic of
Ireland football manager Martin ONeill and Guss
OConnell, mayor of South Dublin County Council.
The site will be the location for Actavos Hire &
Sales unit, which supplies specialist products and
services to the construction industry, and Actavo
Events, which provides infrastructure services to
events such as Electric Picnic and Glastonbury.
Mayor OConnell commented: It is immensely
encouraging to see an Irish business like Actavo
taking over such a large site and investing
significantly in its development, which
has improved the facilities and commercial offering
in the locality. This has injected enterprise,
productivity and a real buzz into the area.
Company chairman and CEO Sean Corkery said
the depot will support the construction and events
industries nationally. Our expansion is a key
indicator of growth in both of these sectors and
demonstrates our confidence in their continued
development, said Corkery.
Our offering of specialised building equipment and
services is the backbone of Irelands construction
industry. Our events business supports the thriving
entertainment and sporting industries that attract
hundreds of thousands of people to matches,
cultural events, music festivals and other large-scale
gatherings year after year.
Actavo also opened a new depot in Santry in
June. Among those attending the launch were 200
staff, customers, neighbouring businesses and
players from local football club Cherry Orchard
FCs under-8s squad.

This week Martin ONeill formally signed a new

two-year contract with the Football Association of
Ireland. In the past Denis OBrien has personally
contributed towards the remuneration of the
Ireland soccer team manager.
http://bizplus.ie/actavo-opens-new-dublin-depot-killeen-road/

May 12, 2016

Actavo | Building Solutions was commissioned by construction
contractor Lakehouse to provide a new two-story modular
facility at Delucy Primary School, Greenwich.
The modular building compromises of twenty four modular
units that make up a building with six classroom blocks, two
group rooms, office space, male and female WCs and cloak
stores. Included in the project design and construction were
internal and external staircases and additional external WCs
adjacent to the playground.
The offsite construction included mono-crystalline PV panels to
increase energy efficiency, a platform lift for disabled access to
the upper floor and mono-draft wind catchers to increase
natural ventilation and reduce energy use.
The project was finished in coloured Trespa cladding to give it a
distinctive look and was designed to meet BREEAM Excellent
standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtPXguJYftM

Hibernia Forum
Makes Case For
Budget Tax Cuts

Two-thirds of austerity burden down

to tax hikes
27 Sep 2016
Hibernia Forum, an advocacy group dedicated to
the principles of a free market, has called on the
government to favour tax reductions over spending
increases in its forthcoming budget.
In a pre-budget research note, Hibernia Forum
calculates that tax increases bore two-thirds of the
of the austerity burden in the period 2012 to 2014,
almost the opposite of what official data would have
people believe.
According to executive director Eamon Delaney:
The consensus favouring increased spending over
reduced taxation is factually flawed. Income tax
payers have been singled out by Irelands political
and administrative establishment.
The central reality is that while the real economy
and revenues under most tax headings are
struggling to recover to their 2007 highs, revenue
from Income Tax and the Universal Social Charge is
expected this year to equal 140% of its 2007 level.
Delaney added: The core question facing voters at
the 2011 general election was not whether Ireland
faced budgetary austerity or how much austerity did
it face: the core political question was what mix of
tax increases and spending cuts should comprise
that austerity.
It is striking that the relative burdens borne in
reality by tax increases and spending cuts were
almost the exact inverse of undertakings given to
voters in 2011. Instead of tax increases bearing

about one third of the burden, they bore around two

thirds of it. Instead of spending cuts comprising two
thirds of budgetary austerity, they only contributed
one third.
Chaired by accountant and commentator Cormac
Lucey, Hibernia Forum says it favours restraint and
accountability in government spending, reasonable
and fair taxation, as well as support for small
business and entrepreneurs.
The Forum seeks to enhance the competitive
atmosphere in which both smaller and larger
employers and job creators can operate, says
Delaney. Most of all, the Hibernia Forum calls for
honest and fact-driven debate about our society and
economic situation and a balancing of the public
discussion in favour of those who do not believe
that a high-spending state is the solution to all our
problems.
FINE GAELS RECORD ON TAXATION
VALUE ADDED TAX
In 2012 finance minister Michael Noonan
(pictured) increased the VAT spending tax by two
points from 21% to 23%. VAT is a regressive tax
insofar as the poor person pays the same for their
goods or services as the rich person. The 2012 VAT
hike was designed to extract an extra 670m
annually from consumers and business.
This penal taxation measure was somewhat offset
by the reduction in the 13.5% VAT rate to 9% for
hospitality trading sectors in mid-2011, which was
budgeted to reduce the annual VAT yield by 350m
annually.
WEALTH TAXES
In 2011, Noonan introduced a levy on private

pension funds that continued until the end of 2015.

The tax measure is estimated to have lightened the
retirement savings of citizens by 2,100m.
In 2012, Noonan raised the rate of Capital
Acquisitions Tax on gifts and inheritances from 25%
to 30% and reduced the tax free threshold to
250,000. The Capital Gains Tax rate was raised
five points to 30% too. Both measures had the
objective of extracting 160m annually in tax from
business and the middle class.
In 2013, CAT and CGT rates were increased to 33%.
The ministers aim was to garner an extra 80
annually in taxation. There was some relief from the
capital taxes assault in 2016, when the CAT
threshold was increased to 280,000, at a tax cost
of 30m annually. CGT relief for entrepreneurs has
an expected tax cost of 25m.
Then theres the Local Property Tax, a pure wealth
tax, with the 0.18% and 0.25% (above 1m) annual
levies linked to the residential property value. This
tax now costs home owners 500m annually.
DIRT
Deposit Interest Retention Tax is a wealth tax on
individuals and business. In 2012 the DIRT rate was
raised by Noonan from 30% and 33% to extract an
extra 50m tax annually from this source. In 2013,
the rate was raised to 36%, with an expected extra
annual tax yield of 64m.
Michael Noonans final go at this money pot was in
2014, when the DIRT rate increased to 41%, where
it is now. This final wallop was expected to extract
an additional annual tax yield of 140m from this
stock of wealth.
MOTOR TAXES

Motor tax is a regressive tax that takes no heed of a

drivers income. Since the tax regime changed from
engine size to emissions, the tax now favours the
rich, who are more likely than the poor to afford
new, low-emission cars. In 2012, Noonan hiked the
annual motor tax to raise an additional 47m in
taxation. He did the same again in 2013, this time
with the objective of extracting an additional 150m
from motorists.
Also in 2012, Noonan increased the carbon tax on
fossil fuels by 33%, affecting motor fuels and gas
and electricity supply. This regressive measure had
the aim of taking in an extra 109m annually in
taxation. In 2013, carbon tax was extended to solid
fuels to raise 22m annually in additional tax
revenue.
DRINK & CIGARETTES
Its a fact that poor people smoke more than rich
people, and smokers still make up about a quarter
of the adult population. Heres Noonans record in
taxing fags:
2012: 25c more tax to raise 80m.
2013: 10c more tax to raise 25m.
2014: 10c more tax to raise 15m.
2015: 40c more tax to raise 50m.
2016: 50c more tax to raise 60m.
Fondness for alcohol is a more universal scourge
than cigarettes and in 2013 Noonan hiked booze
taxes to extract an extra 180m per annum from
drinkers. The largest tax increase was on wine, the
favoured tipple of the middle class.
Noonan went back for more in 2014, with an extra
10 cents tax on a pint of beer. The minister also
slapped another 75c tax on wine (1.75 extra tax in

two years), for a total package that extracted an

additional 145m from imbibers.
INCOME TAXES
In his five years as finance minister, Michael
Noonans only sizeable tax giveaways have been
with income tax. In 2015, Noonan raised the
standard rate income tax band at a tax cost of
400m. He also adjusted the USC regime, at a fullyear tax cost of 240m.
In 2016, further USC changes were introduced at an
annual tax cost of 560m. With some other minor
adjustments, the income tax burden has been
reduced by 1,200m since January 2015.
Though the outgoing government never increased
income tax rates, USC and PRSI measures in 2012
and 2013 were designed to increase the annual tax
yield by 410m. There were also other measure
such as taxing maternity benefit (40m), and the
2014 restriction on tax relief for medical insurance
premiums (130m).
http://bizplus.ie/hibernia-forum-makes-case-budget-tax-cuts/

Emigrant tax plan is a

'stunt', 'unworkable' and
'unfair', say TDs

Cormac McQuinn Twitter

PUBLISHED
28/09/2016

1
Dara Calleary speaking at Leinster House yesterday. Photo: Tom
Burke

A plan by Jobs Minister Mary Mitchell

O'Connor for a special tax deal to encourage
emigrants to return home has been attacked
as a "stunt" and "unworkable".
Ms Mitchell O'Connor is proposing to offer a lower 30pc
tax rate to highly skilled workers to lure them home.
But the plan has come under fire from a series of
opposition TDs. Fianna Fil public expenditure
spokesman Dara Calleary said he had "grave concerns",

adding that further details of what was envisaged must be

released. He pointed out that a lot of Irish people did not
emigrate and while "we do need to bring people back", the
tax system must be "fair".
Fianna Fil jobs spokesman Niall Collins described Ms
Mitchell O'Connor's proposal as a "stunt" and claimed it
was a "rehashed kite-flying exercise". He said her
predecessor Richard Bruton made similar proposals in the
past.
Mr Collins blamed a lack of affordable housing and
"spiralling" insurance, childcare and transport costs for
emigrants being slow to return.
Labour TD Alan Kelly branded the proposal "a crazy
policy" that would "create discrimination" where people
doing similar jobs would be charged at different tax rates.
He added: "It's unworkable and it's unfair."
Sinn Fin TD Caoimhghn O Caolin said his reaction "is
one of some scepticism" and that his party would "take a
very different approach".
Meanwhile, Ms Mitchell O'Connor's press adviser - former
TV3 anchor Alan Cantwell - received a backlash at
yesterday's weekly adviser meeting in Government
Buildings.
Mr Cantwell was told by Taoiseach Enda Kenny's officials
that the story was "unhelpful", particularly with the
Budget just two weeks away.
Tax measures to be introduced in the Budget have yet to
be decided upon by Cabinet.
Under the minister's proposal, the lower tax rate would be
aimed at those working in medicine, IT and finance
sectors who earn in excess of 75,000.
The scheme would also apply to some entrepreneurs. It
would remain in place for a set period - expected to be five
years.
Tax incentives for graduates who purchase company
shares as part of their transfer home would be included.
The move is in response to complaints from workers living
overseas that the marginal tax rate of just under 50pc is

putting them off from returning home.

Ms Mitchell O'Connor's spokesman last night responded
to the criticism, saying there was a clear Programme for
Government ambition to facilitate the return of at least
70,000 emigrants.
He said it would include efforts to improve access to
housing and increase school places. He said there was also
a commitment to make the personal tax system "more
competitive".
But he added: "Until the Budget is announced, it is not
possible to provide details on what it may contain."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/emigrant-tax-plan-is-a-stuntunworkable-and-unfair-say-tds-35085321.html

It would be extremely unfair to the population who stayed in Ireland

during the recession, paid the higher taxes, suffered the reductions to
public services and lower quality of life if this 'tax break' for high paid
emigrants came to pass. There aren't enough properties to go around as
it its. Encouraging people home would put further pressure on already
strained parts of the economy (housing, schools, hospitals etc).
In any case why should emigrants be given a tax break? They should be
charged a solidarity charge for skipping the country and leaving the rest
of us to pay for the mess.
If this went ahead I can see major social unrest happening. The water
charge protests would be a school picnic compared to the problems that
would happen.
Mr Cantwell was told by Taoiseach Enda Kenny's officials that the story
was "unhelpful", particularly with the Budget just two weeks away."
The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in this
government. Ministers flying off in all directions with suggestions and
announcements. It is complete and utter and total mayhem at the
moment. There is no vision or plan. God help us.

Environmental Pillar Press Release

Not Link

Press Release April 28th 2014

Minister Coveney needs to act fast

to stop impending social and
environmental crisis
J
J
J

Environmental groups are witnessing major

scrub destruction happening on farms now.
Mishandling of farm payments is seeing some farmers
pushed to the brink.
Ten farmers in West Cork are considering a High
Court challenge to government clawback.
The Environmental Pillar is calling on the Minister for
Agriculture Simon Coveney to take swift action to halt a
social and environmental crisis that is unfolding across the
country.
Some of the most marginalised farmers are facing
massive cuts in their income because of government
mishandling of farm payments.
Farmers who were told by officials to claim for scrub land
are now being told they should never have claimed for it
and the money they received previously will be deducted
from future payments.
While this has not affected many farmers those on poorer
land are being hit the most by this.
This is leading farmers to clear great swathes of scrub

around the country. So that claims can be made for this

land in future.
These are valuable habitats for wildlife and critical for
biodiversity. Scrub is a broad term used to describe gorse,
furze, rushes and areas of regenerating woodland. It is a
valuable habitat with a role in carbon sequestration, flood
control, biodiversity, and can offer essential practical
benefits as part of a traditional farming methodology.
"The Minister needs to step in and stop this before it is too
late," said Cillian Lohan spokesman for the Environmental
Pillar.
"These farmers were only following advice and it is not fair
to have them take the brunt of the penalties imposed on
the Department of Agriculture for their mistakes. The
government's approach to this is forcing farming families to
choose between the environment and their livelihood".
"We can't pretend to have a "green" agricultural sector in
Dublin while rural Ireland is ripped to pieces by
excavators."
"The new CAP is hailed by some as being green. The
reality is that wholesale habitat destruction and
biodiversity loss is the most tangible outcome to date."
"The rhetoric from government is in stark contrast to the
reality in communities, where small farmers are being
driven off the land, and rural economies are under attack".
"It would appear the traditional farming model, based on
local expertise, and extensive high quality output has no

place in the race to satisfy the industrialisation of the

agricultural sector."
"The building craze that made millionaires of the few but
bankrupted the country and resulted in our loss of
sovereignty is being replaced by an agricultural bubble
now showing the first signs of devastating local rural
communities."
"Minister Coveney cannot hide behind the EU on this. The
EU will be appalled at what is going on. The new CAP
agreement allows for these habitats to be funded, in
recognition of the vital role they play. The Minister has the
power to resolve this and needs to act swiftly."
ENDS
Notes:
About the Environmental Pillar
The Environmental Pillar is a national social partner,
comprising 27 national environmental organisations. It
works to promote the protection and enhancement of the
environment, together with the creation of a viable
economy and a just society, without compromising the
viability of the planet on which we live for current and
future generations of all species and ecosystems.
Member Organisations of the Environmental Pillar:
An Taisce, Bat Conservation Ireland, BirdWatch Ireland,
Centre for Environmental Living and Training, CoastWatch,
Coomhola Salmon Trust, Crann, ECO-UNESCO, FEASTA,
Forest Friends, Friends of the Earth, Global Action Plan,

Gluaiseacht, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association,

Irish Wildlife Trust, Hedge Laying Association of Ireland,
Irish Natural Forestry Foundation, Irish Peatland
Conservation Council, Irish Seal Sanctuary, Irish Seed
Savers Association, Irish Whale and Dolphin Group,
Native Woodland Trust, Sonairte, Sustainable Ireland
Cooperative (Cultivate), The Organic Centre, VOICE, Zero
Waste Alliance.

EEB Seminar on 7EAP (Seventh Environmental Action

Programme)
Will the EU's Seventh Environmental Action Programme
help us to live well within the limits of our planet? This will
be discussed at the European Environmental Bureau
Seminar in Newman House Dublin on 12 February 2013
Registration 9am
The Commission published its proposal for a successor to
the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (6EAP) on 29
November 2012, calling it a plan for "Living well, within
the limits of our planet" , and setting out objectives for
2020. The Irish Presidency has made negotiations on this
proposal one of its priorities. The purpose of this seminar
is to organize a dialogue between European and Irish
environmental NGOs and the Irish Presidency and to
provide input to the ongoing negotiations on the 7EAP.
Registration is required http://eeb7eap.eventbrite.ie
Registration is free
Draft Agenda
8.45 - 9.15

Registration and coffee

9.15 - 9.20
Openingby chair Mikael Karlsson, EEB
President - confirmed
9.20 - 9.30
Openingstatement by Jeremy Wates, EEB
Secretary General - confirmed
9.30 - 9.50
Key note speech: Jacqueline McGlade,
Executive Director, European Environment Agency 'Late
lessons from early warnings, implications for the 7EAP' confirmed
9.50 - 10.10
Discussion
10.10 - 10.25 The Irish Presidency's hopes and
expectations for the 7EAP:John McCarthy, Assistant
Secretary, Irish Department of the Environment - tbc
10.25 - 10.40 Discussion
10.40 - 10.50 Coffee break
10.50 - 11.00 Introductionby Pieter de Pous, EEB Policy
director - confirmed
11.00 - 11.45 Module 1: 'To protect, conserve and
enhance the EU's natural capital'
Moderator: Patrick Nuvelstijn - Natuurmonumenten, EEB
Board member - tbc
Input statement: Andrew Jackson, An Taisce, confirmed
11.45 - 12.30 Module 2: 'To turn the EU into a resource
efficient, green and competitive low carbon economy'
Moderator: Jouni Nissinen, Finnish Association for Nature
Conservation, EEB Vice President, confirmed
Input statement: David Healy, confirmed
12.30 - 13.30 Lunch
13.30 - 14.15 Module 3: 'To safeguard EU citizens from
environment related pressures and risks to health and well
being'
Moderator: Jan Rigby, National University of Ireland,
confirmed
Input statement: Michael Ewing, Environmental Pillar,
Ireland, confirmed
14.15 - 15.00 Module 4: 'Maximizing the benefits of EU
environmental legislation' Moderator: Elisabeth Hiester,
Client Earth, EEB Vice President, confirmed Input
statement: Suzanne Kingston, University College Dublin
15.00 - 15.45 Module 5: Planning ahead

FF Slams Jobs
Minister Mitchell
OConnor
Taoiseach cool on her emigrants' tax
proposal
28 Sep 2016
Fianna Fils Niall Collins said the admission by
the Taoiseach that the proposed Emigrant Tax
would be discriminatory raises serious questions
about jobs minister Mary Mitchell OConnors
judgement in coming up with the plan in the first
place.
What we have seen in the past 24 hours is
dysfunction and incoherence at the very heart of
government, said Collins. The issue of attracting
emigrants back into the country is a serious one, but
the proposition that we should be offering special
tax rates is so completely divorced from the reality
of life in Ireland in 2016, it creates further doubts
about the minister.
Collins added: When the proposal of a senior
government minister is so publicly undermined by
the Taoiseach, we all have a duty to ask what is
happening within that department.
The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and
Innovation must play a major role in ensuring that
Ireland, as a whole, benefits from any emerging
economic recovery. We all have a responsibility to

ensure that we are working towards a society where

citizens can earn a good living and be able to rely on
good quality services when they need them.
A business-driven scheme to help members of the
immigrant community find work or education and
training has so far helped over 2,600 people from
101 countries.
EPIC, or Employment for People from
Immigrant Communities, is an initiative
supported by several leading companies including
CPL, BT and Enterprise Rent a Car, which provide
free training and assistance. To date BT, for
example, has provided IT training to 1,140
participants and CPL has hosted 1,030 mock
interviews.
EPIC is run by Business in the Community
Ireland, and brings government, business, state
agencies and NGOs together to assist immigrants to
gain employment by providing training and
support. Over 100 of the latest participants
graduated today at an event in Bank of Ireland,
College Green, Dublin and immigration minister
David Stanton was there to congratulate the
graduates.
Over 1,000 of EPICs graduates have progressed
into paid employment, with a further 700 taking up
training, education, intern and volunteer roles, all of
which are recognised as important progress towards
employment.
The graduation featured a panel of business leaders
discussing the issue of diversity, and why engaging
with the EPIC programme was important not only
for the graduates but also for their own employees.
The panel featured Anne Heraty of Cpl Resources,

Shay Walsh of BT Ireland and Leslee OLoughlin of

Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
The programme targets immigrants who experience
difficulties accessing appropriate employment and
supports them by providing individual guidance,
specialised training and personal development
opportunities.
Tina Roche, CEO of BITCI, said: The support of
businesses in Ireland for our EPIC programme has
been amazing. Through a wide range of supports
from companies, our EPIC clients are armed with
the right skills for the Irish job market. Without a
doubt, employment is the best way for people to
integrate into a society and the continued success
of the EPIC programme is testament to that.
Other companies who have supported the
programme include Accenture, Abbot, Allianz, An
Post, Bank of Ireland, Boots, Career-fit.ie, Comfort
Keepers, Davy, Dawn Farms, Debenhams, ebay,
Educogym, Encendo, Ericsson, Executive
Connections, Google, Graphic Mint, Harvey Nash,
Indeed, Irish Aviation Authority, KPMG,
Lionbridge, Manpower, Matheson, Oracle, PCHR
Consulting, RTE, Sigmar, Sodexo, The PALS
Programme, Urban Outfitters, Veolia and Workday.
http://bizplus.ie/ff-slams-jobs-minister-mitchell-oconnor/

Bord Bia has established a new research centre at

its Dublin HQ with a focus on latest global trends,
research, consumer insights and industry
innovations in food, drink and horticulture.
The Thinking House is managed by Helen
King, who leads a team of twelve people with
backgrounds ranging from psychology to
librarianship.
The space includes a Trends Zone to highlight the
latest food and drink innovations from around the
world and a Packaging and Branding gallery to
promote best in class design.
The Living Room and its adjacent viewing room
facilitates qualitative focus and discussion groups,
equipped with audio, video recording and live
streaming. The Library provides access to a wide
range of databases and reports that would
heretofore have been financially prohibitive to
source for many SMEs.
The centres working space, with room for up to 70
people, will be available for the industry to use for
workshops, meetings and presentations.

The Thinking House is open for SME

food and drink companies
28 Sep 2016
The Consumer Insight team currently work with
over 100 Irish brands across all sectors, ranging
from startups to multinationals. Recent research
work has extended into China, South East Asia and
Africa where Bord Bia staff, using cultural
ethnography, have visited and stayed with people in
their homes, shopped with them, eaten with them
and even looked in their fridges, to better
understand food habits in very different cultural
environments.
Bord Bia also works with a team of Streetscapers
based in 60 cities all over the world from Mumbai
and Mexico to Tokyo and Toronto to help the
industry monitor the latest food and drink trends
and innovations.
Chief executive Aidan Cotter (pictured)
commented: Success in a highly competitive,
global marketplace, where we seek to compete not
on price, but through value, can only come from
having a deep understanding of the needs of
consumers and the insights that will enable us to
create and effectively communicate relevant points
of difference.
Bord Bias upcoming market research work includes
a focus on health and wellness through The
Psychology of Sugar study; Ageing Well, how older
people engage with products while trying to lead a

healthy, long life; and ethnographic work in China

to research opportunities for Irish beef and pork.

Bord Bia Around the World

Mar 16, 2016
Bord Bia represents the Irish food and drink industry around
the world, through its network of 13 overseas offices and other
representatives based in additional markets. Learn more about
the work we do on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1DJW-sQP-s

An Taisce obtains leave for Appeal on Hinkley

Point legal challenge
Not Link

Press Release - 27 th March 2014

An Taisce obtains leave for Appeal on Hinkley

Point legal challenge
Not Link

Press Release - 27 th March 2014

An Taisce - the National Trust for

Ireland - today successfully

obtained leave to take its Hinkley
Point legal challenge to the Court of
Appeal in London
At the end of a brief hearing in London this morning, An
Taisce - the National Trust for Ireland - was granted leave
to take its legal challenge regarding Hinkley Point C
nuclear power station to the Court of Appeal. The case is
likely to be heard before the end of the summer.
An Taisce argues that the UK government's decision to
approve Hinkley Point C nuclear plant (on England's west
coast) without first consulting the public in Ireland is
contrary to international, EU and English law.
The High Court in London found against An Taisce's
arguments in December 2013, ruling that there was no
need to consult the public in Ireland in the circumstances.
However, earlier this month a UN Committee wrote to the
UK government - having first considered the High Court's
judgment and other evidence stating that in failing to
consult its neighbours, Hinkley Point raises "a profound
suspicion of non-compliance" with international law (the
Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
in a Transboundary Context).
This letter - on foot of a complaint to the Espoo
Convention's Implementation Committee by Friends of the
Irish Environment provided strong support for the
arguments advanced in An Taisce's legal challenge.
In light of this letter and An Taisce's arguments, Sullivan

LJ concluded today that leave to take the case to the

Court of Appeal should indeed be granted, overturning an
earlier decision on the papers.
Commenting on today's decision, An Taisce's Natural
Environment Officer and In-house solicitor Andrew
Jackson said, "We've always felt we have a very strong
case, even following the High Court's decision. We look
forward to airing our arguments before the Court of
Appeal. It's important to remember that this case is not
about being pro or anti-nuclear. It's about the public's right
to participate in decisions which could affect their lives fundamental environmental democratic rights which are
underpinned by international and EU law."
He continued, "We must thank our excellent legal team:
Leigh Day solicitors and barristers David Wolfe QC and
John Kenny BL. Credit is also due to Friends of the Irish
Environment for their excellent work before the Espoo
Convention's Implementation Committee. This is an
important public interest case and we trust that the public's
rights will ultimately be vindicated."
Notes:
The Espoo Convention Implementation Committee's letter
to the UK government is here:
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/cmsfiles/Librar
y/Committee-letter-19.03.14.pdf
The hearing is set for July 15 th and 16 thAt the end of a
brief hearing in London this morning, An Taisce - the
National Trust for Ireland - was granted leave to take its
legal challenge regarding Hinkley Point C nuclear power
station to the Court of Appeal. The case is likely to be

heard before the end of the summer.

An Taisce argues that the UK government's decision to
approve Hinkley Point C nuclear plant (on England's west
coast) without first consulting the public in Ireland is
contrary to international, EU and English law.
The High Court in London found against An Taisce's
arguments in December 2013, ruling that there was no
need to consult the public in Ireland in the circumstances.
However, earlier this month a UN Committee wrote to the
UK government - having first considered the High Court's
judgment and other evidence stating that in failing to
consult its neighbours, Hinkley Point raises "a profound
suspicion of non-compliance" with international law (the
Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
in a Transboundary Context).
This letter - on foot of a complaint to the Espoo
Convention's Implementation Committee by Friends of the
Irish Environment provided strong support for the
arguments advanced in An Taisce's legal challenge.
In light of this letter and An Taisce's arguments, Sullivan
LJ concluded today that leave to take the case to the
Court of Appeal should indeed be granted, overturning an
earlier decision on the papers.
Commenting on today's decision, An Taisce's Natural
Environment Officer and In-house solicitor Andrew
Jackson said, "We've always felt we have a very strong
case, even following the High Court's decision. We look
forward to airing our arguments before the Court of
Appeal. It's important to remember that this case is not
about being pro or anti-nuclear. It's about the public's right

to participate in decisions which could affect their lives fundamental environmental democratic rights which are
underpinned by international and EU law."
He continued, "We must thank our excellent legal team:
Leigh Day solicitors and barristers David Wolfe QC and
John Kenny BL. Credit is also due to Friends of the Irish
Environment for their excellent work before the Espoo
Convention's Implementation Committee. This is an
important public interest case and we trust that the public's
rights will ultimately be vindicated."
Notes:
The Espoo Convention Implementation Committee's letter
to the UK government is here:
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/cmsfiles/Librar
y/Committee-letter-19.03.14.pdf
The hearing is set for July 15 th and 16 th

An Taisce obtains leave for Appeal on Hinkley

Point legal challenge

HinkleyPointNuclear
Plant
>

issue-hinkleypoint2-bymarkrobinson.jpg

>
>

Mark RobinsonLicense

issue-hinkleypoint5-bymarkrobinson.jpg

>
>

Mark RobinsonLicense

issue-hinkleypoint1-byjoedunkley.jpg

>
>

Joe DunkleyLicense

issue-hinkleypoint4-bymarkrobinson.jpg

>
>

Mark RobinsonLicense

issue-hinkleypoint3-bycrowcombeal.jpg

>

CowcomebeAlLicense

A legal challenge to a planned

nuclear power plant on the
west coast of England, close to
Irish soil
In May 2013 An Taisce launched judicial review proceedings in
London to challenge the legality of UK Secretary of State Ed

Daveys decision to grant permission to build and operate a

nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in the Bristol Channel,
Somerset, 150 miles from the Irish coast. In papers issued in
the High Court in London by lawyers Leigh Day, we
challenged the legality of the decision by the UK Government
with reference to (amongst other things) the EU's
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the UKs own
regulations on transboundary impacts and consultation.
Despite the nuclear power plant being nearer to the coast of
Ireland than it is to Leeds, the UK decided not to consult with
the Irish public about the decision before it granted consent in
2013. The first time many Irish people learned about the
nuclear power plant proposal was when the decision was
announced. Their views were not therefore taken into
consideration as part of the UK governments decision and
assessment process.
Consultation with the public in Ireland would have allowed the
public to contribute to the decision making process and would
have allowed the UK to properly and fully consider the impacts
and effects of the plant across boundaries.
There is a contrasting approach on consultation adopted by
other countries including Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands,
and the Czech Republic, which have contacted neighbouring
countries in relation to their plans to develop nuclear power
facilities.
Rosa Curling from Leigh Day who is representing An Taisce,
said:
The UK Government decided to grant permission to build and
operate a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point without
consulting the Irish public or taking into account significant
potential risks of the power plant across national boundaries.
The failure to consult or consider these transboundary impacts
renders the decision to grant permission for the nuclear power
plant unlawful and we will be seeking to challenge it in the
High Court to give the Irish public a voice.
James Nix, Policy Director for An Taisce said:
This case is not about interfering with the right of the UK
authorities to make their own decisions, nor about being pro or
anti nuclear. It is about ensuring that the rights and interests of
the Irish public and their concern for their environment are not

excluded from those decisions, and that the Irish public is

properly consulted in accordance with the law on a project of
this nature.
Irelands agriculture, food, fishing and tourism - which are our
essential indigenous industries - are critically dependent on
the quality of our environment, as is the health of our people.
This is therefore a matter of considerable importance and
concern for Irish people, and for our interest in our
environment.
An Taisce views compliance with environmental law as a
fundamental building block in our mission to protect Irelands
built and natural environment. We seek the assistance of the
UK courts in determining the correctness of this decision,
which is important not only in respect of this nuclear power
plant decision, but also the manner in which other decisions in
the pipeline will be treated in the future, including the nuclear
plant proposed for Anglesey, which is even closer to Ireland
and in an area which is prone to earthquakes.
High Court judgment - December 2013
The High Court in London handed down its judgment in
December 2013, finding against An Taisce's arguments. You
can read the judgment here.
UN Committee letter of March 2014
On 14 March 2014, a UN Committee wrote to the UK
government indicating that based on the Committee's
preliminary consideration of Hinkley Point, there was a
"profound suspicion of non-compliance" with transboundary
consultation obligations under international law (the Espoo
Convention). You can find the UN Committee's letter here.
Appeal to the Court of Appeal
We are seeking leave to appeal the High Court's decision to
the Court of Appeal in London. We will keep you posted!
MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
____________________

Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF AN TAISCE (THE
NATIONAL TRUST FOR IRELAND)
Claimant
- and -

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE

CHANGE
Defendant
NNB GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED,
THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNITY AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IRELAND

Interested Parties
____________________
David Wolfe QC and John Kenny B.L (instructed by Leigh
Day) for the Claimant
Jonathan Swift QC, Rupert Warren QC and Jonathan Moffett
(instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Nathalie Lieven QC and Hereward Phillpot (instructed by
Herbert Smith Freehills) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 5th and 6th December 2013
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT

____________________
Crown Copyright
Mrs Justice Patterson :
This is an application by An Taisce, the National Trust for
Ireland, to seek permission to apply for judicial review of a
decision on the part of the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change (the defendant) to grant a
development consent order on the 19th March 2013 for a
new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C (HPC). The
case comes before the court as a "rolled up" hearing with
the agreement of all parties.
An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, was founded as a
charity in 1948. It is one of Ireland's oldest and largest
NGOs. The trust is a prescribed consultee for a number of
different Irish government policy formulation and consent
processes, including those relating to planning
applications, that require an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). The Trust's objectives include the
protection of Ireland's built and natural environment. It
sees compliance with international, EU and national
legislation as fundamental to that objective.
The Trust's claim is that the defendant failed to comply
with Regulation 24 of the Infrastructure Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009
and/or Article 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment in considering whether HPC
was likely to have significant effects on the environment in
the Republic of Ireland, another member state. The Trust
contends that transboundary consultation should have
been undertaken with the Irish people.
In particular, the claimant alleges that,
i)
the defendant misdirected himself as to the meaning
of Regulation 24 and Article 7 in considering only impacts
arising from the ordinary regulated operation of the
nuclear power station and not "unlikely", but nevertheless
possible, impacts from other scenarios;
ii)

the defendant failed to comply with Regulation 24

and Article 7 by omitting to take into account the possible

impacts arising from unplanned or accidental effects of
the development; and/or
iii) because the meaning of Article 7 is unclear the court
should make a reference to the CJEU.
The first interested party (NNB) is wholly owned by NNB
Holding Company which in turn is a wholly owned
subsidiary of EDF Energy Holdings Limited, one of the
largest power generation companies in the UK.
Factual background
On the 31st October 2011 NNB made an application to the
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) for a
Development Consent Order (DCO) for a new nuclear
power station at HPC. The proposed site is immediately to
the west of the existing Hinkley Point power stations in
Somerset.
The consent procedure for a new nuclear power station is
understandably complex and involves various consents
and permissions. The following paragraphs provide an
outline of the background and processes.
In January 2008 the government published a White Paper
entitled 'Meeting the Energy Challenge'. Under that,
companies would be able to build new nuclear power
stations which were to be subject to the same regulation
of safety, security and environmental matters as existing
nuclear installations. The government proposed to take
steps to facilitate the development of such stations by
using powers in the then planning bill (now the Planning
Act 2008) to ensure that nationally significant
infrastructure projects (NSIP), of which nuclear power
stations were an example, were provided through the use
of National Policy Statements (NPS) which set the national
need and identified possible sites. Once a planning
application was made, that was followed by an
examination of the site-specific proposal. That was initially
undertaken by the IPC.
The White Paper provided that a strategic siting
assessment and strategic environmental assessment

would have to be undertaken. In addition, there would be

a generic design process that would set out the basis upon
which the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the
Environment Agency (EA) would review new build nuclear
reactor designs. To meet the requirements of EU and UK
law new nuclear practises were to be required to
demonstrate that their benefits outweighed any health
detriment.
In November 2009 the government published its draft
energy policy statements. There was an overarching draft
NPS for energy proposals (EN-1) and a series of topicspecific policy papers. The draft NPS for nuclear
generation (EN-6) contained a list of ten sites in England
and Wales, including HPC, which the government
considered to be potentially suitable for new nuclear
power stations by 2025. The sites had been identified
through a strategic siting assessment process. The draft
NPS had been subject to an appraisal of sustainability to
examine the likely social, economic and environmental
effects of designating nuclear power stations and
incorporated an assessment in accordance with the
requirement of the EU Directive on strategic
environmental assessment.
Between November 2009 and February 2010 public
consultation on the draft NPS took place. Representations
were received from the Irish government. The draft
recognised the possibility of transboundary effects in the
event of a significant unintended release of radioactive
emissions but judged that the risk of such an accident was
very small because of the strict regulatory regime in the
UK. The claimant took no part in the consultation process.
In October 2010, after considering the consultation
responses a revised draft, EN-6, was published, as was a
revised appraisal of sustainability. The number of
prospective sites was reduced to 8 (but still included HPC).
Consultation on the draft ran until January 2011. The
revised appraisal of sustainability noted that the Euratom
Treaty would require the UK to submit to the EC
information to enable the Commission to determine
whether the implementation of a project was liable to
result in radioactive contamination of water, soil or air
space of another member state. Permission to make

radioactive discharges and disposals would not be given in

the UK unless a favourable opinion was received from the
European Commission.
The draft continued,
"7.2.73 there is a risk of accidental release of radioactive
emissions associated with new nuclear power stations
which are built in line with the revised nuclear NPS.
However, the risk of such an accident is judged to be very
small because of the strict regulatory regime in the UK.
The nuclear regulatory bodies will need to be satisfied that
the radiological and other risk to the public associated
with accidental releases of radioactive substances are as
low as reasonably practicable and within relevant
radiological risk limit. As part of the site licensing process,
a potential operator will be required to demonstrate that
the nuclear facility is designed and can be operated such
that several layers of protection and defence are provided
against significant faults or failures, that accident
management and emergency preparedness strategies are
in place and that all reasonably practicable steps have
been taken to minimise the radiological consequences of
an accident."
On the 18th July 2011 the House of Commons debated
and approved the six NPS for energy, including NPS EN-6.
On the 19th July 2011 the Secretary of State designated
the NPS under the Planning Act 2008.
NPS EN-6 explains the relationship between the regulatory
justification process and the planning regime. It sets out
the role of the regulators in the IPC's consideration of
applications for new nuclear power stations and the
interaction that is required between the IPC and the other
relevant regulators. Those regulators are the EA and ONR
(which has taken over the role of the Department for
Transport).
The document emphasises the separate nature of the
licensing and permitting of nuclear power stations by the
nuclear regulators which nuclear power stations have to
undergo. In paragraph 2.73 it states,
"When considering a development consent application the
IPC should act on the basis that;
the relevant licensing and permitting regime will be
properly applied and enforced, and

it should not duplicate consideration of matters that are

within the remit of the nuclear regulators;
It should not delay a decision as to whether to grant
consent until completion of the licensing and permitting
process."
Matters which the IPC should not duplicate are the Generic
Design Assessment (GDA), site licensing and
environmental permitting processes. The nuclear
regulators are to assess also external hazards to a
proposed nuclear power station including the reasonably
foreseeable effects of climate change.
Annex B to the NPS considers the sites listed as potentially
suitable for new nuclear power stations. Section C5
considers HPC.
In October 2010 the Secretary of State made the
Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR
Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/2044. That
means that the class or type of practice for the generation
of electricity from nuclear energy using oxide fuel of low
enrichment in fissile content in a light water cooled, light
water moderated thermal reactor currently known as the
EPR designed by AREVA NP was justified. The reasons
given for he making of the Regulations continued, at
paragraph 1.59,
"In summary, the Secretary of State is conscious of the
extent of damage and health detriment that a release of
radioactive material from an EPR would have. However, he
has confidence in the regulatory regimes for safety and
security of civil nuclear installations and materials in the
UK. The regulatory bodies are all independent,
experienced and held in high regard around the world. He
is also conscious that the EPR included inherent safety and
security features, based on years of international
experience of nuclear power stations and which will be
subject to approval by the UK regulators. He therefore
considers that the likelihood of an accident or other
incident occurring at an EPR giving rise to a release of
radioactive material is very small."
ONR was formed on the 1st April 2011 as an agency of the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). It comprises the HSE's
former Nuclear Directorate, including the office of Civil
Nuclear Security and the UK Safeguards Office together

with the Radioactive Materials Team from the Department

of Transport. It is an independent statutory corporation.
Before any new nuclear power station can be constructed,
commissioned or operated in the UK the operator requires
various regulatory licences, permits and other consents.
The most significant are a nuclear site licence (NSL) issued
under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 regulated by ONR
and environmental permits issued under the
Environmental Permitting Regulations regulated by the EA
(in England). The licences and permits are granted if the
agencies are satisfied that radiation doses comply with the
regulatory principles of as low as reasonably practicable
(ALARP) and that the best available techniques (BAT) have
been used.
ONR and the EA have developed a process of GDA for new
reactor designs. Under that system ONR assess the safety
and security of a generic design for a type and make of
reactor in advance of it being considered on a specific site.
ONR uses its safety assessment principles and technical
assessment guides to guide its regulatory decision
making. The safety assessment principles are
benchmarked against the international atomic agency
standards.
The GDA is an iterative process. EDF made a submission
to ONR and the EA in July 2007. It consisted of four steps August to September 2007 initial discussion; September
2007 to March 2008 - overview of fundamental
acceptability of the proposed reactor design; June 2008 to
November 2008- safety design system and security
review; December 2009 to 2011- examination of evidence
given by the safety analysis which included a severe
accident analysis. A summary of the design assessment
was published on the 14th December 2011. At that time
31 matters remained outstanding. They were resolved
during the following year so that on the 13th December
2012 ONR confirmed no matters were outstanding and
issued a design acceptance confirmation. The EA issued
also a statement of design acceptability. Their issue
confirmed that the regulators were satisfied that the
evidence demonstrated that the risk to workers and the
public had been reduced to ALARP.
The power to licence and regulate nuclear sites rests with

the HSE whose functions are carried out by ONR on its

behalf. No site is to be used for the purposes of installing
or operating a nuclear reactor unless a licence has been
granted by ONR and is in force. Licensing Nuclear
Installations is a document which provides an overview of
the processes that ONR follows. There are three main
aspects which have to be satisfied before the grant of a
site licence;
i)
a site specific safety case (to show that the nuclear
facility would have a robust defence against a range of
local external hazards);
ii)
the suitability of the location for an adequate
emergency plan;
iii) that the proposal complies with government siting
policy.
NNB applied for a nuclear site licence to install and
operate a nuclear installation at Hinkley Point on the 29th
July 2011. On the 31st October 2012 ONR issued a project
assessment report which indicated its satisfaction subject
to NNB carrying out substantial further analysis in several
technical areas before ONR could give permission for
nuclear safety related construction. That was done and a
site licence granted which came into force on 3rd
December 2012. It is subject to detailed licence conditions
including one that provides that NNB will not commence
construction, installation or operation without the consent
of ONR.
Once a nuclear site licence is granted the licensee has to
comply with all the conditions which are attached to it. In
particular, those relating to nuclear safety are subject to
expert assessment by ONR, known as the "permissioning"
regime.
On the 8th April 2013 NNB published its pre construction
safety report for its proposed development at HPC for
assessment by ONR and the EA. That report will inform
ONR's decision on consents and permissions required for
the next stage at HPC. Work is ongoing and a further
report will be issued before regulatory consent is
considered. If consent is issued for the construction stage

a schedule for submission of further safety documents will

be agreed for the period of installation, commissioning
and operation.
Throughout each stage of the process up to and including
decommissioning ONR have continued inspection and
regulatory oversight of the plant, the safety case and
compliance with conditions.
The EA regulates several aspects of the operation and
construction of nuclear power stations in England. In
March 2013 NNB applied for and obtained a consultation
process permit for the disposal and discharge of
radioactive waste for the normal operation of the
proposed nuclear station, operation of the combustion
plant and discharge of trade effluent arising from the
operation of the station. The EA considered the limits and
conditions in those permits suitable to properly protect
people and the environment.
The Euratom Treaty
The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy
Community came into force on January 1 1958 and is
known as the Euratom Treaty. Article 37 of the Euratom
Treaty states that each member state shall provide the
European Commission with such general data relating to
any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever
form as will make it possible to determine whether the
implementation of such a plan is liable to result in
radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of
another member state. The Commission has to deliver an
opinion within six months, after consulting with an
independent group of experts.
In August 2011, the UK government submitted general
data under Article 37 in respect of the operation of a new
nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. It contained
information about how discharges would be monitored
including an evaluation of the consequences of discharge
to the state closest to HPC, the Republic of Ireland. It
included also details about unplanned releases of
radioactive effluents and reviewed the various kinds of
accidents which could potentially result in unplanned
releases of radioactive substances. It set out also the plant
safety principles, including a range of design measures, to

keep risks as low as reasonably practicable.

On the 3rd February 2012 the European Commission
published its opinion relating to the plan for the disposal of
radioactive waste arising from the two EPR reactors on the
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It said that the
assessment was carried out under the provisions of the
Euratom Treaty and was without prejudice to any
additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union and obligations
stemming from it and from secondary legislation. It
continued,
"1. The distance from the site to the nearest member state
is 185 kilometres for France and 250 kilometres for the
Republic of Ireland.
2. Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of
liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents are not likely to
cause an exposure of population in another Member State
that is significant from the point of view of health.
3. Solid low-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored
on site for transfer to disposal facilities authorised by the
United Kingdom regulatory authorities. Spent fuel
elements and intermediate level solid waste are
temporarily stored on site, awaiting the future availability
of a geological repository. Reprocessing of spent fuel is not
envisaged.
4. In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive
effluents which may follow an accident of the type and
magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses
likely to be received by the population in another member
state would not be significant from the point of view of
health."
A further submission was made by the UK government in
January 2012 in response to a request for more
information about the interim storage of spent fuel and
intermediate level waste on the site.
On the 30th May 2012, the European Commission
published its opinion, stating that,
"In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that both
in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the
type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the
implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive
waste in whatever form from the interim storage facilities

for intermediate level waste and spent fuel at Hinkley

Point C nuclear power station site, located in Somerset,
United Kingdom, is not liable to result in radioactive
contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another
member state that would be significant from the point of
view of health."
The Espoo Convention
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
in a Transboundary Context was adopted in 1991 in Espoo
and came into force on 10 September 1997. It is,
therefore, known as the Espoo Convention. It has been
implemented by the EIA Directive (Council Directive
85/337/EC as amended) and transposed into domestic law
through Regulation 24 of the Infrastructure Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009.
That means that decisions taken by the Secretary of State
on NSIPs under the Planning Act 2008 will be subject to
the procedural requirements of Regulation 24. Where the
Secretary of State is of the view that the development is
likely to have significant effects on the environment of
another EEA state he must take certain steps.
Assessment of Transboundary effects
In June 2011 the IPC published Advice Note 12:
Development with Significant Transboundary Impacts
consultation paper. That Note indicates that there are four
aspects to the consideration of transboundary impacts:
the obligations under Regulation 24 and the Espoo
Convention and EU Directive 85/337/EEC as amended (the
EIA Directive);
requests from other EEA states likely to be significantly
affected;
the role of UK Government departments to ensure that
other EEA states are appropriately consulted; and
the role of developers in helping to ensure the relevant
information is available at the appropriate time.
The document includes the suggestion that, unless there
is compelling evidence to the contrary, the IPC may
consider that nuclear power stations are likely to have
significant transboundary effects.

On the 6th October 2011 NNB submitted a draft

transboundary-screening matrix. That noted that airborne
or water borne spread of impact was possible from the
proposed reactor but assessed the probability of any
accident or incident leading to offsite radiological or other
impact as very low because of the effective regulatory
framework in the United Kingdom. Transboundary impacts
were, therefore, not considered likely.
On the 20th October 2011 the IPC prepared its own preapplication screening matrix. That recorded that through
the design measures built into the development, the
delivery of mitigation measures, effective control by other
regulatory bodies, conditions and monitoring, impacts on
another EEA state will not be significant. The probability of
radiological impact was considered to be low on the basis
of the regulatory regimes in place. It concluded that
transboundary impacts from accidents during operation or
decommissioning will be so low as to be exempt from
statutory control. Accordingly, the IPC concluded that the
proposed development was not likely to have significant
effects on the environment in another EEA state. As a
result nothing further was needed under Regulation 24 of
the 2004 Regulations at that time.
Application for DCO
On the 31st October 2011 NNB made a formal application
to the IPC for the DCO which is challenged in these
proceedings. The application included a comprehensive 11
volume environmental statement which included analysis
of air quality, radiological impacts and their mitigation
and, in appendix 7E, an assessment of transboundary
impacts. That concluded that the likely impacts
determined did not extend beyond the County of Somerset
and the Severn Estuary. The nearest Espoo Convention
states outside the UK were the Republic of Ireland and
France, well beyond the areas where impacts were likely. It
was noted that the extent of any possible adverse effects
on nature conservation sites of European and national
importance did not extend beyond the Severn Estuary
and, therefore, there was no possibility that any adverse
effects would have a trans-boundary effect on another EEA
area.

Screening decision by the Planning Inspectorate

On the 11th April 2012 a screening decision was issued by
the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) that considered:
i)
the environmental statements;
ii)

distances to other EEA states;

iii) submissions to the EC under Article 37 of the

Euratom Treaty;
iv) the Secretary of State's decision on regulatory
justification for the EPR;
v)
statements in EN-6 and its appraisal of sustainability
to the effect that significant transboundary effects arising
from new nuclear power stations are not considered likely;
as due to the robustness of the regulatory regime there is
a very low probability of unintended release of radiation.
It concluded that significant transboundary environmental
effects were not likely. The totality of the evidence about
the reactor together with information about the regulatory
framework within the UK was felt by PINS to amount to
"compelling evidence" that there would be no likely
significant effects on the environment as set out in Advice
Note 12.
Communications with the Irish Government
On the 13th November 2009 the Government sent copies
of the NPS consultation to all other EU member states
including Ireland. They were informed that there was a
possibility of transboundary effects in the event of a
significant unintended release of radiation emissions.
However, due to the robustness of the UK regulatory
regime there was a very low probability of an unintended
release of radiation.
In February 2010 the Irish government responded and
reserved its position. In June 2010 detailed information
was provided to the Irish government from the appraisal of
sustainability. The Irish government raised various queries
to which the Secretary of State responded but noted that

the Irish request was more appropriate at the site-specific

proposal stage.
On the 28th July 2010 the defendant sent a further letter.
It set out the government position that the only significant
transboundary effects were likely to come through an
unintended release of radioactive emissions. The
regulators viewed that as a very low probability based on
both expert judgment and the GDA.
On the 28th October 2010 the UK government published
for re-consultation a further draft of the NPS EN-6 and
produced a revised appraisal of sustainability which again
concluded that the construction and operation of new
nuclear power stations in line with the NPS were not likely
to result in significant transboundary effects. On the same
day the government sent a copy of the revised NPS to all
EU member states including Ireland.
On the 24th January 2011 the Irish government responded
saying that their questions were better answered at a sitespecific stage. They did not ask for formal transboundary
consultation. They made it clear that their concerns were
best pursued through ongoing dialogue with the UK
government.
In September 2011 the UK government informed the Irish
government that NNB considered that there would be no
significant transboundary effects from the proposed
reactor and that a transboundary consultation was not
needed. The Irish government was advised to register an
interest in HPC when the DCO application was registered
with the IPC. At no point has the Irish government
requested transboundary consultation. It also did not take
part in the examination process.
Instead, the Irish government asked the Radiological
Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) to carry out an
assessment of the potential radiological impacts on
Ireland from the proposed programme of nuclear plants
including HPC. Five of the proposed locations are on the
Irish Sea coast. The principal findings were summarised as
being,
" Given the prevailing wind direction in Ireland,
radioactive contamination in the air, either from routine
operation of the proposed nuclear power plants or
accidental release, will most often be transported away

from Ireland.
The routine operations of the proposed nuclear power
plant will have no measurable radiological impact on
Ireland or the Irish marine environment.
The severe accident scenarios assessed ranged in
their estimated frequency of occurrence from 1 in 50,000
to 1 in 33 million per year. The assessment used a
weather pattern that maximised the transfer of
radioactivity to Ireland. For the severe accident scenarios
assessed, food controls or agricultural protective
measures would generally be required in Ireland to reduce
exposure of the population so as to mitigate potential
long-term health effects. In the accident scenario with an
estimated 1 in 33 million chance of occurring, short-term
measures such as staying indoors would also be advised
as a precautionary measure. In general, the accidents with
higher potential impact on Ireland are the ones least likely
to occur.
Regardless of the radiological impact, any accident at
the proposed nuclear power plants leading to an increase
in radioactivity levels in Ireland would have a socioeconomic impact on Ireland.
A major accidental release of radioactivity to the Irish
Sea would not require any food controls or protective
actions in Ireland.
There is a continuing need for the maintenance of
emergency plans in Ireland to deal with the consequences
of a nuclear accident abroad."
Communications with the Austrian Government
The Austrian government was informed of the consultation
on the NPS EN-6 and appraisal of sustainability. It
responded in generic terms during those consultation
periods.
On the 18th September 2012 the Austrian government
wrote to the Department for Communities and Local

Government requesting information "to allow for an

examination as to whether or not the project was likely to
have significant adverse effects on Austria's environment."
That request was forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate.
It replied on the 8th October 2012 explaining why it had
not undertaken transboundary consultation and that, as
the examination of the application had closed, the
Austrian government should raise any concerns under the
Espoo Convention with the Secretary of State. On the 19th
October 2012 the Austrian government wrote to the
Secretary of State indicating that it wished to participate
in the process of considering the application according to
the Espoo convention and the EIA Directive.
On the 16th November 2012 the Secretary of State
provided the Austrian Government with a copy of the
application documents and invited them to comment.
Information was provided about the extensive public
participation that had taken place on the project with just
over 1,200 representations made to the Examining
Authority which had held thirteen hearings.
In January 2013 the Austrian Government wrote to the
Secretary of State to inform him that it had decided to
initiate a public participation procedure in accordance with
Article 7 paragraph 3 of the EIA Directive and Article 4 of
the Espoo Convention. On the 17th January 2013 the
Secretary of State replied requesting comments from the
Austrian consultation by the 5th March 2013 as he had a
statutory duty to announce his decision on the application
no later than the 19th March 2013.
On the 5th March 2013 the Austrian Government wrote to
the Secretary of State enclosing comments received from
the provinces and the public. It also submitted a technical
report assessing the likelihood and effects of a major
accident at HPC. The technical report asserted that severe
accidents with high releases of caesium-137 cannot be
excluded, and there would be a need for official
intervention in Austria after such an accident. However,
the report recognised that the calculated probability of
such an accident is below 1e-7/a (which means that such
an accident would not be expected to occur more
frequently than once in every 10 million years of reactor
operation).

The Grant of Development Consent

The examination by the Panel of the application for
development consent at HPC began on the 21st March
2012 and was completed on the 21st September. It
included a series of accompanied site inspections by the
panel, receipt of written evidence in response to panel
questions and a series of issue specific hearings and open
floor hearings held in the locality. The Planning
Inspectorate prepared a report on the application on the
19th December 2012 for submission to the Secretary of
State which recommended that the order be made.
On the 19th March 2013 the Secretary of State announced
his decision under Section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 to
grant development consent for the proposals in the
application.
In his Decision Letter the Secretary of State referred to the
opinion of the European Commission under the provisions
of the Euratom Treaty the conclusions of which are set out
above and which were quoted in the Decision Letter at
paragraph 6.6.1(ii).
The Secretary of State also referred to the position with
regard to Austria and the Espoo Convention. Having set
out that Austria had been sent a set of the application
documents and invited to comment it recorded that
Austria had responded on the 5th March 2013 with
representations comprising an expert report and a number
of submissions from groups and individuals opposed to the
project. The Decision Letter continued,
"6.6.2 (ii) The expert report focuses on nuclear safety
issues and as such has been reviewed by the Office of
Nuclear Regulation (ONR). It draws heavily on documents
published by the ONR during the Generic Design
Assessment of the EPR. Although broadly technically
sound, it tends to over emphasise the significance of those
areas where ONR has in any event determined that more
work needs to be done during any subsequent
construction and commissioning of a power station based
on the EPR (i.e. such as at Hinkley Point) as part of its own
regulatory processes.
6.6.2 (iii) The Austrian expert contends that in assessing
the likely environmental effects of the HPC project, I

should take into account the effects of very low

probability, extreme (or severe) accidents. Effectively the
report says that unless it can be demonstrated that a
severe accident (including significant radiological release)
cannot occur, then no matter how unlikely it is, I must
consider its consequences as part of the development
consent process, having regard, in particular, to the
possible deleterious effects on Austria. However in my
view such accidents are so unlikely to occur that it would
not be reasonable to "scope in" such an issue for
environmental impact assessment purposes."
The Secretary of State continued that his decision to make
the order was only one of a number of decisions that
needed to be made by government or the regulators
before the HPC project could go ahead, and it was only
concerned with one aspect of approval for the project
(albeit an important one), namely, whether it should be
given development consent under the Act. It is essentially
a decision about the use of land.
The Secretary of State reiterated that the nuclear safety
aspects of the project were regulated by the ONR and the
EA, that a nuclear site licence had been granted (26
November 2012) and the GDA process concluded (13
December 2012). Paragraph 6.7.3 and 6.7.4 state,
"Also relevant from the nuclear safety point of view is
Secretary of State's Regulatory Justification decision of
2010. I note that NPS EN-6, paragraphs 3.12.9 and 3.12.11
state that I should have regard to this when considering
potential effects on human health and well being and act
on the basis that the risk of adverse effects resulting from
exposure to radiation for workers, the public and the
environment would be adequately mitigated because of
the need to satisfy the requirements of the UK's strict
legislative regulatory regime as well as the ONR's
implementation of the governments policy on
demographics. I am satisfied that in the light of the
justification decision and the work done by ONR and EA as
nuclear safety regulators in connection with the HPC
project, there is no need to consider these issues further in
a context of the application.
It may also be noted, for the sake of completeness, that
the EA has issued various non nuclear safety

authorisations for which it is responsible in respect of the

HPC project, most recently the Environmental Permit
issued on 13 March 2013."
The Claimant's Involvement
On the 18th April 2013 the claimant wrote to the Secretary
of State asking that the development consent be set aside
and the decision making process be revisited. The
claimant expressed concerns about the environmental
impact assessment and decisions taken regarding
transboundary consultation so that there was no
consultation with Ireland or the public. The claimant asked
the Secretary of State to confirm,
i)
Whether Ireland had been formally consulted under
Directive 85/337 as amended, under the Espoo
Convention, or under the Aarhus convention;
ii)
If so, evidence of the consultation and any response;
and
iii) If not, the basis on which the UK determined that
such consultation was not required.
The Secretary of State replied on the 26th April 2013. He
confirmed that the Irish government had not been formally
consulted in relation to those matters set out in question
one of the claimant's letter. He explained his decision and
provided links to the transboundary screening report
completed by PINS which had concluded that in the
absence of a likelihood of significant effect on the
environment of another EEA state there was no need to
carry out transboundary consultation. The Secretary of
State referred to information supplied by the developer
and the conclusions by the European Commission under
the Euratom Treaty. He emphasised also to the claimant
that the safety and design features of the reactor were
beyond the remit of the Planning Act process. Further, the
Secretary of State noted that although the Screening
Report had concluded that the development was not likely
to have a significant effect on the environment of another
EEA state it remained open to governments, organisations
or members of the public in such states to take part in the

examination process for the application for development

consent. The Austrian government had asked to be
consulted and the Secretary of State took those
representations into account when making his decision.
There was no representation from the Irish government.
The Secretary of State confirmed that the government did
not intend to revisit the decision making process on the
DCO. Nevertheless, there remained opportunities for
organisations and individuals to participate on the
potential effects of the HPC development in relation to
site-specific design issues such as nuclear safety related
construction. The claimants were informed that if they
wished to participate in that process they could subscribe
to ONR's free email service.
The Legal Framework
The Planning Act 2008 established a new system for the
grant of consent for NSIP. It was designed to rationalise
the different development consent processes and to
create, as far as possible, a unified single consent regime
with a harmonised set of requirements and procedures.
Under part 2 of the Act an NPS can be designated which
sets out national policy in relation to one or more specified
descriptions of development. That is to be accompanied
by an appraisal of sustainability. The document has to
have been through public consultation and approved by
resolution of the House of Commons.
By virtue of Section 15 nuclear power stations are a
category of NSIP.
An application for a DCO was made to the IPC but, as set
out, since their abolition, as a result of changes made
under the Localism Act from the 1st April 2012 the
decision is now made by the Secretary of State. The
application is processed through the Major Infrastructure
Planning Unit (now the Major Applications and Plans
Directorate) within the PINS. There is a defined pre
application procedure to be followed. Once an application
is received, an Examining Panel is appointed with the
function of examining the application and making a report
to the Secretary of State setting out its findings and
conclusions on the application together with a
recommendation on the decision to be made. Once there

is a start day for the examination the entire procedure is

to be completed within six months. There are further
provisions as to procedures to be followed which are not
material to the current case.
Section 104(3) of the Planning Act 2008 provides that, in
cases where an NPS has effect in relation to the
development for which the DCO is applied for:
"(3) The Secretary of State must decide the application in
accordance with any relevant policy statement, except to
the extent that one or more of subsections (4) to (8)
apply."
Subsections (4) to (8) apply only where the Secretary of
State is satisfied that,
"(4) deciding the application in accordance with any
relevant national policy statement would lead to the
United Kingdom being in breach of any of its international
obligations;"
(5) deciding the application in accordance with any
relevant national policy statement would lead to the
Secretary of State being in breach of any duty imposed on
the Secretary of State by or under any enactment;
(6) deciding the application in accordance with any
relevant national policy statement would be unlawful by
virtue of any enactment;
(7) the adverse impact of the proposed development
would outweigh its benefits;
(8) any condition prescribed for deciding an application
otherwise than in accordance with a national policy
statement is met."
Under Section 114 the Secretary of State must either
grant or refuse the application and, by virtue of Section
116, give reasons for his decision. A legal challenge is
brought by way of judicial review within 6 weeks from the
date of the publication of the order or the statement of
reasons if that is later: Section 118.
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the 2009 Regulations)
came into force on the 1st October 2009. By virtue of
Regulation 3 an order granting development consent must
not be made by the Secretary of State unless he has first
taken the environmental information into consideration.
Under Regulation 4 development is EIA development if

there has been the adoption by the Secretary of State of a

screening opinion to that effect: regulation 4(2) (b).
Regulation 2 provides the following definitions,
" 'Environmental information' means the environmental
statement (or in the case of subsequent application, the
updated environmental statement) including any further
information, and other information any representations
made by anybody required by these Regulations to be
invited to make representations, and any representations
duly made by any other person about the environmental
effects of the development and of any associated
development;
'Environmental statement' means a statementa)
that includes such of the information referred to in
part 1 of schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess
the environmental effects of the development and of any
associated development and which the applicant can,
having regard in particular to the current knowledge and
methods of assessment, reasonably be required to
compile; but
b)
That includes at least the information referred to in
part 2 of schedule 4."
Regulation 24 is headed 'Development with significant
transboundary effects'. Because of its significance in this
case I have set it out in full. It reads,
"(1) This regulation applies where
(a) one of the events mentioned in regulation 4(2) occurs;
or
(b) it otherwise comes to the attention of the Secretary of
State that development proposed to be carried out in
England, Wales or Scotland is the subject of an EIA
application, and the Secretary of State is of the view that
the development is likely to have significant effects on the
environment in another EEA State; or
(c) another EEA State likely to be significantly affected by
such development so requests.
(2) Where this regulation applies, the Secretary of State
must
(a) send to the EEA State as soon as possible and no later
than their date of publication in The London Gazette
referred to in sub-paragraph (b), the particulars required
by paragraph (3) and, if it thinks fit, the information

referred to in paragraph (4);

(b) publish the information in sub-paragraph (a) in a notice
placed in
(i) the London Gazette, in relation to all proposed
development; and
(ii) the Edinburgh Gazette, in relation to development
proposed to be carried out in Scotland,
indicating the address where additional information is
available; and
(c) give the EEA State a reasonable time in which to
indicate whether it wishes to participate in the procedure
for which these Regulations provide.
(3) The particulars mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) are
(a) a description of the development, together with any
available information on its possible significant effect on
the environment in another EEA State; and
(b) information on the nature of the decision which may be
taken.
(4) Where an EEA State indicates, in accordance with
paragraph (2)(c), that it wishes to participate in the
procedure for which these Regulations provide, the
Secretary of State must as soon as possible send to that
EEA State the following information
(a) a copy of the application concerned;
(b) a copy of any environmental statement in respect of
the development to which that application relates; and
(c) relevant information regarding the procedure under
these Regulations,
but only to the extent that such information has not been
provided to the EEA State earlier in accordance with
paragraph (2)(a).
(5) The Commission must also ensure that the EEA State
concerned is given an opportunity, before development
consent for the development is granted, to forward to the
Secretary of State, within a reasonable time, the opinions
of its public and of the authorities referred to in Article
6(1) of the Directive on the information supplied.
(6) The Commission must in accordance with Article 7(4)
of the Directive
(a) enter into consultations with the EEA State concerned
regarding, inter alia, the potential significant effects of the
development on the environment of that EEA State and

the measures envisaged to reduce or eliminate such

effects; and
(b) determine in agreement with the other EEA State a
reasonable period of time for the duration of the
consultation period.
(7) Where an EEA State has been consulted in accordance
with paragraph (6), on the determination of the
application concerned the Secretary of State must inform
the EEA State of the decision and must forward to it a
statement of
(a)the content of the decision and any requirements
attached to it;
(b) the main reasons and considerations on which the
decision is based including relevant information about the
participation of the public; and
(c) a description, where necessary, of the main measures
to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse
effects of the development."
Development is EIA development if it is included within
schedule 1 to the regulations, which nuclear power
stations are by virtue of Regulation 2(b).
Schedule 4 sets out information for inclusion in
environmental statements. Part 1, where relevant, reads,
"17. Description of the development, including in
particular
(a)a description of the physical characteristics of the
whole development and the land-use requirements during
the construction and operational phases;
(b)a description of the main characteristics of the
production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of
the materials used;
(c)an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues
and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise,
vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the
operation of the proposed development.
19. A description of the aspects of the environment likely
to be significantly affected by the development, including,
in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air,
climatic factors, material assets, including the
architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and
the inter-relationship between the above factors.
20. A description of the likely significant effects of the

development on the environment, which should cover the

direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative,
short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary,
positive and negative effects of the development,
resulting from:
(a)the existence of the development;
(b)the use of natural resources;
(c)the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances
and the elimination of waste,
and the description by the applicant of the forecasting
methods used to assess the effects on the environment.
21. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent,
reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse
effects on the environment."
The 2009 Regulations give effect in English law to Council
Directive 85/337/EEC. The Directive has been amended to
take account of the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions. The
current Directive is 2011/92/EU which is a consolidating
Directive.
The relevant recitals of the Directive are as follows,
"(2) Pursuant to Article 191 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, Union policy on the
environment is based on the precautionary principle and
on the principles that preventive action should be taken,
that environmental damage should, as a priority, be
rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Effects
on the environment should be taken into account at the
earliest possible stage in all the technical planning and
decision-making processes.
(7) Development consent for public and private projects
which are likely to have significant effects on the
environment should be granted only after an assessment
of the likely significant environmental effects of those
projects has been carried out. That assessment should be
conducted on the basis of the appropriate information
supplied by the developer, which may be supplemented
by the authorities and by the public likely to be concerned
by the project in question.
(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant
effects on the environment and those projects should, as a
rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.
(15) It is desirable to lay down strengthened provisions

concerning environmental impact assessment in a

transboundary context to take account of developments at
international level. The European Community signed the
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context on 25 February 1991, and ratified
it on 24 June 1997.
(18) The European Community signed the UN/ECE
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation
in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental
Matters (the Aarhus Convention) on 25 June 1998 and
ratified it on 17 February 2005."
Article 2 has been described by the ECJ as containing the
fundamental objectives of the Directive: see Case C215/06 Commission v Ireland [2008] ECR 1-04911 at 49. It
reads,
"Article 2
1. Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to
ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to
have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter
alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a
requirement for development consent and an assessment
with regard to their effects. Those projects are defined in
Article 4.
2. The environmental impact assessment may be
integrated into the existing procedures for consent to
projects in the Member States, or, failing this, into other
procedures or into procedures to be established to comply
with the aims of this Directive.
3. Member States may provide for a single procedure in
order to fulfil the requirements of this Directive and the
requirements of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008
concerning integrated pollution prevention and control.
4. Without prejudice to Article 7, Member States may, in
exceptional cases, exempt a specific project in whole or in
part from the provisions laid down in this Directive.
In that event, the Member States shall:
(a) consider whether another form of assessment would
be appropriate;
(b) make available to the public concerned the information
obtained under other forms of assessment referred to in
point (a), the information relating to the decision granting

exemption and the reasons for granting it;

(c) inform the Commission, prior to granting consent, of
the reasons justifying the exemption granted, and provide
it with the information made available, where applicable,
to their own nationals.
The Commission shall immediately forward the documents
received to the other Member States.
The Commission shall report annually to the European
Parliament and to the Council on the application of this
paragraph."
Article 3 provides that subject to Article 2(4) projects listed
in Annex 1 are to be made subject to an assessment in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Nuclear power stations
and other nuclear reactors including the dismantling and
decommissioning of such power stations or reactors are
listed in Annex 1. A footnote explains that nuclear power
stations and other nuclear reactors cease to be such an
installation when all nuclear fuel and other radioactively
contaminated elements have been removed permanently
from the installation site.
Article 7 now reads,
"Article 7
1. Where a Member State is aware that a project is likely
to have significant effects on the environment in another
Member State or where a Member State likely to be
significantly affected so requests, the Member State in
whose territory the project is intended to be carried out
shall send to the affected Member State as soon as
possible and no later than when informing its own public,
inter alia:
(a) a description of the project, together with any available
information on its possible transboundary impact;
(b) information on the nature of the decision which may be
taken.
The Member State in whose territory the project is
intended to be carried out shall give the other Member
State a reasonable time in which to indicate whether it
wishes to participate in the environmental decisionmaking procedures referred to in Article 2(2), and may
include the information referred to in paragraph 2 of this
Article.
2. If a Member State which receives information pursuant

to paragraph 1 indicates that it intends to participate in

the environmental decision-making procedures referred to
in Article 2(2), the Member State in whose territory the
project is intended to be carried out shall, if it has not
already done so, send to the affected Member State the
information required to be given pursuant to Article 6(2)
and made available pursuant to points (a) and (b) of
Article 6(3).
3. The Member States concerned, each insofar as it is
concerned, shall also:
(a) arrange for the information referred to in paragraphs 1
and 2 to be made available, within a reasonable time, to
the authorities referred to in Article 6(1) and the public
concerned in the territory of the Member State likely to be
significantly affected; and
(b) ensure that the authorities referred to in Article 6(1)
and the public concerned are given an opportunity, before
development consent for the project is granted, to forward
their opinion within a reasonable time on the information
supplied to the competent authority in the Member State
in whose territory the project is intended to be carried
out."
Article 7.1 has been considered once by the CJEU and only
in relation to a project which straddled the border between
two countries. The issues raised are entirely different to
those which are raised here.
I turn now to deal with the issues raised by this
application.
The Submissions in Outline
The claimant describes the focus of the first complaint as,
"The particular focus of the complaint is the way in which
the Secretary of State says he dealt - in the screening
decision - with the potentially very severe impacts nuclear
accidents, which although agreed (thankfully) to be
unlikely, could have were they to happen." (Claimant's
skeleton [11])
The claimant contends that the approach of the Secretary
of State in deciding that consultation under Article 7 with
the people of Ireland was not required is flawed. That
raises the following issues,
a)
What is the correct approach to likelihood?

b)
What is the correct approach to assessment?
On likelihood, Mr Wolfe QC submits that transboundary
consultation is necessary if a significant transboundary
impact may occur (i.e. is possible) or if such impacts
cannot be excluded on a proper basis, in effect using a
worst case assessment. Accordingly, the defendant asked
himself the wrong question when it came to likelihood by
"scoping out" events that could have significant
transboundary impact.
The defendant and NNB submit that such an interpretation
is inconsistent with Article 7 of the Directive or of any
material provisions in either the Aarhus or the Espoo
Convention.
On the correct approach to assessment the claimant
submits that even if the defendant and NNB are right on
the approach to likelihood then that decision cannot rely
on incomplete information and assumed success of future
regulatory controls.
The defendant and NNB submit that planning decision
makers are entitled to rely on the proper operation of
other regulatory regimes and that, in the context of
nuclear safety, with the highly technical and highly
regulated regime consisting of a combination of expert
bodies it would be nonsensical for the defendant to have
to scrutinise, appraise and judge the past work of those
regulators and also not to be able to rely on their future
work. Further, the defendant submits that the regulation
by ONR penetrates the entire design so that it is
inseparable from the scheme which is being advanced. As
such, it is an integral part of the proposal and an actual
characteristic of the development itself. The problem
suggested by the claimant, therefore, does not arise.
In any event, provided the right test is applied by the
decision maker the proper approach to a challenge to
development consent is not a merits review but on
Wednesbury principles.
Ground One: The Meaning of Article 7 of the EIA Directive
and Regulation 24 of the 2009 Regulations
Likelihood: The Claimant's Case
The claimant carried out an extensive referencing exercise

to set the background to their submissions on "likely".

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in
Article 191 sets out that the union policy on the
environment shall aim at a high level of protection and be
based on the precautionary principle and on principles
that preventive action should be taken, that
environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at
the source. The approach to environmental policy was,
therefore, one to be based on precautionary preventive
principles. Further, international agreements concluded by
the union were binding on the institutions of the union and
on its member states: Article 216.
Domestic law was to be interpreted in the light of the
wording and purpose of a Directive: see Case C-106/89
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de
Alimentacion SA [1990] and Case C-62/00 Marks &
Spencers Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
The member state must ensure compliance with
international agreements entered into by the community
which form an integral part of the EU legal system. The
meaning of an agreement is EU law which the CJEU must
ensure is interpreted uniformly: see Case 104/81
Hauptzollamt Mainz v Ca Kuferberg and CIE [1982] ECR
3641. Further, preference should be given to the meaning
which accords with an international treaty which prevails
over EU secondary legislation: see Case C-61/94
Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989. The general
rule was that an EU Directive should be interpreted in a
manner that is consistent with the international
agreements concluded by the EU: Case C-341/95 Bettati v
Safety High Tech and R (Edwards and Another) v
Environment Agency and Others No 2 [2011] 1 WLR 79 at
paragraph 25.
The Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 12: Development
with Significant Transboundary Impacts consultation
recognised that the Espoo Convention had been
implemented by the EIA Directive and transposed into UK
law specifically under Regulation 24. It recognised in
relation to screening that,
"In reaching a view the precautionary approach will be
applied and following the court's reasoning in the
Waddenzee case such that "likely to have significant

effects" will be taken as meaning there is a probability or

risk that the development will have an effect, and not that
a development will definitely have an effect.
To determine the likelihood of significant effects the
Secretary of State will require certain information. This will
enable screening of the proposed development as to the
likelihood of such significant effects. A screening matrix
will be used to assist the determination of the
environmental significance of activities.
As a rule of thumb (taking the precautionary approach)
unless there is compelling evidence to suggest otherwise,
it is likely that the Planning Inspectorate may consider the
following NSIPs as likely to have significant transboundary
impacts:
nuclear power stations."
Guidance on the Application of Environmental Impact
Assessment Procedure for Large Scale Transboundary
Projects published by the EU required notification by the
party of origin of projects listed in appendix 1 and likely to
cause a significant adverse transboundary impact. The
document recites the Espoo Convention's primary aim to
"prevent, reduce and control significant adverse
transboundary environmental impact from proposed
activities" but continues that the party of origin is obliged
to notify affected parties even if there is only a low
likelihood of such an impact. That means that notification
is always necessary unless significant transboundary
impact can be excluded with certainty.
In the Espoo Convention itself Article 1 defines impact as
meaning,
"Any effect caused by a proposed activity on the
environment including human health and safety, flora,
fauna, soil, air, water, climate, landscape and historical
monuments or other physical structures or the interaction
amongst these factors; it also includes effects on cultural
heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from
alteration to those factors."
Article 2 sets out general provisions and provides,
"2.1 The parties shall either individually or jointly, take all
appropriate effective measures to prevent, reduce and
control significant adverse transboundary environmental
impact from proposed activities.

2.2 Each party shall take the necessary legal,

administrative or other measures to implement the
provisions of this convention, including, with respect to
proposed activities listed in appendix 1 that are likely to
cause significant adverse transboundary impact, the
establishment of an environmental impact assessment
procedure that permits public participation and
preparation of environmental impact assessment
documentation described in appendix 2."
Article 3 deals with notification. It provides that for a
proposed activity listed in appendix 1 that is likely to
cause a significant adverse transboundary effect the party
of origin shall notify any party which it considers may be
an affected party as early as possible and no later than
when informing its own public about the proposed activity.
The notification is to contain information on the proposed
activity including any available information on its possible
transboundary impact. If the parties cannot agree then the
question of whether there is likely to be a significant
adverse transboundary impact may be submitted to an
inquiry commission to advise on that likelihood.
Article 11 provides for a meeting of the parties to keep
under continuous review the implementation of the
convention. If there are disputes between two or more
parties about the interpretation or application of the
convention then, if not settled by negotiation or some
other method of dispute settlement, they can be referred
to the International Court of Justice or arbitration by virtue
of Article 15. Article 20 provides that the authentic texts of
the Convention are English, French and Russian.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides in
Article 31 that any subsequent agreement between the
parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or any
subsequent practice which establishes the agreement of
the parties about the interpretation of the treaty shall be
taken into account.
Meetings of the parties under the Espoo Convention have
taken place. At the fourth meeting of the parties in 2008 it
was recorded that the Implementation Committee were of
the view that "even a low likelihood of such an impact
should trigger the obligation to notify affected parties in
accordance with Article 3 this means that notification is

necessary unless a significant adverse transboundary

impact can be excluded."
The Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters under Article 6 headed Public
Participation in Decisions on Specific Activities reads in
Article 6.1(b),
"Each Party
Shall, in accordance with its national law, also apply the
provisions of this Article to decisions on proposed
activities not listed in annex 1 which may have a
significant effect on the environment"
Annex 1 includes nuclear power stations and other nuclear
reactors.
The claimant then referred to the EIA Directive which I
have set out above.
The case of Kraaijeveld BV and others v Gedeputeerde
Staten Van Zuid-Holland Case C-72-95 [1996] ECR I-4355
was relied upon as providing a parallel to the current
position as in that case the Dutch court relied on the
Dutch text and argued that the Dutch version of the
Directive was the only authentic language version. The
court held that different language versions were to be
looked at and the divergence to be resolved by reference
to the purpose and general scheme of the Directive.
In World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Others v Autonome
Provinz Bozen and Others Case C-437/97 [1999] ECR I5613 the court held that the criteria and/or thresholds
mentioned in Article 42 of the Directive were designed to
facilitate examination of the "actual characteristics" of any
given project. Although dealing with legislative exemption,
no project was to be excluded other than on the basis of a
comprehensive assessment. A future study to be carried
out for the purposes of environmental impact assessment
could not be relied upon. The project needed to be
precisely assessed on the date of any proposed
exemption.
That approach was confirmed in relation to the consent
procedure in the case of R(on the application of Delena
Wells) v Secretary of State for Transport the Local
Government and the Regions Case C-201/02 [2004] ECR I-

723 at [52]. The approach for comprehensive assessment

was confirmed further in the case of Commission v Italy
Case C-87/02 [2004] ECR I-4911at [44]. Paragraph 49 of
the judgement made it clear that the screening decision
should be accompanied by all information that makes it
possible for the court to check that it is based on adequate
screening.
The case of Waddenzee Case C-127/02 [2004] ECR I-7405
referred to in Advice Note 12 (supra) whilst dealing with
the issue of the Habitats Directive and the requirement for
an appropriate assessment was highly relevant. The
Advocate General concluded that an appropriate
assessment is always necessary where reasonable doubt
exists as to the absence of significant adverse effects [74].
The judgement of the court was that the triggering of the
environmental protection mechanism was as a result of a
mere probability or risk that such an effect attaches to the
plan or project. Accordingly, a negative opinion can only
be advanced if a risk has been excluded on the basis of
objective information.
In the Commission v Ireland [2008] ECR I-4911 the court
said,
"Nothing precludes Ireland's choice to entrust the
attainment of that Directive's aims (Direction 85/337) to
two different authorities, namely the planning authorities
on the one hand and the agency on the other, that is
subject to those authorities respective powers and the
rules governing their implementation and ensuring that an
environmental impact assessment is carried out fully and
in good time, that is to say before the giving of consent,
within the meaning of that Directive."
The claimant submits that supports its submissions that
the vice in the ONR process is because it is ongoing. The
judgment continues that the agency responsible for
licensing a project with regard to pollution aspects may
make its decision without an environmental impact
assessment which creates a gap.
The case of Solvay and Others v Rgion Wallonne Case C182/10 confirmed the approach of WWF v Bozen (supra) in
cases which involve the Aarhus Convention. At the time of
the decision authorising implementation of the project
there must be no reasonable scientific doubt as to the

absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site in

question.
Peter Sweetman, Ireland v An Bord Pleanla Case C258/11 concerned the Habitats Directive. The Advocate
General's opinion was that the threshold for assessment at
Article 6(3) is very low. The court pointed out that the
assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive cannot have lacuna and must contain complete,
precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of
removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effect of
the works proposed on the protected site concerned It
was for the national court to establish whether the
assessment of the implications for the site met those
requirements.
On domestic jurisprudence the claimant submits that the
decision maker must take reasonable steps to acquaint
himself with the right information relying on Secretary of
State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan
Borough Council [1977] AC 1014. That is relevant here, as
the defendant has not evaluated transboundary impact of
accidents and other unplanned events.
The claimant then proceeds to review domestic
jurisprudence relating to the EIA Directive and/or the
similarly worded Habitats Directive. The cases establish, it
is submitted, the following propositions;
The fact that had the EIA Directive been followed it
would not have affected the decision is no basis for not
quashing the decision. A directly enforceable right of the
citizen is not just a right to fully inform the decision on the
substantive issue but a requirement that the decision was
reached on the appropriate basis which required the
inclusive and democratic procedure prescribed by the
Directive in which the public, however misguided or
wrongheaded in its views may be, is given an opportunity
to express its opinion on environmental issues: Berkeley v
Secretary of State for Environment [2001] 2 AC 603.
It is not appropriate for a person making a screening
opinion to start from the premise that although there may
be significant impacts they can be reduced to
insignificance as a result of the implementation of
conditions of various kinds: R(on the application on Lebus)

v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2003] ENV LR 17

[46].
In deciding whether an EIA was necessary in a
screening direction the Secretary of State was not obliged
to ignore the remedial measures submitted as part of the
planning proposal: Gillespie v First Secretary of State
[2003] 3 PLR 20.
Whether a proposed development is likely to have
significant effects on the environment involves an exercise
of judgment or opinion. It is not a question of hard fact
which there can only be one possible correct answer in
any given case. The role of the court should be limited to
one of review on Wednesbury grounds: R (on the
application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2004] 2
P&CR 233.
Since Waddenzee, applying the precautionary
principle, significant harm to an SPA is likely for the
purposes of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive if risk of it
occurring cannot be excluded on the basis of objective
information: R (on the application of Hart DC) v Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] 2
P&CR 16.
"Likely to have significant effects on the environment"
is a phrase that has to be construed as a whole as well
as any inevitable environmental consequences that will
flow from a development, the phrase requires
consideration of future environmental hazards or risks.
That, in turn, requires consideration of both the chance of
an effect occurring and also the consequences if it were to
occur: R (on the application of Miller) v North Yorkshire
County Council [2009] EWHC 2172.
"Likely" connotes real risk and not probability: R
(Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2010] PTSR
.Something more than a bare possibility is probably
required, though serious possibility would suffice: R (on
the application of Bateman) v South Cambridgeshire
District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 157.

 The decision on a screening opinion is a matter of

judgment: R (on the application of Loader) v Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government and Others
[2012] 3 CMLR 29, R (on the application of Evans) v
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
[2013] EWCA Civ 114 although the claimant makes a point
that the decision does depend on information available;
A screening opinion that the impacts "should be
controllable" was contrary to the underlying purpose of
the regulation: R( on the application of Birch) v Barnsley
NBC [2011] Env LR 15.
Discussion and conclusions
The meaning of "likely"
It is common ground that in the ordinary course of its
operation there is no prospect of HPC being "likely to have
significant effects on the environment" of another EEA
state. The claimant's case is premised on the basis of a
severe accident occurring. Because the effect of such an
event will be significant the claimant submits that a broad
interpretation should be given to the word "likely" in
Article 7 of the Directive and in Regulation 24.
The defendant submits that the odd consequence of the
claimant's position is that it would mean that "likely"
equals "cannot be excluded" or, in other words, means
unlikely. Further, in considering whether the prospect of
unplanned releases can be excluded one would need to
exclude the role of the statutory regulators. As a matter of
law they are there to exclude accidents. The claimant
submits that is the consequence of applying the Directive
and European jurisprudence.
In my judgement the claimant's approach is not consistent
with the scheme or language of the Directive or the 2009
Regulations. Regulation 24 applies when the Secretary of
State is of the view that the development is "likely to have
significant effects" on the environment of another EEA
state. That wording is materially the same as Article 7 of
the Directive. That raises the question as to whether there

is any linguistic divergence that requires one to look at the

different language versions at all. I deal with that
argument below. What is clear is that Article 7, in the
material part, is identical in its wording to Article 2 in
considering projects "likely to have significant effects" on
the environment.
Starting with Directive 2011/92/EU the word "likely"
appears in recital 7, Article 1, Article 2 and Article 5 as
well as Article 7. In addition, it appears in Annex 4 which
sets out the information required as part of an EIA. There
the wording is,
"3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely
to be significantly affected by the proposed project,
including in particular population, fauna, flora, soil, water,
air, climatic factors, material assets including the
architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and
the interrelationship between the above factors.
4. A description of the likely significant effects of the
proposed project on the environment resulting from;
a) the existence of the project;
b) the use of natural resources;
c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances
and the elimination of waste."
Using the claimant's interpretation would mean that, in
this case, Irish citizens would get the right to be consulted
but would then receive a document or documents
describing "likely significant effects" that would be unlikely
to affect them. That is because the claimant's case is that
any effect that cannot be ruled out must be regarded as
"likely". In my judgement, such an approach is highly
artificial and runs contrary to the plain language used in
both the Directive and the 2009 Regulations. In each case
when it is used the word acts as a trigger for
environmental assessment.
As Commission v Ireland makes clear [49],
"Member States must implement Directive 85/337, as
amended, in a manner which fully corresponds to its
requirements, having regard to its fundamental objective
which, as is clear from Article 2(1), is that before
development consent is given projects likely to have
significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia,
of their nature, size or location should be made subject to

a requirement for development consent and an

assessment with regard to their effect."
The fundamental objective described must reflect the
scope and purpose of the Directive which is to ensure that
prior to any development consent being granted in cases
where the application is likely to have a significant effect
on the environment the application is properly assessed.
The provisions are designed and have been amended
(post Espoo and Aarhus) to provide the opportunity for the
public to be engaged and participate in environmental
decision-making.
The claimant contends that what is "likely" is easily
identifiable and is to be taken from the approach to Article
6 of the Habitats Directive as exemplified in the case of
Waddenzee. That means that if a risk of significant effect
exists that cannot be excluded that is sufficient to trigger
the requirements under Article 7.
It has to be recalled that the purpose of the screening
direction under the Habitats Directive is to invoke a
substantive process and not a procedural one as in the EIA
Directive. Further, Article 6 is highly targeted in looking to
protect special areas of conservation (SAC). Article 6(2)
injuncts member states to take appropriate steps to avoid
the deterioration of habitats as well as disturbance of
species for which the areas have been designated. Article
6(3) permits development to proceed, but only after an
appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or
project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site
concerned. That is why a "no risk" approach is adopted.
That leads to a difficulty in a simple reading over of the
judgments in the Habitats Directive cases of Waddenzee,
Solvay and Sweetman to those under the EIA Directive.
They are all cases concerned to make decisions on the
basis of the most complete, precise and definitive findings
and conclusions capable of removing all scientific doubt as
to the effect of the proposed works on the protected site
concerned. That is a different approach to that which is
required under the EIA Directive which is looking at the
likely significant effects on the environment. One imposes
a site-specific test whilst the other is a broader approach.
Further, the claimant's argument is akin to that which was
made in Evans, namely, that a positive screening decision

is required unless it can properly be said that there is no

reasonable doubt about the potential for significant
environmental effects. In that case it was argued that
because of differing views on the part of the various
interest groups there had to be reasonable doubt about
environmental impact. That was rejected on the basis that
the reference to reasonable doubt was to that on the part
of the primary decision maker. Beatson LJ found that there
was no support in the Waddenzee case for the view that
where somebody else had taken a different view to the
primary decision maker that it was not possible to
demonstrate there is no reasonable doubt: [27].
The phrase "likely significant effects on the environment"
has been considered by the Court of Appeal on various
occasions. In Article 2 the Court of Appeal has held that
"likely" is (i) more than a bare possibility: Bateman [17],
(ii) a real risk: Morge [80], and (iii) that a real risk
embodies the precautionary approach: Evans [21]. The
word "likely" was considered in a different environmental
context (the Habitats Directive) by Sullivan J (as he then
was) in Hart. He said there [78],
"To an English lawyer, a need to establish a likelihood
imposes a more onerous burden than a need to establish a
risk. The concept of a 'standard of proof' is of little if any
assistance in environmental cases, but the nearest
analogy would be the difference between the balance of
probability more likely than not and the real risk standards
of proof."
What is clear is that whilst the cases have not considered
Article 7, given the similarity in wording between Articles 2
and 7, there is no basis for interpreting Article 7 in a
different way to that in which Article 2 has been
understood. The starting point should be to interpret the
Directive as a whole to give it consistent effect and enable
it to work as a whole. Applying that approach gives the
Directive a sensible and comprehensible meaning.
To interpret Article 7 in a discrete way would be to have a
scheme under the EIA Directive which worked
inconsistently. The claimant's contention would mean, if
"likely" was to be construed consistently throughout the
Directive in accordance with Mr Wolfe's submission, a
change in the well established EIA process. That is

because the claimant's approach would not be limited to

development with transboundary effects such as
accidents. Its interpretation of 'likely' would have to apply
to other aspects of the environment such as fauna, flora,
landscape, air and all the other factors. There are,
therefore, significant ramifications if the claimant's
contention is correct. As Beatson LJ said in the case of
Bateman at [19],
"The main difficulty I have with this part of Mr Drabble's
argument is that, if his submissions are both correct, an
EIA would be required in virtually all cases in which a
development might possibly have some effect on the
environment, which does not seem to me to be what the
directive intended."
For exactly that reason I have the same reservations about
this part of the claimant's argument. The claimant's
interpretation would bring about an approach to the EIA
Directive which is not what was intended. As Pill LJ said in
Loader at [46] ,
"The proposed test does not accord with the overall
purpose and tenor of the procedure initiated by the
Directive. A formal and substantial procedure is
contemplated, potentially involving considerable time and
resources. It is contemplated for a limited range of
schedule 2 projects, those which are likely to have
significant effects on the environment. To require it to be
followed in all cases where the effect would influence the
development consent decision would devalue the entire
concept."
Linguistic Divergence
The claimant contends that there is a linguistic divergence
between the various versions and, therefore, relies on
other language versions of Article 7(1) of the EIA Directive
to assist its interpretation. In that context the claimant
relies upon the case of Kraaijeveldt (supra). In my
judgment, that does not assist the claimant. That deals
with the situation where there is divergence and one must
go to the purpose and general scheme of the Directive
giving it a wide scope and a broad purpose.
Here, however, there is no significant doubt on the terms
used in the different language translations. Just because

the language used in other language versions is capable

of being translated into English in words which are
marginally different from those used by parliament does
not mean that the English language version of Article 7 is
any way defective. Each language version of a Directive is
considered to be authentic and authoritative. That applies
as much to the English language version as to any other
language version of it. The question is whether, when
legislating, parliament used words most naturally
appropriate to convey the meaning that it intended? In my
judgement it did. Further, if "likely" is understood
consistently with the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal
as connoting the idea of "real risk" or "serious possibility",
there is no divergence in language between the various
versions. There is no need, therefore, to go to the different
language versions of the Directive.
The role of the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions
The claimant argues that the wording of the Aarhus
Convention and the Espoo Convention support its
submissions. I do not agree. As set out, the consolidating
Directive takes into account both Conventions.
The Aarhus provision referred to by the claimant, namely
Article 6(4) is a general provision about the conduct and
timing of public consultation. It says nothing about
circumstances in which an obligation to consult arises and
does not deal with when cross boundary considerations
are material. It does not help on what the correct meaning
of 'likely' in the Directive is. Even when Article 7 of the EIA
Directive applies the member state of origin is required to
provide information to the other state and take account of
representations made by it. The obligation to consult the
public, if it arises, is upon the second or receiving member
state. The conduct and timing of that consultation exercise
is unaffected.
Article 3 of the Espoo Convention contains language which
is materially the same as the language in the EIA
Directive. It talks about notifying any proposed activity to
another state party when, " a proposed activity is
likely to cause a significant and adverse transboundary
impact" There is, therefore, no material difference
between Article 3 of the Espoo convention, Article 7 of the

EIA Directive and Regulation 24 of EIA Regulations.

Meetings under the Espoo Convention
The claimant relies upon a decision of the Espoo
Convention Implementation Committee to provide a
meaning under that Convention which can then be read
across into the EIA Directive. Article 3(7) of the Convention
permits, but does not require, parties to the Convention to
submit disputes on the application of the provisions of the
convention to an inquiry commission. However, the
Convention does not provide either that the decisions of
the inquiry commission are binding or that such decisions
represent an authoritative interpretation on the meaning
of the convention. Annex (IV) of the decision (III/4)
contains paragraph 28 which reads.
"It may advisable to notify neighbouring Parties also of
activities that appear to have a low likelihood of significant
transboundary impacts. It is better to inform potentially
affected Parties and let them decide on their participation
instead of taking the risk of ending up in an embarrassing
situation in which other Parties demand information on
activities that have already progressed past the EIA
phase."
That decision is footnoted in the guidance on the
application of environmental impact assessment
procedures for large-scale transboundary projects.
It is referred to also in decision (IV/2) in annex 1 dealing
with the Implementation Committee's findings and
recommendations further to the submission by Romania
regarding Ukraine's compliance with its obligations under
the Convention with respect to the Danube Black Sea deep
water navigation canal. Paragraph 54 reads,
"Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention stipulates that
parties shall notify any party of a proposed activity listed
in appendix 1 that is likely to cause a significant adverse
transboundary impact. The committee is of the opinion
that, whilst the Convention's primary aim, as stipulated in
Article 2, paragraph 1, is to "prevent reduce and control
significant adverse transboundary environmental impact
from proposed activity", even a low likelihood of such
impact should trigger the obligation to notify effective
parties in accordance with Article 3. This would be in

accordance with the guidance on the practicable

applications of the Espoo Convention, paragraph 28, as
endorsed by decision III/iv this means that notification is
necessary unless a significant adverse transboundary
impact can be excluded."
In my judgment the meeting was not purporting to
determine the legal position. What the meeting is doing is
setting out a pragmatic approach for parties to the
Convention to follow. The committee has no status to give
a legal ruling.
Article 11 of the Espoo Convention deals with Meetings of
the Parties. Paragraph 2 sets out that the parties shall
keep under continuous review the implementation of the
Convention and then prescribes what can be done. It
reads, in part,
"(e) Consider and, where necessary, adopt proposals for
amendments to this convention."
Although the meeting can propose amendments the
Conventions there is nothing which gives the meeting the
power to make a definitive ruling on what the Convention
means.
The Implementation Committee was established at the
second meeting of the parties in 2001. Its structure and
functions are set out in annex ii to the third meeting of the
parties in 2004. It reads,
"Objective and functions of the Committee
4. The objective of the Committee shall be to assist Parties
to comply fully with their obligations under the
Convention, and to this end it shall:
(a) Consider any submission made in accordance with
paragraph 5 below or any other possible non-compliance
by a Party with its obligations that the Committee decides
to consider in accordance with paragraph 6, with a view to
securing a constructive solution;
(b) Review periodically, in accordance with guidelines or
criteria formulated by the Meeting of the Parties,
compliance by the Parties with their obligations under the
Convention on the basis of the information provided in
their reports;
(c) Prepare the reports referred to in paragraph 11 with a
view to providing any appropriate assistance to the Party
or Parties concerned, for example by clarifying and

assisting in the resolution of questions; providing advice

and recommendations relating to procedural, technical or
administrative matters; and providing advice on the
compilation and communication of information; and
(d) Prepare, at the request of the Meeting of the Parties,
and based on relevant experience acquired in the
performance of its functions under subparagraphs (a), (b)
and (c) above, a report on compliance with or
implementation of specified obligations in the provisions
of the Convention."
It is clear from that that there is nothing to suggest that
the committee has a normative function.
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention sets out general rules
of interpretation. Paragraph one is to the effect that a
treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with
the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the
treaty and their context in the light of its object and
purpose. Paragraph 2(a) reads,
"The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a
treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its
preamble and annexes:
Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made
between all the parties in connection with the conclusion
of the treaty"
As Article 11 of the Espoo Convention contains nothing to
indicate that a meeting of the parties is able to give an
authoritative meaning to the wording of the Convention
there can be no normative force to the decision of the
meeting.
The claimant's case is thus dependant upon the meaning
and effect of paragraph 54 of the Implementation
Committee's findings and recommendations further to a
submission by Romania regarding Ukraine. The position is
directly analogous to that which was raised in the case of
Solvay when the question was whether Articles 2(2) and
9(4) of the Aarhus convention had to be interpreted in
accordance with the guidance in the Aarhus Convention
implementation guide. The aim of the guide was to
provide an analysis of the Aarhus Convention which
introduced the reader to the convention and to what it can
mean in practice. Whilst the guide could be regarded as
an explanatory document, being capable of being taken

into consideration as appropriate amongst other relevant

material for the purpose of interpreting the Convention,
the observations in the guide were held to have no binding
force and did not have the normative effect of the
provisions of the Aarhus convention. That is exactly what
the position would be here if reliance were placed upon
the meetings held under the Espoo Convention.
Other matters
As to the published guidance on the application of the
environmental impact assessment procedure for largescale transboundary projects by the European Commission
that is only guidance. As the disclaimer at the front of the
document sets out the definitive interpretation of Union
law is the sole prerogative of the European Court.
The same point can be made about the reliance placed on
Advice Note 12 published by the IPC. It is only guidance. If
it is saying that Waddenzee has to be followed then it is in
error. If, on the other hand, it is saying that the effect of
the development is to be gauged by when there is more
than a bare possibility of an effect then that is entirely
consistent with the cases of Bateman, Morge, and Evans.
Conclusion
It follows that for all of the reasons set out above the
claimant's submission as to the meaning of Article 7 in the
Directive and regulation 24 in the Regulations is rejected.
Ground Two: Did the Defendant fail to comply with
Regulation 24/Article 7? What approach should the court
take to its consideration?
The claimant submits that although the environmental
statement included appendix 7E headed 'Assessment of
transboundary impacts' the contents of it were inadequate
to discharge the burden that had to be satisfied. It was
incomplete and imprecise as an assessment.
The screening opinion conducted by PINS dated 11th April
2012 under Regulation 24 of the 2009 Regulations
suffered from similar significant deficiencies. In
considering appendix 7E to the ES the screening opinion
concluded,
"Potential transboundary effects are identified as air

quality, marine water quality, marine ecology and

radiological impacts. Air quality impacts are assessed in
Volume 2 Chapter 12 of the ES: marine water quality and
ecology are assessed in Chapters 18 and 19 and
radiological effects are assessed at chapter 21. Potential
impacts identified are assessed as not extending beyond
the county of Somerset and the Severn Estuary. Any
residual effects on human beings and sensitive ecological
species/habitats would also be minimised and/or
controlled through the imposition of appropriate licensing
and monitoring conditions by the regulatory agencies. On
the basis that licensing and monitoring conditions are
effective, impacts will not be significant."
In terms of magnitude the opinion concluded,
"The magnitude of effects are controlled through the
design measures built into the development, the delivery
of mitigation measures, effective control by the relevant
regulatory bodies, conditions and monitoring, no
significant impacts on other EEA states are anticipated."
On probability it concluded,
"The probability of a radiological impact is considered to
be low on the basis of the regulatory regimes in place.
There could be direct impacts related to the discharge of
water during normal operational conditions. However the
discharge of water is expected to be controlled by
appropriate licensing conditions and regular monitoring,
and hence the probability of any adverse impacts is likely
to be low. The Developer has indicated that information is
included in the Government's submission to the European
Commission under Article 37 of the Euratom treaty to
show that transboundary impacts from accidents during
operation or decommissioning will be solo as to be exempt
from regulatory control."
As a result the claimant submits that the screening opinion
was entirely premised on future regulatory control. As
such, it was not based on the actual characteristics of the
project, it was not based on a comprehensive assessment
of its potential transboundary impacts, the impact could
not be assessed precisely in a definitive manner based on
information available at that time, PINS could not exclude
doubt as to the absence of significant effects and their

conclusion was not based on its independent judgment.

Those were matters which the court had to consider.
The reference to the Article 37 submission was misleading
as all there was was an awareness of its existence but
nothing further by way of information that could allow it to
be checked. In any event PINS expressed no view on the
potential transboundary impact if an accident or
unplanned release was to happen. As a result they did not
apply the Article 7 test as they should.
The Development Consent issued on the 19th March 2013
noted the Euratom Opinion but the Secretary of State did
not form a judgment upon it as he was obliged to do. The
decision relied upon an assumption that the future
regulatory processes would deal with the risks involved. It
contained a mis- direction as to likelihood as evidenced in
paragraph 6.6.2(iii) in scoping out accidents and did not
involve the Secretary of State making a decision on the
screening question under Article 7.
On the UK regulatory regime it is evident, as ONR
themselves acknowledge in the project assessment report
of the 31st October 2012, that there is no relationship in
law between the DCO and licensing. Their scope is to deal
with the organisation, the site, the safety report and the
licence condition compliance arrangements. Their report
recognised,
"that not all resources, arrangements and safety reports to
support construction and operation will be in place at the
point of licensing and that NNB Gen Co will continue to
develop its arrangements as the corporate and site-based
organisations evolve towards those required for full
operation. The key consideration for ONR is that, at the
point of licensing, the licence is in control of all activities
that have the potential to effect nuclear safety, and has
adequate arrangements in place to provide confidence
that this will continue to be the case."
On the safety report it was evident that post licensing,
substantial further analysis work will be necessary in
several technical areas to justify permissioning of nuclear
safety related construction. The severe accident analysis
assessment which contributed to the assessment report
noted that NNB Gen Co's severe accident lead engineer is
actively engaged with the proposed design changes

arising from lessons learnt from the Fukushima incident.

In the HPC fault studies and severe accident analysis topic
report for licensing it was evident that work was still
ongoing as it is also in the report on external hazards
assessment dated the 14th December 2012. That report
considered only external hazards from the point of view of
their definition of severity, frequency and other
characteristics that define their effect on nuclear safety.
They were considered in terms of the way they are
analysed to develop a basis for plant design. More detailed
assessment would need to be undertaken. The sitespecific preconstruction safety report was recorded as
developing.
The claimant submits that all demonstrates that whilst
ONR is doing its job the regulatory regime is still very open
with lots of design changes including consideration of
fault, accident and safety matters to a degree which
leaves it too uncertain for the requirements of Article 7.
On the Euratom opinion the general data was compiled by
NNB Gen Co and seen by the relevant UK regulators
before being provided by the UK government to the
Commission. The letter from the Treasury Solicitor, dated
18th October 2013, makes it clear that the Secretary of
State did not go behind the findings of the Commission
under Article 37, by considering information underlying
the Article 37 general data and it was not necessary for
him to do so. That means, submits the claimant, that the
assumptions which underpinned the submission and
opinion are by no means complete and certainly not a
worst case. They were, in any event, given in early 2012
considerably before the December 2012 ONR decisions
which have the flaws set out above. In any event the
principles which underlie the EIA assessment are not those
which underlie the Euratom provisions.
Finally, the claimant submits that impact includes effects
on socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to
environmental factors. The case of Leth v Republik
Osterreich and Another [2013] 3 CMLR 2 makes it clear
that the EIA process is concerned with direct economic
consequences of effects on the environment. It does not
have to be a significant effect. Where there is damage
which is of direct economic consequence of the

environmental effects of a public or private project that is

covered by the object of protection pursued by Direction
85/337: paragraph 36. In that regard the claimant relies
upon the report of RPII which concludes that in the event
of the most severe accident scenario of 1 in 33 million
chances in any given year there would be significant
socio-economic implications and costs, possibly lasting for
months or years following such an accident.
Accordingly the development consent was granted without
the compliance with the requirements of Article 7 and
cannot stand.
The standard of review
The approach of the court was considered in the case of R
(Jones) v Mansfield District Council. Dyson LJ (with whom
Laws and Carnwath LJJ) agreed, said at paragraph 17,
"Whether a proposed development is likely to have
significant effects on the environment involves an exercise
of judgment or opinion. It is not a question of hard fact to
which there can only be one possible correct answer in
any given case. The use of the word "opinion" in
regulation 2(2) is, therefore, entirely apt. In my view, that
is in itself a sufficient reason for concluding that the role of
the court should be limited to one of review on
Wednesbury grounds."
It follows that the approach of the court should be one of
Wednesbury review.
Considering the approach to future events and their
consequences in the case of Miller Hickinbottom J at
paragraph 31, said,
"In the context of the EIA Directive and Regulations, "likely
to have significant effects on the environment" is a phrase
that has to be construed as a whole: and I respectfully
agree with Dyson LJ in Jones that, rather than a hardedged question of fact, it involves a question of planning
judgment and opinion such that, in any set of
circumstances, there is a range of valid answers. For a
development to be likely to have significant environmental
effects, it is certainly not necessary for it to be more likely
than not that the development will have particular
environmental consequences. For example, if a
development has the potential for an environmental

catastrophe, before the relevant provisions are brought

into play it does not have to be more probable than not
that such an event will occur in the future. As well as any
inevitable environmental consequences that will flow from
a development, the phrase requires consideration of
future environmental hazards or risks. That in turn
requires consideration of both the chance of an effect
occurring, and also the consequences if it were to occur."
I agree with the approach of Hickinbottom J but note that
he did not have to consider, in looking at future
environmental hazards or risks, the role of the relevant
regulator and its relationship with the development
consent decision maker.
The basis of the Secretary of State Decision
Dealing with the documents which have considered the
likelihood of accidents the first in time was the White
Paper on nuclear power published in January 2008. Within
that, the government made it clear that it continued to
believe that "new nuclear power stations would pose very
small risks to safety, security, health and proliferation. We
also believe that the UK has an effective regulatory
framework that ensures that these risks are minimised
and sensibly managed by industry." It recognised also that
regulatory assessment required all foreseeable threats,
including aircraft crash to be considered: paragraph 2.96.
In the appraisal of sustainability the draft NPS EN6 it said,
"The construction of new nuclear power stations, in line
with the revised draft NPS, is not likely to have any
significant transboundary effects. The appraisal of
sustainability of identified the possibility of transboundary
effects in the event of a significant unintended release of
radioactive emissions e.g. as a result of an accident. The
appraisal of sustainability has been informed by the views
that both the environment agency and the nuclear
installations inspectorate, who advise that due to the
robustness of the regulatory regime, there is a very low
probability of unintended release of radiation. This is
based on expert judgment and experience supported in
the case of the new nuclear power reactor designs by the
regulators' findings so far from Generic Design
Assessments."

In the reasons for the making of the Justification Decision

(Generation of Electricity by an EPR Nuclear Reactor)
Regulations 2010 the Secretary of State said, at paragraph
6.209,
"Extensive safety precautions are taken in order to protect
those that work in nuclear power stations and members of
the public from the health detriments arising from these
by-products. The EPR has been designed to prevent the
unplanned release of radioactivity during normal
operations and in the event of an accident, both through a
system of protective barriers and through a system of
defences to protect these barriers from failure. In addition
to these inherent safety features, any EPR that is built in
the UK will be subject to the regulatory regime in place.
This is internationally recognised as being mature
transparent with highly trained and experienced
inspectors."
In appendix 7E of the environmental statement the
screening matrix it says,
"Our assessment is that transboundary impact from
accidents during operation or decommissioning will be so
low that according to UN IAEA guidelines the time and
effort to exercise control by a regulatory process may not
be warranted, i.e. they are effectively so low as to be
exempt from regulatory control. This information is
included in the Government's submission to the European
Commission under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty."
NPS EN-6 published in July 2011 set out at paragraph 1.7.4
that,
"Significant transboundary effects arising from the
construction of new nuclear power stations are not
considered likely. Due to the robustness of the regulatory
regime there is a very low probability of an unintended
release of radiation, and routine radioactive discharges
will be within legally authorised limits."
The severe accident analysis for the GDA process
considered that,
"A severe accident is considered highly unlikely accident
situations with core melt are practically eliminated low
pressure core melt sequences necessitate protective
measures for the public which are very limited in both
area and time. The safety approach for EPR reactors is

deterministic, complimented by probabilistic analyses,

based on the concept of defence in depth. Within this
framework, a number of design provisions are made to
preserve the integrity of the containment in severe
accidents and hence reduce the accident consequences."
The EU Commission decision under Article 37 of the
Euratom Treaty was reached after receipt not only of the
general data but written and oral contribution from
experts.
The same conclusion was reached in the PINS screening
exercise in April 2012.
In November 2012 the preconstruction safety case for EPR
considered whether, as part of the GDA process, the
design was fit for purpose. It considered protection from
earthquakes, aircraft crash, external explosion, external
flooding, extreme climatic conditions and lighting and
electromagnetic interference.
The supplementary report which addressed the
outstanding 31 GDA issues was accepted by ONR in their
letter of the 13th December 2012 with the issue of final
design acceptance confirmation. That meant that ONR was
fully content with both the security and safety aspects of
the generic design.
On the same day the EA issues a statement of design
acceptability. That included work prior to its issue to take
into account issues arising from Fukushima. They issued a
notice on the day that that GDA process had
demonstrated the acceptability of the EPR design for
environmental permitting.
The examining panel for the DCO did not duplicate
consideration of matters that were within the remit of
bodies responsible for the nuclear regulation. The report of
the Austrian expert indicated that "severe accidents
could not be excluded although their calculated probability
was below one in every 10 million years of reactor
activity."
The RPII report of May 2013 concluded as set out above
but that was on the basis of an earthquake of an assumed
magnitude which the authors of the report considered to
be unlikely. Further, their report was not on the basis of
the EPR design but on the basis of a PWR design used in
an American study published in 2012. That study was the

main source of information on accident scenarios and

release source terms used in the assessment carried out
by RPII. In the RPII report there was no assessment of the
safety features or regulatory regime in the UK.
Whilst all of the above are policy or design related
documents they do demonstrate a remarkable consistency
of opinion and come from a variety of expert sources.
They clearly provide, taken into account as they were, a
sound and reasoned rational basis for the Secretary of
State to come to his decision. They show also that the
Secretary of State did take into account the prospect of a
severe accident. He regarded it though as no more than a
bare possibility.
The Relevance of the Regulatory Regime.
The claimant submits that the decision maker cannot have
regard to the future role of the regulatory regime. The
defendant submits that it would be odd if that was indeed
the case. There is nothing in the Directive or Article 7 to
require regulatory standards to be disregarded. Further,
regulation by ONR penetrates the entire design so that it
is inseparable from the scheme being advanced. As a
result ONR is an integral part of the proposal and a key
characteristic of the development itself.
The existence of another regulatory regime with powers
which overlap with the regime of control under the Town
and Country Planning Act is not new. The case of
Gateshead MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment
[1995] Env LR 37 dealt with an application to construct
and operate an incinerator for the disposal of clinical
waste. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
planning permission was required for the construction and
use of the incinerator. Incineration was a prescribed
process under section 2 of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 and authorisation was required to carry out the
process of incineration. The enforcing authority
responsible for granting that authorisation was HM
Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP). An appeal against a
decision of Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council to
refuse planning permission was heard at inquiry after
which the inspector recommended refusal but the
Secretary of State granted planning permission. The

council appealed to the High Court. In dismissing that

appeal the Deputy High Court Judge said,
"Just as the environmental impact of such emissions is a
material planning consideration, so also is the existence of
a stringent regime under the EPA of preventing or
mitigating that impact for rendering any emissions
harmless. It is too simplistic to say, "The Secretary of State
cannot leave the question of pollution to the HMIP."
Glidewell LJ in the Court of Appeal agreed. He went on to
say,
"The decision which was to be made on the appeal to the
Secretary of State lay in the area in which the regimes of
control under the Planning Act and the Environmental
Pollution Act overlapped. If it had become clear at the
inquiry that some of the discharges were bound to be
unacceptable so that a refusal by HMIP to grant an
authorisation would be the only proper course, the
Secretary of State following his own express policy should
have refused planning permission. But that was not the
situation Once the information about air quality at both
of those locations was obtained, it was a matter for
informed judgment, i) what, if any, increases in polluting
discharges of varying elements into the air were
acceptable, and ii) whether the best available techniques
etc would ensure those discharges were kept within
acceptable limits. Those issues are clearly within the
competence and jurisdiction of HMIP. If in the end the
Inspectorate conclude that the best available techniques
etc would not achieve the results required by section 7(2)
and 7(4) it may well be that the proper course would be
for them to refuse an authorisation The Secretary of
State was, therefore, justified in concluding that the areas
of concern which led to the Inspector and the assessor
recommending refusal were matters which could properly
be decided by EPA, and that their powers were adequate
to deal with those concerns."
The position in Gateshead is analogous to the situation
here. First, there is no doubt that the existence of a
stringent regime for authorisation and planning control is a
clear material consideration. Second, where, as here, at
the time of the development consent determination the
matters to be left over for determination by another

regulatory body were clearly within the competence and

jurisdiction of that body, as they are here within the remit
of ONR it is, in principle, acceptable for the Secretary of
State not only to be cognisant of their existence but to
leave those matters over for determination by that body.
At the time of the Secretary of State's consideration of
whether to grant development consent there was no
evidence to suggest that the risk of an accident was more
than a bare and remote possibility. In the instant case the
regulatory regime is in existence precisely to oversee the
safety of nuclear sites. There is nothing in the Directive
and Article 7, in particular, to require the regulatory
regime to be disregarded. NPS EN-6 refers to reliance
being placed in the DCO process on the licensing and
permitting regulatory regime for nuclear power stations, to
avoid unnecessary duplication and delay and to ensure
that planning and regulatory processes are focused in the
most appropriate areas. It would be contrary to the
accepted principle in Gateshead not to have regard to that
regime, and in my judgement it would also be entirely
contrary to common sense.
The claimant has relied upon a large number of cases as
set out above. The defendant and interested party submit
that the claimant has either misread or misapplied them.
The case of Lebus (supra) concerned whether there was a
screening opinion for EIA development. But the case also
concerned a further error of law which was that the
question was not asked whether the development
described in the application would have significant
environmental effects but rather whether the development
as described and subject to certain mitigation measures
would have certain environmental effects. It was held not
to be appropriate for a person charged with making a
screening opinion to start from the premise that although
there may be significant impacts they could be reduced in
significance as a result of implementation of conditions of
various kinds. What was required was a clear articulation
in the application of the characteristics of the
development proposed and mitigation to offset any harm.
The case of Gillespie established that the Secretary of
State was not obliged to ignore remedial measures
submitted as part of the planning proposal when making

his screening decision. Pill LJ said ( at paragraph 36),

"In making his decision, the Secretary of State is not
required to put into separate compartments the
development proposal and the proposed remedial
measures and consider only the first when making his
screening decision."
The submission that when considering a screening
decision the proposed development was the proposal
shorn of remedial measures incorporated into it was
rejected on the basis that it would be to ignore the "actual
characteristics" of some projects. The problem there was
that the disputed condition 6 required future site
investigations to be undertaken to establish the nature,
extent and degree of contamination present on site. Until
that was done a scheme for remediation could not be
proposed. That was held to be too open and too uncertain.
That is very different from the instant case where
extensive design work, licensing work and site
investigation has been carried out, the overall design and
site licence have been approved and the final solutions are
in the process of being worked up.
The case of Blewett concerned an application for judicial
review of a planning permission for the third phase of a
large landfill site. The application was accompanied by an
environmental statement in accordance with the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The argument was
that the environmental statement was defective as it did
not include an assessment of the potential impact on the
use of the proposed landfill on groundwater. The planning
authority had left those matters to be assessed after
planning permission and had granted the permission
assuming that complex mitigation measures would be
successful. The measures described refer to the
appropriateness of the lining system and site design being
assessed as part of the integrated pollution prevention
and control permit application. It was held that,
"Reading the environmental statement and the addendum
report as whole, it is plain that a particular cell design,
which is not in the least unusual, and a lining system were
being proposed. The details of that system could be
adjusted as part of the IPPC authorisation process The

defendant had placed constraints upon the planning

permission within which future details had to be worked
out."
The role of the EA, as the authority that would be in
charge of the IPPC process was considered. They had
initially been concerned that existing contamination had
not been adequately addressed. There was an addendum
report to address that concern. After receipt of that they
acknowledged that the issue had been discussed but said
that no final remediation strategy had been proposed.
Sullivan J continued [66],
"If the Environment Agency had had any concern in the
light of the geological and hydrogeological information
provided in the addendum report as to the remediation
proposals contained therein, then it would have said so.
Against this background the defendant was fully entitled
to leave the detail of the remediation strategy to be dealt
with under condition 29. "
The role of the authorising body was thus clearly taken
into account and, given their lack of objection, the
decision maker had been fully entitled to leave the detail
of the measures to deal with ground water pollution to be
assessed after planning permission had been granted. As
a matter of law, therefore, the role of another regulatory
body is clearly a material consideration in the
determination of development consent.
In European jurisprudence the claimant places significant
reliance upon WWF and Others v Bozen (supra). The
submission is that that judgement requires a
comprehensive assessment that was just not possible in
the circumstances as they were before the Secretary of
State. The case concerned the restructuring of Bolzano
airport, which had been used as a private airfield since
1925, into an airport which would be used for commercial
flights. To enable that to be done various works had to be
carried out including the extension of the runway from
1,040 to 1,400 metres. It was argued that the project was
outside the reach of the EIA Directive because it did not
involve the construction of a new airport but was the
alteration of an existing airfield. Amongst the matters at
issue was whether the member states had discretion to
exclude such a project. It was held that whatever method

was adopted by a member state to determine whether a

specific project needed to be assessed the method must
not undermine the objective of the Directive unless the
specific project excluded could, on the basis of a
comprehensive assessment, be regarded as not being
likely to have such effect. Further, whilst Article 4(2) of the
Directive conferred a measure of discretion the criteria
and thresholds mentioned in Article 4(2) were designed to
facilitate examination of the actual characteristics of any
given project in order to determine whether it was going
to be the subject of a requirement to carry out an
assessment. The question, therefore, was whether, in the
circumstances of this case, the Secretary of State had
sufficient information to enable him to carry out a
comprehensive assessment.
By the time of the screening decision on the 11th April
2012 the Justification Decision for EPR had been made and
the project assessment report had been issued by ONR
dealing with progress on the site licence on the 31st
October 2011. Those were clearly material matters in
coming to that decision.
By the time of the decision granting development consent
on the 19th March 2013 the site licence had been issued
on the 3rd December 2012 as had the GDA on the 13th
December 2012. Those were clearly an integral part of the
proposal before the Secretary of State. Put another way
they were part of the "actual characteristics" of the
project. To ignore any part of what had gone before would
be a failure to carry out the "comprehensive assessment"
required under the Directive.
That leaves the issue of future regulation and what
relevance that has, if any, to the Secretary of State in
making his decision. There is a critical distinction between
a decision on a screening decision where the decision
maker has insufficient information to come to a lawful
determination and the situation here where the Secretary
of State is on record as expressing his view that he had
adequate information to enable him to determine the
application. That information enabled him to conclude that
accidents were very unlikely and that the issue of safety
was appropriately left to the relevant regulators. That is
entirely consistent with the approach of the courts in

Gateshead, Blewett and R (Morge) v Hampshire County

Council [2011] UKSC2 at [29] and [30].
In my judgment there is no reason that precludes the
Secretary of State from being able to have regard to, and
rely upon, the existence of a stringently operated
regulatory regime for future control. Because of its
existence, he was satisfied, on a reasonable basis, that he
had sufficient information to enable him to come to a final
decision on the development consent application. In short,
the Secretary of State had sufficient information at the
time of making his decision to amount to a comprehensive
assessment for the purposes of the Directive. The fact that
there were some matters still to be determined by other
regulatory bodies does not affect that finding. Those
matters outstanding were within the expertise and
jurisdiction of the relevant regulatory bodies which the
defendant was entitled to rely upon.
The Relevance of the Euratom Opinion
In taking his decision to grant development consent the
Secretary of State made it clear that he had considered all
the environmental information in line with his duties under
regulation 3(2) of the 2009 regulations. Attached to his
decision letter was a brief summary of his consideration of
the likely significant effects as reported in the ES together
with the key findings contained in the panel's report in
respect of those effects. Where there was a difference
between the two he preferred the analysis of the panel. He
saw no need for the ES to be further supplemented.
The decision letter referred also to matters that had arisen
after the close of examination on the 19th September
2012. One part of that was dealing with Austria and the
Espoo Convention. Another part was dealing with
communication that had been received from the Minister
of Environment in Northern Ireland on the 21st October
2012. The Minister was particularly concerned about the
environmental impact the HPC project would have on
protected habitats in Northern Ireland. He was informed
that his concern should be addressed to the Secretary of
State as the examination of the application had closed.
The Minister did not follow up his concerns. The decision
letter continued,

"6.6.1 (ii) However, as noted above (section iv), I

undertook a Habitats Regulations Assessment in respect of
the Application. I concluded that there would be no
adverse effect on any European site as a result of the HPC
project. That assessment was further borne out by the
facts that the distance between the site of the HPC and
the range of its likely impacts are such that granting
consent would have no impact on a European site in
Northern Ireland (over 300 miles distant) or in the Republic
of Ireland (over 155 miles distant). In addition the
European Commission carried out an assessment of HPC
under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, which
concluded:
"the Commission is of the opinion that, both in normal
operation and in the event of an accident of the type and
magnitude considered in the General Data, the
implementation of a plan for the disposal of the
radioactive waste in whatever form from the two EPR
reactors on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station,
located in Somerset, United Kingdom is not liable to result
in a radioactive contamination of the water, soil or
airspace of another member state that would be
significant from the point of view of health."
The defendant submits that that reference did not mean
the Secretary of State was not taking the opinion into
account. Indeed, the reverse, the Secretary of State was.
He was entitled to take the opinion at face value. The
position has to be looked at with a degree of reality. I
agree. The Commission is a body which had received
significant levels of information, had held oral hearings,
received expert advice and then published its considered
view. It was stating a conclusion which, despite the
somewhat different remit of the Commission in
considering the issue, was directly relevant to the issue of
transboundary impacts.
The claimant contends, firstly, that the Secretary of State
was simply noting the Commission opinion which was not
the same as taking it into account. Secondly, the
Secretary of State had to view the general data submitted
to the Commission prior to decision being issued so that
he was able to work out the situation for himself and come
to his own conclusion.

I reject both of those submissions. I have dealt already

with the first of those. As to the second, although the
claimant relies on Tameside (supra) that is not authority
for the Secretary of State having to do the work himself to
enable him to come to his own independent conclusion. As
Lord Diplock said about the Secretary of State's decision in
that case,
"it is not for any court of law to substitute its own opinion
for his; but it is for a court of law to determine whether it
has been established that in reaching his decision
unfavourable to the council he had directed himself
properly in law and had in consequence taken into
consideration the matters which upon the true
construction of the act he ought to have considered and
excluded from his consideration matters that were
irrelevant to what he had to consider or put more
compendiously, the question for the court is, did the
Secretary of State ask himself the right question and take
reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant
information to enable him to answer it correctly?"
The answer in the instant case is that the Secretary of
State did ask himself the right question and, as the review
set out above shows, took reasonable steps to enable
himself to answer it correctly.
Although the claimant relies upon Commission v Italy
(supra) to show that there is no latitude on the part of the
Secretary of State that case is dealing with an entirely
different set of circumstances where no reasons at all were
expressed as to whether screening of the project was
carried out. The government there was relying upon an
opinion by the Civil Engineering Department which was
not an opinion on the environmental effects of the project
but an authorisation solely for hydraulic purposes to cross
the Tordera River and carry out certain works. There is
nothing in the case which is authority for the proposition
that a court should be placed in the role of a primary
evaluator.
The claimant has served witness statements from
Professor John Sweeney, Dr Paul Dorfman and Mr Large in
November 2013 all purporting to put into issue the basis
upon which the European Commission reached its opinion.
The claimant does not have permission to rely upon such

expert evidence. But, as the Secretary of State has not

claimed to have taken into account the data submitted to
the European Commission directly, such evidence is not in
any event relevant.
Socio Economic Impacts
The claimant submits that there has been an omission to
consider socio economic impacts which have to be taken
into account under the EIA Directive. That takes into
account effects on socio economic conditions resulting
from environmental factors.
The reality is that it is the same event that will give rise to
significant environmental harm that will give rise to any
consequential harm, in this case to material assets or
socio economic impacts. It follows that whether there is a
breach in relation to that depends again upon whether the
occurrence is likely. For reasons set out above, I am of the
clear view, it is not.
Reference to the CJEU
The claimant contends that there is sufficient uncertainty
about the meaning of the trigger test in Article 7 as to
warrant making a reference to the CJEU.
The parties are agreed on the authorities. The starting
point is R v International Stock Exchange Ex Parte Else
[1993] QB 534 at page 545,
"If the national court has any real doubt it should
ordinarily refer."
In Trinity Mirror plc v Commissioners of Customs and
Excise [2001] EWCA Civ 65 at paragraph 52 Chadwick LJ
said,
"Where the national court is not a court of last resort, a
reference will be most appropriate where the question is
one of general importance and where the ruling is likely to
promote a uniform application of the law throughout the
united union. A reference will be least appropriate where
there is an established body of case law which could
relevantly be transposed to the facts of the instant case,
of where the question turns on a narrow point considered
in the light of a very specific set of facts and the ruling is
unlikely to have any application beyond the instant case.
Beyond those two extremes is a wide spectrum of

possibilities"
In my judgment there is no need for a reference. There is
no real doubt about the interpretation of Article 7. I have
found that the case law on Article 2 is directly transferable
to Article 7 for reasons set out above. There is no
substance to the Espoo point arising from paragraph 54 of
the Implementation Committee's decision again for
reasons set out above. In these circumstances I can see no
reason for making a reference.
Conclusion
I have not dealt expressly with each and every authority
relied upon by the claimant. I have dealt with those
relevant to the main issues above. I have taken the others
into account. They do not affect my decision on either
ground or overall.
As this is a rolled up hearing I have heard full argument.
Having heard that I would not have granted permission to
bring judicial review proceedings in this case. The
claimant's case is dismissed.
I invite submissions from the parties as to the final order
and costs.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/20
13/4161.html

AnTaiscelaunches
Highcourtchallenge
inLondonoverUK
NuclearPowerPlant
>
1st May 2013
Press Release
An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland1, has launched
judicial review proceedings in London to challenge the legality
of UK Secretary of State Ed Daveys decision2 to grant
permission to build and operate a nuclear power station at
Hinkley Point in the Bristol Channel, Somerset, 150 miles from
the Irish coast.
In papers issued in the High Court in London by lawyers Leigh
Day, An Taisce challenges the legal compliance of the
decision by the Government with the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive and the UKs own regulations on
transboundary impacts and consultation.
Despite the nuclear power plant being nearer to the coast of
Ireland than it is to Leeds, the UK decided not to consult with
the Irish public about the decision before it granted consent2
in March. The first time many Irish people learned about the
nuclear power plant proposal was when the decision was
announced. Their views were not therefore taken into
consideration as part of the UK governments decision and
assessment process.
An Taisce argues that consultation would allow both regional
governments and the potentially effected population in Ireland
to contribute to the consultation and decision making process
and would allow the UK to properly and fully consider the
impacts and effects of the plant across boundaries.

They also point to the contrasting approach on consultation

adopted by other countries including Finland, Lithuania, the
Netherlands, and the Czech Republic, who have contacted
neighbouring countries in relation to their plans to develop
nuclear power facilities.
Rosa Curling from Leigh Day who is representing An Taisce,
said:
The UK Government decided to grant permission to build and
operate a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point without
consulting the Irish public or taking into account significant
potential risks of the power plant across national boundaries.
The failure to consult or consider these transboundary impacts
renders the decision to grant permission for the nuclear power
plant unlawful and we will be seeking to challenge it in the
High Court to give the Irish public a voice.
James Nix, spokesperson for An Taisce said:
This case is not about interfering with the right of the UK
authorities to make their own decisions, nor about being pro or
anti nuclear. It is about ensuring that the rights and interests of
the Irish public and their concern for their environment are not
excluded from those decisions, and that the Irish public is
properly consulted in accordance with the law on a project of
this nature.
Irelands agriculture, food, fishing and tourism - which are our
essential indigenous industries - are critically dependent on
the quality of our environment, as is the health of our people.
This is therefore a matter of considerable importance and
concern for Irish people, and for our interest in our
environment.
An Taisce views compliance with environmental law as a
fundamental building block in our mission to protect Irelands
built and natural environment. We seek the assistance of the
UK courts in determining the correctness of this decision,
which is important not only in respect of this nuclear power
plant decision, but also the manner in which other decisions in
the pipeline will be treated in the future, including the nuclear
plant proposed for Anglesey, which is even closer to Ireland
and in an area which is prone to earthquakes.
ENDS
For further information, please call:

James Nix, Director of Operations, An Taisce Tel: + 353 86

8394129
Charles Stanley-Smith, An Taisce Communications Tel: +353
87 2411995
Email: publicaffairs@antaisce.org
An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland
www.antaisce.ie
Notes:
An Taisce, The National Trust for Ireland, founded as a charity
in 1948, is one of Irelands oldest non-Government
Organisations, and is a member of the International National
Trusts Organisation, INTO. An Taisces objectives are the
protection of Irelands built and natural environment, and it
sees compliance with International, European and National
environmental law as being fundamental to the protection of
the environment. It is an independent Prescribed Consultee
for a number of different consent processes in Ireland, as
governed by Irish legislation The Applicant is NNB Generation
Company Ltd, (a subsidary of EDF), and the decision letter of
the Rt. Hon. Mr Ed Davey, MP Secretary of State for the
Department of Energy and Climate Change is available here:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wpcontent/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010001/3.%20Post
%20Decision
%20Information/Decision/130319_EN010001_SoS%20HPC
%20Decision%20Letter.pdf
The Legal Case Against Hinkley From Fukushima to HinkleyDismantling the nuclear argument for a sustainable energy
future Dr Paul Dorfman Energy Institute University College
London

http://mollymep.org.u
k/wp
content/uploads/Prese

ntation_PDorfman.pdf
No objection by Ireland, UK nuclear
hearing told

During one of a number of testy exchanges between the two, Mr

Wolfe, who finished his submission yesterday afternoon, went on:
Fukushima was unlikely to happen, too. We learned the lessons of
Fukushima.
An Taisce objections not supported by Irish Government, say British
Mark Hennessy;
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/noobjection-by-ireland-uk-nuclear-hearing-told-1.1618566
Fri, Dec 6, 2013, 01:01
The merits of An Taisces challenge to a nuclear power station in
Britain is illustrated by the fact that it has not been supported by
the Irish Government, a lawyer for the British government argued
yesterday.
The way was cleared by British energy secretary Ed Davey last
month for the station at Hinkley Point in Somerset a 14 billion
project to be built by French energy company EDF, backed by
Chinese money and capable of powering five million homes .
An Taisce has sought a judicial review, arguing that the energy
secretary acted unlawfully in granting planning permission without
carrying out transboundary consulation with the Irish, as required
under EU rules.
However, Mr Davey has argued in legal papers lodged for the twoday hearing that he is required to consult where there is a real
risk, or a serious possibility of significant environmental effects,
but not where there is only a bare possibility.
The Irish Government has repeatedly raised questions about the
operation of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria,
said counsel for Mr Davey, Jonathan Swift, but concerns about
Hinkley Point have never been raised.
An Taisce, he told Mrs Justice Patterson, has repeatedly said that
there is an obligation on the secretary of state to consult the Irish
people, but, he said, it is clear that no such obligation exists.
Unlawful
Describing Mr Daveys conduct as unlawful, counsel for An Taisce,
David Wolfe QC, said Mr Davey may have acted in accordance with
Euratom regulations, but he had not obeyed or abided by EU safety
directives.
The energy secretary had not considered the economic impacts of
environmental problems caused by even minor leaks from Hinkley
Point, though he was pressed by Mr Swift to read out a report which

put that risk at a one-in-32 million chance. Under the Espoo

Convention, signatory states, including Britain, agreed to
consulting neighbouring states even if there a low
likelihood of risk, unless a significant adverse trans-boundary
impact can be excluded, he went on.
Impact of accidents
Mr Davey had not, and nor did he claim in submissions made up to
now, had tried to predict the impact of accidents or alarms on a
worst case basis, as was required by the precautionary approach
principle .
A leak of radioactive coolant from Hinkley Point that was brought by
southeasterly winds to Ireland from Somerset would raise the risk
of contracting cancer by 2 per cent, though that risk could be
reduced subject to intensive, but costly health monitoring.
Decisions about planning had been made, for example, on the basis
that wind speeds would not exceed eight metres per second which
is plainly not a worst case scenario, Mr Wolfe told Mrs Justice
Patterson.
During one of a number of testy exchanges between the two, Mr
Wolfe, who finished his submission yesterday afternoon, went on:
Fukushima was unlikely to happen, too. We learned the lessons of
Fukushima.

An Taisce loses bid

in UK High Court to
block nuclear plant
plans
Updated / Dec. 20, 2013

Hinckley Point is situated 150 miles from the Irish coast

This is the actual article body

An Taisce has lost its bid in Londons High

Court to overturn plans for a new nuclear
power station on the west coast of England.
An Taisce brought a challenge over the
legality of the decision in March by the UK
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate
Change to grant development consent for the
project at Hinkley Point in Somerset, which is
around 150 miles from Ireland.
Its lawyers told Mrs Justice Patterson that
there was a failure to undertake
"transboundary consultation" with the Irish
people beforehand as required by the
European Commission's Environmental
Impact Assessment Directive.
Mrs Justice Patterson found against An
Taisce's claim, and refused leave for Judicial
Review.
An Taisce Policy Director James Nix

commented: "We are studying the judgment

with our legal team and considering our
options."

http://www.rte.ie/news
/2013/1220/494160
taiscenuclearappeal/

Demo in support of Irish National

Trusts High Court challenge against
Hinkley C
9:30-10:30am, 5th December
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2
Map: http://tinyurl.com/mkqm3ov
Nearest tube: TempleSupport the Irish National Trusts High
Court challenge against Hinkley C
On Thursday, the High Court in London will hear a judicial review
brought by An Taisce, Irelands equivalent of the National Trust,
regarding the legality of the decision by the UK Energy Secretary, Ed
Davey to grant permission to build two new nuclear reactors at
Hinkley Point in Somerset.
The legal challenge is on the grounds that the people of the Irish
Republic were not consulted before this decision was made, even
though the Irish people could well be adversely affected if there was
an accident at the new power station resulting in the release of

radiation. The group is questioning whether the development

complies with both the EUs Environmental Impact Assessment
directive and the UKs own regulations on trans-boundary impacts
and consultation.
For more info contact Stop New Nuclear or Kick Nuclear

Hinkley Point Judical Review

http://www.antaisce.ie/advocacy/CurrentIssues/HinleyPointJu
dicialReview.aspx
In May 2013 An Taisce launched judicial review proceedings in
London to challenge the legality of UK Secretary of State Ed Daveys
decision to grant permission to build and operate a nuclear power
station at Hinkley Point in the Bristol Channel, Somerset, 150 miles
from the Irish coast In papers issued in the High Court in London by
lawyers Leigh Day, we have challenged the legal compliance of the
decision by the Government with the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive and the UKs own regulations on
transboundary impacts and consultation.
Despite the nuclear power plant being nearer to the coast of Ireland
than it is to Leeds, the UK decided not to consult with the Irish public
about the decision before it granted consent in March. The first time
many Irish people learned about the nuclear power plant proposal
was when the decision was announced. Their views were not
therefore taken into consideration as part of the UK governments
decision and assessment process.
It is argued that consultation would allow both regional governments
and the potentially effected population in Ireland to contribute to
the consultation and decision making process and would allow the
UK to properly and fully consider the impacts and effects of the
plant across boundaries.
There is a contrasting approach on consultation adopted by other
countries including Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and the
Czech Republic, who have contacted neighbouring countries in
relation to their plans to develop nuclear power facilities.
Rosa Curling from Leigh Day who is representing An Taisce, said:
The UK Government decided to grant permission to build and
operate a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point without consulting
the Irish public or taking into account significant potential risks of
the power plant across national boundaries.
The failure to consult or consider these transboundary impacts
renders the decision to grant permission for the nuclear power plant
unlawful and we will be seeking to challenge it in the High Court to
give the Irish public a voice.
James Nix, Policy Director for An Taisce said:
This case is not about interfering with the right of the UK
authorities to make their own decisions, nor about being pro or anti
nuclear. It is about ensuring that the rights and interests of the Irish
public and their concern for their environment are not excluded from
those decisions, and that the Irish public is properly consulted in

accordance with the law on a project of this nature.

Irelands agriculture, food, fishing and tourism which are our
essential indigenous industries are critically dependent on the
quality of our environment, as is the health of our people. This is
therefore a matter of considerable importance and concern for Irish
people, and for our interest in our environment.
An Taisce views compliance with environmental law as a
fundamental building block in our mission to protect Irelands built
and natural environment. We seek the assistance of the UK courts in
determining the correctness of this decision, which is important not
only in respect of this nuclear power plant decision, but also the
manner in which other decisions in the pipeline will be treated in the
future, including the nuclear plant proposed for Anglesey, which is
even closer to Ireland and in an area which is prone to
earthquakes.

The European Union has approved Britain's

ambitious 20 billion plan to build its first
nuclear plant for a generation.
The Hinkley Point C power station, which will
be built with French and Chinese help, is
240km from the Irish coast.
There are two other power stations at the site
in Somerset in southwest England.
The EU decision marks a major victory for
nuclear energy three years after the
Fukushima disaster.
The project had encountered fierce resistance
from activists and several member states,
but a vote by the unions 28 commissioners
narrowly approved the deal.
Hinkley Point is one of the world's most
ambitious nuclear deals and is seen as a key
boost to an industry brought to its knees by
the 2011 Fukushima meltdown in Japan.
The EU Competition Commission, which led
the inquiry, defended its decision, saying that
Britain had "significantly modified" its plan in
response to concerns raised by the EU about

whether aspects of the deal amounted to

state aid.
"On this basis and after a thorough
investigation, the commission can now
conclude that the support is compatible with
EU state aid rules," EU Competition
Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in a
statement.
Critics have complained that there are
insufficient plans for the removal of the
nuclear waste that the plant will produce.
Concerns about the project have also been
raised by An Taisce and the Department of
the Environment.
An Taisce today said: "The state aid
investigation by the European Commission
raises totally different issues to those raised
by An Taisce's ongoing legal action.
"An Taisce's case is against the UK
Government on the grounds that we believe
they did not apply international law, EU law
and English law correctly ... in that they failed
to consult with their neighbours, the people
of Ireland, prior to granting permission for
Hinkley Point C."
The department said it had concerns about
the effect on the environment, the
management of radioactive waste, and the
"rationale underpinning the proposed
justification decision for new nuclear
facilities".
It said it had discussions at ministerial and

official level over several years about Hinkley

Point C.
The department today said a report on the
project by the Office of Radiological
Protection found that the routine operation of
the proposed nuclear power plants would
have no measurable radiological impact on
Ireland or the Irish marine environment.
Greenpeace has criticised the commission's
decision and said it could well face legal
challenges.
It claimed the decision was a sellout to
nuclear interests and that European
taxpayers would have to pay the cost.
Meanwhile, the Austrian government has said
it would bring legal action against the
commission's decision to the European Court
of Justice.
Chancellor Werner Faymann and Vice
Chancellor Reinhold Mitterlehner said Hinkley
Point set a "bad precedent" because
guaranteed payments had previously been
reserved for renewable forms of energy.
They said they were opposing the
commission's decision on economic and
environmental grounds, claiming nuclear
power was not a sustainable form of energy,
was a mature technology and was not an
option for combating climate change.
Other member states have voiced concerns
that the project makes a mockery of the
unions stated policy to promote solar and
wind power.

The European Commission, the EU's

executive arm, launched the inquiry in late
2013, delving closely into the project's
elaborate price guarantee system that critics
claim will prove hugely expensive to British
consumers for decades to come.

A year ago, the British government signed

the huge 20bn deal for French firm EDF to
build two reactors at Hinkley Point C to meet
Britain's future energy needs.
Under the accord, EDF gets a 45-50% stake,
China General Nuclear (CGN) and China
National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) will
have a combined 30-40% and another French
firm, Areva, will have 10%.
Hinkley Point C is the first nuclear power

station to be built in the UK for 20 years and

will start producing electricity in nine years
time.
It is expected to be in operation for 60 years
thereafter.
The British government has insisted that he
plant is an essential part of its strategy to
more to a low carbon economy.
They have agreed to pay EDF a so-called
strike price of 92.50 for every mega watt of
electricity produced.
This is almost twice the current wholesale
price for electricity and it will be paid for 35
years.
The older facilities at Hinkley Point produce
about 1% of Britain's electricity. This is now
expected to rise to 7% when the new facility
is completed.
It is estimated that the construction of the
new facility will require 5,600 construction
workers and that overall about 25,000
related jobs will be created.
EDF has said the plant will be able to
withstand a hit from a passenger jet and the
pressurised water reactors that will be
installed are much safer than previous
designs.

UKs new nuclear plant may

endanger Ireland, Netherlands,
Belgium, Spain and Norway.

UN warning over planned British nuclear plant 240km from

Irish coast http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unwarning-over-planned-british-nuclear-plant-240km-fromirish-coast-30110525.html 21 Mar 14, THE United
Nations has accused the UK Government of

suspicious actions over plans to develop its first nuclear power

station in a generation. Environmental inspectors have warned there
are concerns about a lack of talks with neighbouring countries,
including Ireland, over potential risks posed by the Hinkley Point C
plant on the Bristol Channel.
The 16 billion nuclear facility could supply 5% of the UKs energy
needs and would be 150 miles from the Irish coast if built.
A special UN environmental committee has written to the
Government warning that it failed to notify countries which could
potentially be affected by fallout or pollution from Hinkley,
regardless of how unlikely an accident is.
The committee found that there was a profound suspicion of noncompliance, the UN states.
Vesna Kolar Planinsic, chair of the implementation committee on the
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context, said UK representatives will be called before
a hearing in December to explain their actions.
The committee said concerns have been raised over Hinkley by the
Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway.
It found that, bar informal exchanges with the Irish Government
and contacts with Austria following an official approach, Britain did
not inform other neighbouring states of its plans.
The UN said some countries maintained they could not exclude the
significant adverse environmental impact of the proposed activity on
their territory. Under UN and European rules, neighbouring countries
must be contacted unless such risks can be ruled out. Britain plans
to have the first nuclear reactor at the Hinkley Point C site churning
out power in 2023.
The Somerset plant is part of a multibillion-pound plan to replace
ageing, inefficient and polluting power stations in Britain over the
coming decades and ensure security of energy supply.
It is backed by billions in subsidies over 35 years from the British
taxpayer to guarantee power prices from the plant and investors
include Frances EDF and Areva, and Chinese state-owned CGN and
CNNC.

The European Commission is investigating whether support for

nuclear complies with state aid rules.
Irelands national trust An Taisce lost a judicial review in the UK
courts last year over the Hinkley plan and is planning to seek an
appeal next week.
The UN letter to the UKs Department for Communities and Local
Government is expected to lend weight to the argument for a
hearing in the Court of Appeal.

UN warning over planned

British nuclear plant
240km from Irish coast
Ed Carty
PUBLISHED
20/03/2014

Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset

THE United Nations has accused the UK

Government of suspicious actions over plans
to develop its first nuclear power station in a
generation.
Environmental inspectors have warned there are concerns
about a lack of talks with neighbouring countries,
including Ireland, over potential risks posed by the
Hinkley Point C plant on the Bristol Channel.
The 16 billion nuclear facility could supply 5% of the UK's
energy needs and would be 150 miles from the Irish coast
if built.
A special UN environmental committee has written to the
Government warning that it failed to notify countries
which could potentially be affected by fallout or pollution
from Hinkley, regardless of how unlikely an accident is.
"The committee found that there was a profound suspicion
of non-compliance," the UN states.
Vesna Kolar Planinsic, chair of the implementation
committee on the Convention on Environmental Impact
Assessment in a Transboundary Context, said UK
representatives will be called before a hearing in
December to explain their actions.
The committee said concerns have been raised over
Hinkley by the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway.
It found that, bar "informal exchanges" with the Irish
Government and contacts with Austria following an
official approach, Britain did not inform other
neighbouring states of its plans.
The UN said some countries maintained they could not
exclude the significant adverse environmental impact of
the proposed activity on their territory. Under UN and
European rules, neighbouring countries must be contacted
unless such risks can be ruled out.
Britain plans to have the first nuclear reactor at the
Hinkley Point C site churning out power in 2023.
The Somerset plant is part of a multibillion-pound plan to

replace ageing, inefficient and polluting power stations in

Britain over the coming decades and ensure security of
energy supply.
It is backed by billions in subsidies over 35 years from the
British taxpayer to guarantee power prices from the plant
and investors include France's EDF and Areva, and
Chinese state-owned CGN and CNNC.
The European Commission is investigating whether
support for nuclear complies with state aid rules.
Ireland's national trust An Taisce lost a judicial review in
the UK courts last year over the Hinkley plan and is
planning to seek an appeal next week.
The UN letter to the UK's Department for Communities
and Local Government is expected to lend weight to the
argument for a hearing in the Court of Appeal.
http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/unwarningoverplannedbritish
nuclearplant240kmfromirishcoast30110525.html

Irish free to sue British nuclear

operators over contamination

.A spokesman for Irelands energy department said that ministers

and officials there were aware of the amendments and its
implications. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns
19 sites in the UK, said that accident clean-up costs are covered by
insurance.
Or they could trample them to death with these guys and gals:
Sunday 05 January 2014
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/irishfree-to-sue-british-nuclear-operators-overcontamination-9039178.html
British nuclear operators face being sued for billions of pounds by
the Irish government and Irish victims of any radioactive damage
they cause under legal changes to be introduced this year.
Politicians and campaigners in Dublin have long complained about
the impact, both historical and potential, of the UKs civil nuclear
programme close to its shores, with particular focus on the safety
record of Sellafield. The Cumbria site is located less than 100 miles
from Irelands east coast.
Greenpeace has warned that the dumping of the reprocessing
plants liquid waste has made the Irish Sea among the most
contaminated waters in the world, even though Ireland itself
produces no nuclear energy. Irish fishermen have been angered by

catches of unsaleable mutated fish and by findings that they have

been exposed to low-level radiation.
However, Irelands government and environmental campaigners
have struggled to make international legal headway to clampdown
on Britains nuclear activity, soon to be expanded with a new fleet of
power plants starting with Hinkley Point C in Somerset. In 2006, for
example, the European Union blocked ministers from taking a case
to a United Nations tribunal in an attempt to force the closure of
Sellafield.
Legal experts say that Irelands case will be radically strengthened
when amendments to the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in
the Field of Nuclear Energy finally come into force this year, having
been originally proposed in 2004. The UK is a signatory to this treaty
and the changes will allow anyone in Ireland affected by a nuclear
accident that originates at a British site to seek up to 1bn in
damages from the plants operator in the High Court.
Previously, only governments and victims from signatory nations to
the treaty could sue each other, and even then claims were capped
at 140m per incident. From this year, countries such as Ireland that
are not part of the convention will be able to seek damages under
its terms, while British victims will be able to claim nine times more
than they were previously allowed.
Ian Salter, an international legal expert in nuclear issues at lawyers
Burges Salmon, said: If a country has no nuclear installations in it,
then they will benefit from the changes. Someone in Ireland could
bring a claim to a court in the UK in a way that they couldnt before.
It is a much more straightforward process. This makes the situation
much simpler for the victim and [it] could be used by a national
state.
The fallout from major nuclear accidents spreads far from their
original locations. Radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the
Ukraine spread across Europe and had long-term effects; last year,
thousands of jars of Italian organic jam were found to be
contaminated as a result of the accident.
A spokesman for Irelands energy department said that ministers
and officials there were aware of the amendments and its
implications. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns
19 sites in the UK, said that accident clean-up costs are covered by
insurance.
The Irish anti-nuclear campaigner Brian Greene commenter
The Irish anti-nuclear campaigner Brian Greene commented: These
changes sound interesting and I would think that our government
would be pursuing them.

UN QUESTIONS IRELAND OVER UK

HINCKLY NUCLEAR PLANT

.The first time many Irish people learned about the nuclear power
plant proposal was when the decision was announced..
Press Release
Friends of the Irish Environment
20 October 2013
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/index.php?
do=friendswork&action=view&id=1096
H/T http://inagist.com/all/392033489857822721/
UN QUESTIONS IRELAND OVER UK NUCLEAR PLANT
Ireland has received a letter from the United Nations seeking
information about Irish public consultation over the proposed UK
nuclear plant at Hinckley Point in Somerset.
Under UN ESPOO Convention on transboundary environmental
impact assessment the UK Government formally notified Ireland of
its proposal. Ireland in turn was then required to provide an
opportunity to the public in areas likely to be affected to participate
in the relevant EIA procedures regarding proposed activities
equivalent to that provided to the public of the Party of origin.
The nuclear Plant, which will be the first of its kind built since the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident n 1986, is intended to
supply 7% of Englands electricity needs and contribute to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. It will cost $22 billion and employ 5,000
people in construction.
The Committee had received complaints from members of the
Austrian and German Parliaments and from the Irish environmental
NGO [nongovernmental organisation] Friends of the Irish
Environment [FIE] about the failure to consult citizens in their
member states.
At it the 28th session, held in Geneva on 12 September, the
Committee accepted the three complaints and wrote to all three
Governments seeking copies of the correspondence between the
three states and the United Kingdom.
FIE Director Tony Lowes explained that The United Kingdom
concluded that no neighbouring state would be affected by a
nuclear accident at the plant on the grounds that the likely impacts
determined through a thorough EIA do not extend beyond the
county of Somerset and the Severn Estuary.
While the Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan stated in a
written Parliamentary Reply on 16 April 2013 that Ireland was
notified in early 2012 of the proposed development at Hinkley Point,
the Irish Government failed to consult with the Irish public as
required under this international convention.
Minister Hogan commissioned the Radiological Protection Institute of
Ireland [RPII] to examine the issue for the Government. The Report
detailed the undeniable impact which a serious nuclear accident in
Somerset could have on Irish agriculture.
Food controls and agricultural protective measures would be
required if any of these accidents occurred to ensure that food on

sale in Ireland was safe to eat, the RPII Report stated. In the case
of the most severe accident scenario examined in the study, short
term measures such as sheltering would also be required.
The issue here is not anti or pro nuclear simply the right to be
consulted, said Tony Lowes.
According to the letters received by Ireland from the UN Committee
and published on the FIE website, the United Kingdom and the three
Governments are required to provide their correspondence and
assessment of the risks by 25 November for a meeting on 10
December, 2013.
ENDS
Verification and comment: Tony Lowes 027 74771 / 087 2176316
Correspondence from UN
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/Libr
ary/Espoo-Hinkley-Point-request-from-Committee.pdf
FIE Complaint
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/Libr
ary/Espoo-complaint-and-supplementary-25.03.13.pdf
Simulations showing impact of accident on Ireland [from the
Austrian Government]
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/Libr
ary/Hinkley-Point-B-map.pdf
Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland Report
http://www.rpii.ie/RPII/files/e8/e8fd1b92-0f67-415a-a37ad4cb97023eb0.pdf
Updates
;
https://nuclear-news.net/2013/07/11/artificialradionuclides-in-the-irish-sea-from-sellafield-increasinglevels-in-northern-ireland-and-scotland/

UN asked Ireland about UK nuclear

risk

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/unasked-ireland-about-uk-nuclear-risk-1.1567394
Britains energy secretary Ed Davey MP: An Taisce is challenging the
legality of the permission he granted for a new nuclear power
station in Somerset. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC via Getty Images.
The Government has been asked by the United Nations whether it
has considered the risks that will be created for Ireland by the
construction and operation of a new multibillion euro nuclear power
station in England.
A deal on the construction of the 16 billion Hinkley Point in
Somerset backed by 100 billion in subsidies over 35 years from
the British taxpayer will be signed today.
However, the British government did not consult with the Irish
Government over the transboundary risks from nuclear power
before it granted approval earlier this year.
UN committee
The UNs Implementation Committee of the Convention on
Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context
wrote to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government earlier this month.
Irish officials were asked to confirm whether the British government
had contacted Dublin in advance about the plans and whether the
Irish Government had responded.

Does the Government of Ireland consider that the proposed

development at Hinkley Point C is likely to cause significant adverse
transboundary impact on the territory of Ireland, the UN committee
asked.
Meanwhile, a judicial review taken by An Taisce against the nuclear
plant the first plant to be commissioned since the Fukushima
nuclear disaster in Japan will be heard in the High Court in London
in December.
Legality
The legality of the permission granted by the British energy
secretary, Liberal Democrat Ed Davey, will form the central pillar of
the case being taken by London solicitors Leigh Day on behalf of An
Taisce.
The nuclear plant which would supply five per cent of the UKs
energy needs if built would lie just 150 miles from the Irish
coastline, An Taisce will tell the High Court.
Denying that the judicial review is a PR stunt that has little chance
of success, An Taisce told the Observer that, as a charity, it had to
carefully weigh up the risks before deciding to take legal action.
Despite the nuclear power plant being nearer to the coast of
Ireland than it is to Leeds, the UK decided not to consult with the
Irish public about the decision before it granted consent in March, it
said. The first time many Irish people learned about the nuclear
power plant proposal was when the decision was announced.

Debris recovery operation in sea

carried out for first time since
Fukushima nuclear disaster

The Japan Today article cites it as tsunami debris

but it would also include debris from the reactor
explosions at the plant. Pieces from these
explosions have been found as far inland as
Naraha. Why this work had not been done sooner
was not mentioned.

Japan performs tsunami debris cleanup off

Fukushima 1st time since nuclear disaster
Local fisheries have begun a debris cleanup near
the Fukushima plant for the first time since the
tsunami-triggered nuclear disaster. However a
plan to start trial fishing next year may face a
setback as a nearly-completed ice wall is failing
to halt water contamination.
On March 11, 2011, a magnitude-9 earthquake
struck northeastern Japan at 2:46pm local time,
unleashing a deadly tsunami. Less than an hour
after the earthquake, the first of many tsunami
waves hit Japans coastline. The tsunami waves
reached heights of up to 39 meters (128 feet) at
Miyako city and reached as far as 10 km (6
miles) ashore in Sendai, destroying everything
in its wake. More than 15,000 people died.
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the
tsunami caused a cooling system failure
resulting in a nuclear meltdown and the release
of radioactive materials. The waves forced the

failure of electrical power and backup

generators, leading the plant to lose its cooling
capabilities. The retreating water sucked a vast
amount of rubble into the depths of the Pacific
Ocean, contaminating the traditional fishing
grounds of the local companies.
Five years after the disaster a cleanup effort to
remove the debris has finally been launched by
collectives of local fishermen, who aim to start
trial fishing expeditions within the area from 5
kilometers (3 miles) to 20 km (12 miles) off the
wrecked plant.
On Monday Soma-Futaba Fisheries Cooperative
Association send out 32 fishing boats to recover
debris from the ocean floor. That fleet is
focusing their efforts on the North side of the
nuclear power plant.
On Tuesday, the Iwaki City Fisheries Cooperative
Association also sent in their fleet to help with
the cleanup efforts of the southern side of the
contaminated segment.
Once the debris is pulled out and delivered to
shore, the unloading of the waste is handled by
the industrial waste treatment company. The
rubble is then sent to a temporary storage
facility where after an inspection for radioactive
reading, cleared waste is disposed of in an
industrial manner. It is as of yet unclear how the
contaminated waste will be treated.
The cleanup work of the seabed endorsed by the
Fisheries Agency is scheduled to last at least
until February of next year. Fishing on a trial
basis can start as early as March.

However such a prospect seem problematic as

the recently-completed ice wall around the
crippled station has failed to meet expectations,
with contaminated groundwater still seeping
into the sea.
The $320 million Land-Side Impermeable Wall
was built to halt an unrelenting flood of
groundwater into the damaged reactor buildings
and consequent flow of the contaminated water
into the ocean.
But on Tuesday the Japanese government and
plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. reported
that 1.5 km (1 mile) barrier frozen barrier failed
to produce the intended results, Nikkei
reported.
While gaps still remain in some sections of
the ocean-facing side of the wall, TEPCO
believes that the inflows that penetrate the
contaminated reactor are concentrated at
seven unfrozen sections on the inland side.
A similar concern was voiced last month by the
operator which claimed that 99 percent of the
walls is mostly solid and frozen. However, a
remaining one percent showed temperatures of
the barrier above the freezing point, meaning
that the contamination is not fully contained.
TEPCO has been repeatedly facing criticism for
the handling of the Fukushima crisis. Despite
the ongoing problems encountered following the
meltdowns, the company has set 2020 as the
goal for ending the plants water problem.
The problem of water contamination however is
just one of many surrounding the dismantling
and decommissioning of the Fukushima plant

debris which is estimated to take at least 40

years.
We

will continue to move forward with the

decommissioning and contaminated water
management in a transparent way, visible to
the world, and will also share with the
international community the lessons learned
from this accident, Hirotaka Ishihara, state
minister of the cabinet office of Japan, told the
International Atomic Energy Agencys 60th
General Conference earlier this week.

We

are also making ongoing efforts to ensure the

safety of food produced in Japan, he added.
Recognizing that many countries have already
lifted restrictions on food imports from Japan,
we encourage the international community to
implement import policies based on scientific
evidence.

https://www.rt.com/news/360879fukushima-fishery-cleanup-debris/#.V-s7I2uaW0.facebook
Debris recovery operation in sea carried out
for first time since Fukushima nuclear
disaster
FUKUSHIMA For the first time since the 2011
nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant,
the removal of debris in seawater located up to 20
km from the plant site has finally started.
The recovery operation, which began Monday,
focuses on the removal of rubble in seawater
within 5 to 20 km of the wrecked plant, Sankei
Shimbun reported.
Five and a half years after the disaster, fishing
has yet to be carried out in these waters while

tsunami debris on the ocean floor near the

Fukushima plant has remained untouched.
With an aim to start trial fishing operations within
this targeted cleanup area, the Soma-Futaba
Fisheries Cooperative Association employed 32
fishing boats to recover debris such as driftwood
and gill nets on Monday.
Following suit, from Tuesday, the Iwaki City
Fisheries Cooperative Association started debris
removal operations and will continue the
cleanup efforts until February of next year.
https://www.japantoday.com/category/natio
nal/view/debris-recovery-operation-in-seacarried-out-for-first-time-since-fukushimanuclear-disaster
September 28, 2016 at 6:55 pm Posted by dunrenard | Fukushima
2016 | Cleanup, Explosion Debris, Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi,
Ocean, Tsunami Debris | Leave a comment

Beware: US Congress Trying to Run

Thru Radioactive Riders; US Taxpayer
Guaranteed Exim $9 Billion for
Toshiba to Build Nuclear Reactors
in India
Mining Awareness +
One of the sneak through provisions that some members of
Congress both Dim-witted Dems and Republicans want to tack
onto must pass spending legislation would allow the US government
to lend $9 Billion to Toshiba subsidiary Westinghouse to build
nuclear reactors in India. NINE BILLION US DOLLARS GUARANTEED
BY THE US TAXPAYER FOR TOSHIBA TO BUILD NUCLEAR REACTORS
IN INDIA! Not millions but billions. Toshiba has both admitted to and
is being investigated by the US SEC-DOJ for accounting fraud!

Kamikaze suicide dive against the USS Essex, 1944

Toshiba confirms SEC investigation as accounting woes
spread to USSecurities commission and justice department
examining accounting problem at US units, says Japanese
corporation, amid profit-padding crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/18/toshibaconfirms-sec-investigation-as-accounting-woes-spread-to-us
And, the US goverment wants to give them a loan to build nuclear
reactors in India! A loan guaranteed by the US taxpayer. Their AP
1000s have had defects. This

Dear Jeremy Corbyn MP, Labour Leader,

I am writing to you on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland, a volunteer
group based in Cumbria[1] to thank you whole heartedly for
pledging to ban fracking which
locks us into an energy infrastructure that is based on fossil fuels
long after our country needs to have moved to clean energy.[2]
We agree entirely with the case against fracking, as well as being
fossil fuel based there are also radiation risks from unleashing large

amounts of radon deep underground[3]. The nuclear industry is, like

fracking, extractive and extreme. But nuclear is in a league all of its
own[4].
The Electrical Trades Union in Australia (ETU) has banned its
members from working in uranium mines, nuclear power stations or
any other part of the nuclear fuel cycle: We are sending a clear
message to the industry and the wider

A final investment decision on the UKs

first nuclear plant in a generation could
be made within days, with the projects
construction chief revealing that work
could begin within weeks.

Speaking exclusively to Construction News,

Hinkley Point Cs construction site director
Nigel Cann said he was expecting in the
next few weeks both the final investment
decision and, subsequently, the start of
preconstruction work.
Mr Cann said: Very openly, we are planning
to start when FID is announced that is a
planning assumption, no more than that.
The investment decision could be made as
early as this week, with reports citing EDFs
board meeting on Wednesday (27 January) as
a crucial date.
While Mr Cann would not reveal a date for
the final investment decision, he said his
team would be able to start construction as
soon as they [the EDF board] were ready.
The news will put contractors set to work on
the 18bn job on high alert, but Mr Cann
warned that any further delays to the
investment decision could also see

construction work put back.

He said: If they decided not to make a
decision at the end of this month then,
clearly, we would have to come up with
another plan.
Last October, EDF agreed terms with China
General Nuclear Corporation on a strategic
investment agreement that would see EDF
take a 66.5 per cent stake and CGN a 33.5
per cent stake in the 24.5bn project.
The French groups final investment decision
has been beset by multiple delays over the
past few years.
When work begins, there will be a six-month
mobilisation period during which EDFs
contractors will carry out preliminary works
at the site and reassemble their teams.
Clearly we have to build our team back up,
Mr Cann said. We mostly put the projects
into care and maintenance last summer, but
after the Chinese strategic agreement was
signed in October we have started to
mobilise in a responsible way and have filled
some key positions.
A Kier/Bam joint venture had previously
begun enabling work at the Somerset site, as
part of a 208m contract. But work had to be
halted in April 2015 until a final investment
decision was made.
More than 400 construction staff were
working on the project at the time. Although
the majority were redeployed, there were
some redundancies.

Mr Cann said the redeployed workers would

be given the opportunity to restart work at
Hinkley.
We invested a lot of time in these people
from a safety and training programme pointof-view and we very much welcome them
back.
Construction work at Hinkley will continue
until 2025 with more than 18bn of
construction contracts to be procured overall.
Mr Cann confirmed that the next major piece
of work that subcontractors will compete for
will be Kier and Bams roads and networks
package.
He said: That will be the first package out of
the bag, and then there will be quite a few
civils packages coming from that.
Along with Hinkley Point C, EDF is developing
another major nuclear plant in Flamanville,
France.
That project, in the north of the country, has
been beset by problems since construction
started in 2007; it is now running six years
behind schedule and more than 7bn
(5.2bn) over budget.
The Areva EPR reactor technology used at
both Hinkley and Flamanville is also being
used at the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland.
That project is currently running 10 years
behind schedule and 5bn (3.7bn) over
budget.
However, asked whether Hinkley could be
prone to similar problems, Mr Cann said he

believed the Somerset reactor would be in a

much more robust position.
He said this was because EDF had agreed a
generic design assessment with the Office of
Nuclear Regulation ahead of construction
starting.
This will stand us in good stead to avoid
issues that they had at other plants where
the architecture of the design wasnt agreed
with the regulator before the project started.
He added that early engagement with
contractors was also an approach that set
Hinkley apart from other projects.
He said: We are expecting to have an
integrated team in Bristol, where the
contractors will work in the same offices with
us. This will make sure there is a clear buy-in
and no secrets from anybody and we are set
up for success.
So much has been written about the plan to build two new
EDF reactors at Hinkley Point that you might think that it's
all been said [1].
So far, the main focus has been on the cost of the thing but money is really only just part this nuclear deadlock.
Of course, Osborne knows Hinkley is much, much too
expensive. That battle has been fought, and he lost it
some time ago.
But the real nuclear war has just begun - as, when
pushed, Osborne, the Treasury and DECC all say that the
big picture is really about a rats nest of issues facing the
UK energy market.
These are: security of supply; diversity of supply;
decarbonisation - all set in the context of electricity price
stability and affordability. So let's take a look at each in
turn and see if any make sense - just to make sure.

Security of supply
Osborne says that we need a secure supply of nuclear
baseload electricity. But Steve Holliday, CEO of National
Grid, the company that operates the power transmission
networks in the UK and in the northeastern US, says the
idea of large nuclear power stations to be used for
baseload power is outdated:
"The world is clearly moving towards much more
distributed electricity production and towards microgrids.
The pace of that development is uncertain. That depends
on political decisions, regulatory incentives, consumer
preferences, technological developments. But the
direction is clear." [2]
And unlike Germany, who are cutting consumption,
Osborne's energy policy is based on the assumption that
there will be increasing energy supply demand. But is he
really unaware that since 2005 overall energy use in the
UK has fallen by 18%?
Just in the last year, even while GDP grew by 2.8%,
energy sales fell by 6.6%. In fact, we are now using 5%
less energy than 50 years ago, even though our wealth
has practically tripled. So serious energy efficiency policy
scenarios show that the UK economy could flourish whilst
using significantly less energy.
Osborne says that Hinkley is needed to 'stop the lights
going out' - yet any 'generation gap' is already forecast by
Ofgem before 2020. So the real security of supply
challenge happens well before Hinkley could begin
generation.
Putting aside the inevitable construction cost and time
over-runs, the fact is that Hinkley wont make it on-time to
help with our security of supply problem - since, according
to EDF, it's not supposed to come on-line until 2024 at the
very earliest, and that date is looking more and more
optimistic.
And there's a misconception that all except one of the
UK's eight nuclear power plants will be closed in 2024.
Rather, EDF, the owner of most of them, say that five of
their seven operating UK reactors will continue to 2027-31
and even longer.

Diversity of supply
There is good evidence to predict that UK onshore wind
and PV will be at zero operational cost by 2025, and
offshore wind will have a far lower operational cost than
nuclear [3]. In response, Osborne says he doesn't prefer
nuclear, its just that he needs it for a balanced portfolio of
power sources.
But the flip side to investment in Hinkley is low
investment in renewable energy generation. This is
because the government Levy Control Framework imposes
a strict cap on low carbon energy financed from the public
purse (from levies on the bills of energy consumers) [4].
And because the government will be contractually obliged
to provide on-going State Aid for the incredibly long 35
year Hinkley contract, there will simply be very little
money left over for renewables - as the Levy Control
Framework budget will have been already consumed by
nuclear.
So Hinkley will crowd out investment in renewables.
Greedy nuclear will have 'eaten all the pies' before
renewables get a look in, and progress towards achieving
overall targets for low-carbon renewable energy will
inevitably falter.
All this being so (which it is), we can see why the
government has been chopping and slashing at UK
renewable funding, and why there is widespread concern
at the failure to consider a purposeful energy efficiency
stimulus for real diversity of supply.
Decarbonisation
Ramping climate change means we need to de-carbonise
quickly. Osborne has reframed nuclear as a response to
climate change. But Hinkley, together with its radioactive
waste stores, including spent fuel, will be sited on the
coast, increasingly vulnerable to sea-level rise, flooding
and storm surge from climate change.
Sorry to say that, as the UK Institute of Mechanical
Engineers state: "Nuclear sites based on the coastline
may need considerable investment to protect them
against rising sea levels, or even abandonment or
relocation in the long term." [5]

Osborne maintains that nuclear is low-carbon. Yet serious

analysis shows that, factoring in the full nuclear life-cycle
from uranium mining, through transport, fuel enrichment,
plant construction and operation, decommissioning and
waste management, nuclear CO2 emissions have a mean
value of 66g CO2e/kWh.
That's significantly higher than for wind (2,8-7,4
g/kWhel), hydropower (17-22 g/kWhel), photovoltaic (1959 g/kWhel), and energy efficiency measures (which are
at least ten times more cost effective) [6].
Affordability and price stability
Osborne says Hinkley is good value. But it's difficult to
comprehend how Hinkley might contribute to affordability,
price stability and least-cost for the UK energy consumer.
In fact, Hinkley would be the most expensive piece of
nuclear kit ever built [7], and the agreed price for its
electricity must inevitably lead to significantly higher
prices for the UK energy consumer [8].
However, it does remain true that the deal would prove
very profitable to French and Chinese nuclear corporations
during the lengthy 35-year Contract period, including the
very generous proposals for an inflation-indexed deal.
Essentially, all this means that the Government is willing
to add 19 billion to the deficit, and will impose 2
billion/year on the energy bills of hardworking families in
order to support Chinese and French state owned
industries provided wholesale electricity prices do not fall,
in which case the imposition on bills will be even greater.
Signed, sealed, delivered?
Osborne says he will sign a deal with the Chinese
President Xi JinPing in late October 2015. But there are
problems for the boyish Chancellor. The governments of
Austria and Luxembourg, and six German Stadtwerke
have launched a legal challenge through the EC Court of
Justice [9].
They say that UK nuclear State Aid subsidies runs counter
to EU Law. Whatever the outcome, based on the average
time-spans of similar cases, this legal action is likely to
delay Hinkley for three to four years [10]. In any event,
how on earth can any real decision about Hinkley be made

when it's subject to a serious European governmental law

suit?
Also, it's become clear that EDF have been aware for
some time of critical anomalies in the EPR reactor planned
for Hinkley [11]. France's nuclear safety regulator, ASN,
are still carrying out critical tests on 'serious' flaws in the
steel housing in the reactor core - and if there's one place
you don't want any flaws it's the reactor pressure vessel
itself.
So how can Osborne come to any decision about Hinkley
before these fundamentally important, critical safety tests
are carried out, and the results anaysed?
This means that, for key legal and technical safety
reasons, anything Osborne may or may not sign just wont
be sealed or delivered. On top of this, it's clear that
Osbornes 'big arguments' for Hinkley just don't stack up.
It won't make a timely contribution to UK security of
supply or decarbonisation, and won't contribute to
affordability, price stability and least-cost for the UK
energy consumer.
The development of diverse, sustainable and affordable
low carbon energy is a growing economic sector with huge
potential for job creation in the UK.
To limit this diversity for political face-saving reasons
through inflexible and costly support of nuclear power, at
the expense of other, more flexible, safe, productive, costeffective and affordable technologies seems, at the very
least, unwise.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100601133.pdf
DepartmentofEnergy&ClimateChangeTheLevyControl
Framework
https://www.nao.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/10303
001LevyControlFramework.pdf

Austrian legal action could delay Hinkley Point

nuclear for three to four years
googleon: all
[if IE 9]><video style="display: none;"><![endif] [if IE 9]></video><!
[endif]

Based on the average data associated with such cases, the legal
objection made by Austria this week against the European
Commission to facilitate Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could
delay the progress of the facility for around three to four years.
That timeframe is based on the average expectation associated
with such cases, as confirmed this week by a legal expert who had
been advising the Austrian government on the matter.

It is less than the worst case scenario timeframe of five to eight

years but that delay is not beyond the bounds of possibility as the
subsequent decision could still be challenged.
Dr Dorte Fouquet, Partner, BBH Brussels who has been
advising Vienna on the matter of their objection to Britains flagship
nuclear power project on the basis of State Aid contravention told
Power Engineering International, From the publication on
average statistics from the European Court in State Aid cases the
duration can be on average between 31,5 und 50,3 months.
Dr Fouquet quoted the information from the 2013 Annual report of

the European Court of Justice, (pg. 186).

She had told an audience at Platts Power Summit in central
London at the end of April that if Vienna pressed on with its
challenge it could set back construction of the Hinkley Point C
project for even longer than that average.
Based on whether a party was unhappy with that, it could then go
again before the European Court of Justice, which could also take
years, though probably not as much as the first; this is based on
average procedures.
Paul Spence, Director of Strategy and Corporate Affairs for
EDF, when asked for a response to this at that time, Not speaking
from an EDF point of view but as a UK citizen, to be faced with a
circumstance where we have 5 to 8 years of pause as a result of
an objection, that doesnt look like it will be a positive outcome for
the UK energy system.
Both the British government and EDF are now sticking resolutely to
their belief that the Austrian challenge is bound to fail. Regardless
of the inevitability of Austrians case being dismissed, there
remains the question of a potential, and difficult delay for the
project, but EDF are not responding to that specific possibility.
Adam Shortman, Senior Media Officer with DECC told Power
Engineering International went further saying, We do not
anticipate significant delays as a result of the challenge. We have
no reason to believe this challenge has any merit.
An EDF spokesperson added, There is no change to our previous
statement (from 29 June).
That statement read, "We are confident that the European

Commission's State aid decision on Hinkley Point C is legally

robust and have no reason to believe that Austria will submit a
challenge of any merit."
Interestingly that bullishness is not just confined to those in the UK
who are pro-Hinkley Point C.
Dr. Reinhard Schanda, a partner at the Vienna-based law firm
Sattler & Schanda told PEi that a three to four year delay is
'optimistic'.
"The General Court is not the final instance. Ultimately the
European Court of Justice will decide the case, which will take
another 14-24 months. Therefore a delay of only three years
seems a quite optimistic guess (from the operators perspective) to
me. Most likely it will take five to six years time."
"If the appeal is successful, any aid that has been paid in the
meantime will have to be repaid. Obviously, this will severely
complicate any financing of the project unless the operator is
able to finance through 100 per cent equity and is willing to put this
equity at full risk."
In an email statement, Schanda went on to outlined the prospects
of the Austrian challenge being fended off.
"With regard to the chances of success: There are several
cumulative criteria that have to be fulfilled in order to qualify a state
aid measure as compatible with the internal market under Art 107
para 3 TFEU. If only one criteria is not fulfilled, a state aid measure
has to be declared prohibited."
"The most interesting question will be, whether a provision of the
1957 Euratom Treaty, encouraging the development of nuclear
energy, can support the Commission's view that the construction
of Hinkley Point C is a 2014 EU objective of common interest (to
develop innovative economic activities), although (i) Euratom and
the EU are two different international organizations and Article 194

TFEU expressly provides neutrality versus various generation

methods and (ii) one might well argue that nuclear energy since
1957 has long been developed and therefore lacks the necessary
innovation for a state aid under Art 107 para 3 lit c TFEU.
PEi contacted the European Courts press office to confirm
average timeframes for similar cases impacted by such objections.
Christopher Fretwell, Media Officer for the European Court of
Justice pointed out the difference between the basic challenge
Austria has made, and a request that the decision be suspended.
"Average times are now at the lower end of that range, around 2.5
years for State aid cases. An appeal of any General Court
judgment to the ECJ could take around 18 months," Fretwell told
Power Engineering International. "However, the mere fact that the
Commission decision has been appealed has no effect on the
decision itself it is presumed valid until judged otherwise."
"If Austria want to ask for the decision to be suspended pending
the outcome of the case then they can do so, at present it wouldnt
appear that they have. Moreover such a request is only granted if
1) the action in the main proceedings doesnt appear to be totally
without merit, 2) that such a suspension is urgent and that Austria
would suffer serious and irreparable harm without it and 3) a
suspension is necessary taking into account the balancing of the
parties' interests and of the public interest."
Whether that all means Austria has genuinely hurt the UK's
nuclear programme, or if it resembles more of a symbolic
objection, is difficult to quantify

StateAidimpactonNuclearNewbuildintheEU

http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/P
ublications/2014/07/StateAidImpactonNuclearNew
BuildintheEUGNG080714.pdf

USE IT OR LOSE IT SAYS

HARKIN
July 3, 2016

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS ATTEMPTING TO

MOVE THE GOALPOSTS CONCERNING THE ISSUE
OF WATER CHARGES IN IRELAND BY GIVING
CONTRADICTORY RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT.

Marian Harkin MEP

This was stated by independent MEP Marian Harkin when she

slated the European Commission for issuing confusing messages
and, in the process, misrepresenting the position governing water
charges in Ireland. She said- The European Water Framework
Directive lays down the rules on charging domestic consumers for
water. It contains a derogation put there specifically for Ireland that,
in line with established practices, a member state may decide not
to impose water charges for certain users including for domestic
purposes.
She referred to a Commission response to a question which
indicated that the established practices were in fact decided when

the Directive came into force as far back as 2003. She pointed out
that subsequently in 2010 the Irish government signalled its
intention to introduce water charges in its first River Basin Plan and
charges were subsequently introduced in 2014. However, in a
recent response from the European Commission the goal posts
were moved and they now say that established practice in fact
relates to 2010 when the government introduced its plans, she
said.
She pointed out that this response totally contradicted the first
reply which was clear and unequivocal about the timing which is
2003. This unfortunately shows us that that the European
Commission has learned nothing and are trying to force water
charges in Ireland by making it up as they go along, Marian Harkin
said.
The Independent MEP stressed that the Commission should know
better as it lost a case in the European Court of Justice when it
took the German Government to court for not charging for water.
That judgment clearly states that the Directive gives Member
States the flexibility to charge or not to directly charge for water,
she said.
She continued:-Furthermore, and most importantly, Ireland still
has to submit its second River Basin Plan in which it can activate
the derogation for water charges. This has been confirmed by the
Commission which stated; should Ireland wish to rely on the
provisions of article 9 (4) in the second River Basin Plan a
justification needs to be included in the plan. Crucially they also
state that this needs to be reflected in the draft plan so that the
public can effectively comment thereon.
There was an immediate need to focus on this issue, she
emphasised because, as of now the Government was refusing to
avail of the derogation and erroneously saying that the European
Commission would not allow it. This is the European Commission
and the Government being two faced and, if the Government
doesnt act now, we could find ourselves in a situation that water

charges will be imposed with the Commission entitled to say that

the Irish Government did not seek a derogation, she said.
In this situation, there would not be any justification for the Irish
Government attempting to blame Brussels when the power to
implement policy existed in their own hands- its a matter of use it
or lose it, Independent MEP Marian Harkin concluded.
Original article; www.marianharkin.com, June 28, 2016

SubmissiontotheCommissionforAviation
RegulationontheConsultationonProcessfor
ConsiderationofSupplementaryCapex
Allowance
>
16th September 2016
Submission Summary
In response to the consultation on Process for Consideration
of Supplementary Capex Allowance, An Taisce submit that it is
a matter of fact that Commission Paper 5/2016 has failed to
make any reference to consideration of climate mitigation in
airport capital investment.
With the most recent information published by the EU
highlighting the high volume of emissions generated by
aviation, stating that "someone flying from London to New
York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions
as the average person in the EU does by heating their home
for a whole year" and with global international aviation
projected to increase, An Taisce have submitted that the
Commission for Aviation Regulation need to comply with
Section 15 of the Climate and Low Carbon Development Act
2015.
http://www.antaisce.org/sites/antaisce.org/files/20160916-cfarca.pdf
submission by the European Environmental Bureau on Effectiveness and
Efficiency of the Common Agricultural Policy.
http://www.antaisce.org/sites/antaisce.org/files/opinion_agricult
ure_i_4a_final.pdf

SMART METERS FAIL DATA

PRIVACY TESTS
September 25, 2016

POST BODY
What you didn't know about your fitness tracker and your
right to privacy
by Rita Cahill

Irish Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon

Smart electricity meters and wearable fitness trackers are failing

Irish peoples privacy, according to a new report by the data
protection regulator.
Helen Dixons office will now step up audits of technology devices
after a survey of 300 internet of things devices found alarming

shortfalls in the management of personal data by developers and

suppliers.
The study also involved 25 other data protection authorities. It
showed that three quarters of device manufacturers failed to
explain how customers could delete their information. It also
showed that two thirds of manufacturers failed to explain how
information was stored, while three in five failed to explain how
personal information would be collected and processed. Just over
a third of manufacturers failed to include easily identifiable contact
details if customers had privacy concerns.
In the Irish area of study, nine devices were investigated ranging
from smart electricity meters to fitness trackers. The data regulator
declined to name the manufacturers involved.
However, the office is considering action against those who are
found to be in breach of legislation.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner is planning to
scale up investigative and audit work in this area in 2017, said
John Rogers, the data watchdogs senior investigations officer who
coordinated the Irish sweep. We have already begun to schedule
audits of devices in the technology sector. The purpose of these
audits will be to gauge compliance with the Data Protection Acts
and to work with companies to ensure that their products are
meeting the required standards.
The sweep was coordinated by the Global Privacy Enforcement
Network, an informal network of global data protection agencies.

TDS QUERY IRISH WATERS

ACCESS TO DPP AHEAD OF
LEGAL ACTIONS
September 25, 2016

Anti-meter protesters confront Irish Water contractors in RahenyColin

Keegan

by Justine McCarthy
Irish Water has held discussions with the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) about how the utilitys relationship with
water meter installers can be best presented in criminal
prosecutions.
TDs who oppose water charges claim the discussions indicate an
unusual level of access to the DPP and say that they intend to
raise the matter in the Dail.
The discussions came to light in a letter obtained during court
proceedings relating to an anti-metering protest in Dun Laoghaire
in May 2015.
The letter, dated July 20, 2015, was written by Kevin McSherry,
Irish Waters metering development manager, and was addressed
to Superintendent Kevin Dolan in Dun Laoghaire garda station. It
described the discussions with the DPPs office as being at a high
level.
McSherry said it had been agreed that a corporate witness
statement would be provided for each prosecution from a senior
Irish Water manager, which will highlight, inter alia, the
relationship between Irish Water and its contractors and the fact

that Irish Water is entitled, pursuant to its corporate memorandum

and articles, to act through contractors.
Joan Collins, an Independents 4 Change TD who was acquitted
last February of charges arising from an anti-water protest, said: I
would think its highly irregular that a company would have direct
contact with the DPP, and Ill be asking questions in the Dail.
The DPP is supposed to be independent. She cannot even give
reasons for her prosecution decisions. To have a company have
private discussions with her or her officials is sinister.
A spokeswoman for Irish Water said there was nothing out of the
ordinary about the meeting. [It] was simply for the purposes of
clarifying a legal procedural query we had, she said. An Garda
Siochana had requested clarification on how Irish Water would
demonstrate our legal relationship with our metering contractor, as
this evidence would be required for any prosecution against a third
party for interference or obstruction of the contractor.
We met with the DPP to clarify the appropriate way to provide
evidence of this legal relationship and this was deemed to be
through a witness statement.
Irish Waters head of capital delivery subsequently provided a
witness statement for prosecutions being taken by the DPP.
Paul Murphy, an Anti-Austerity Alliance TD, described the letter as
fairly significant.
Irish Water is not the gardai. It is a semi-state company. The letter
raises question marks over the DPP and what was happening in
those discussions. There is at least a problem of perception, he
said.
Murphy is due to go on trial next year on charges relating to a
protest in Jobstown during which Joan Burton, the then tanaiste,
was trapped in her car.
The DPPs office did not reply to questions.
The Sunday Times, Ireland, Sept 25, 2016

JOBSTOWN NOT GUILTY -

WILL YOU GET BEHIND US?

September 19, 2016

by Paul Murphy
Almost two years after the Jobstown protest the first false
imprisonment trial will start on Monday in the Childrens
Court where a 17-year-old, who recently completed his
Leaving Cert, faces imprisonment.

The sit-down protest at Jobstown, Tallaght, November 2014

An injury to one is an injury to all so goes the old union slogan.

It is a principle which #JobstownNotGuilty is appealing to, as we
seek to rally opposition to a major threatened injustice next week.
On November 15, 2014, then Tanaiste and leader of the Labour
Party, Joan Burton was met by a spontaneous protest in Jobstown.
The protest grew to hundreds of people, as a community ravaged
by the impact of austerity and betrayed by the Labour Party came
out to make their voice heard.
A sit-down protest behind her car, which was parked beside a food

bank took place, followed by another sit-down protest and slow

march in front of a Garda jeep that Ms Burton was moved into.
In total, the protest went on for about two and a half hours. Around
the corner, it later emerged, a homeless couple were living in their
car for weeks.
After almost two eventful years, including two weeks of heavyhanded dawn raids, finding out through the media that we were to
be charged with false imprisonment, and the tragic death of one of
the accused, the trials are now upon us.
The first false imprisonment trial will start on Monday in the
Childrens Court, where a 17-year-old young man, who recently
completed his Leaving Cert, will stand trial.
Itll never go to trial we were all re-assured repeatedly by people
incredulous that the definition of false imprisonment could be
stretched to include sit-down protests and slow marching. Yet it is.
This is not going to stop before Monday. By the end of next week, a
young man could be sentenced to jail.
Next April, the first group of adult defendants will begin their sixweek trial and could face up to life in prison. The total cost to the
State of these prosecutions runs into the millions of euros.
How did it come to this?
This is not the first occasion when Ministers were delayed as
a result of sit-down protests.
Take just one university, University College Dublin (UCD):
Taoiseach Charlie Haughey was met by sit-down protests in 1989.
In 2002, Minister Noel Dempsey was stuck in a building
surrounded by protesting students for hours.
Six years later, Brian Lenihan was reportedly blockaded by
protesting students there again.
Not one prosecution for even minor public order offences,
never mind false imprisonment, followed any of these
protests.
Whats so special about Jobstown?
It is a working-class community and a protest that has come

to symbolise the dramatic shift in Irish politics.

That shift is one deeply unfavourable for the traditional
establishment parties and the economic elite that they represent.
A key part of that change is the refusal of people to play the role
allotted to them of waiting in the long grass for elections
passively voting for parties like the Labour Party at election time,
only to be sold out once again.
Instead, the anti-water charges movement was the lightning rod for
accumulated anger to explode.
The result was widespread civil disobedience, centred in workingclass communities like Jobstown.
Instead of the caricature of apathy, these communities were central
to protests against Ministers, the prevention of the installation of
unwanted water meters and, crucially, the 73% refusing to pay
water charges bills.
Not only widespread civil disobedience, but successful widespread
civil disobedience with the Government forced to suspend water
charges and Fianna Fil forced into opposing them.
If you are part of the 1% in this country, with your traditional parties
reduced to less than a combined 50% of support and Labour
slashed from 37 seats to 7 this is a very scary vista,
considering the number of other issues that social movements are
possible on.
It is a prospect that requires a strong response from their
point of view. That is what explains the reaction of the state.
The effect of the conviction of people for false imprisonment would
be to send a clear message this far and no further, back into
your box. You may have forced us to suspend water charges, but
dont forget that effective protest is criminal and protesters will be
criminalised.
It is a draconian extension of the political policing that was on view
in response to the anti-water charges movement, from the arrest of
more than 200 protesters at anti-water meter protests, the
outrageous jailing of a number, Operation Mizen spying against

protesters and the denial of the Anti-Austerity Alliance of the right

to fund raise on the grounds that the money would be used to
commission an unlawful act
This is a threat not just to the freedom and future of the 17-yearold, or the other 18 defendants.It represents much more than that.
It is an attack on the people of Jobstown and Tallaght
punishment for being to the forefront of the movement against
austerity.
It is an attack on peoples democratic right to elect the TD of their
choosing, because I would be removed as a TD if sentenced to
more than six months in prison.
Most importantly, it is a fundamental attack on peoples right to
protest. If sit-down protests are false imprisonment, then there are
a lot of potential kidnappers out there.
Any striker who mounts an effective picket preventing the
movement of vehicle could be guilty. Any anti-war protester
who sits down outside Shannon airport could be guilty.
Any abortion rights protester who participates in a slow march
could be guilty. We all become kidnappers.
It sounds farcical, but it is deadly serious. At stake here is peoples
right to protest.
#JobstownNotGuilty was established by the defendants one year
ago to co-ordinate a united defence campaign of all. We have been
working away on legal and campaign preparations.
Now, we are appealing for people to support us and their own
rights.
Much of the media has already pronounced our guilt, with the tone
set from the day of our arrest, with Claire Byrne declaring that you
falsely imprisoned the Tnaiste and continued famously by Ryan
Tubridy on the Late Late Show, not to mention theSunday
Independent.
We therefore rely on people themselves connecting with
#JobstownNotGuilty and spreading the information about the
injustice that is threatened.

We need people to pass motions in trade unions, students unions

and campaign groups.
We want other communities to publicly express their solidarity and
support for Jobstown. This should become a national scandal
with a demand that the charges be dropped.
The 17-year-old is on trial for all of us next week.
We have launched a fundraising appeal to raise the 2,000
necessary for bail in case he is jailed, so that he can appeal
without being incarcerated.
One of our campaign will read out a statement on his behalf at
Saturdays Right2Water march and we will be present with
placards and leaflets.
Most importantly, we are appealing to people to turn out to the
Childrens Court in Smithfield, Dublin 7on Monday morning at
10am for the start of the trial of the 17-year-old.
A massive display of solidarity is needed to show that we stand
behind him.

ITS NOT A U-TURN" - FIANNA

FIL WANTS WATER
CHARGES ABOLISHED
September 12, 2016

POST BODY

THEYRE SUSPENDED FOR NOW BUT

THE PARTY WANTS THEM GONE
ALTOGETHER.

Fianna Fail leader Michel Martin pictured in 2011.

image: Mark Stedman/RollingNews.ie

FIANNA FIL HAS said that it wants water charges abolished and
the provision of water funded by general taxation.
The charges are currently suspended as an expert commission set
up to determine the future of water charges begins its work.
Fianna Fil has made its submission to the commission in which
the party sets out its opinion that water charges should be
abolished.
Speaking to RTs Morning Ireland, Fianna Fil leader Michal
Martin denied that this represented a U-turn for his party.
The introduction of water charges was part of the bailout deal Brian
Cowens Fianna Fil government signed with the Troika in 2010.
Its not a U-turn, weve said from day 1 prior to the election and
our submission is very consistent with our general election
position, he said.
For the lifetime of this government, we want the abolition of water
charges as theyre currently in existence and we believe that a
combination of funding from from the general exchequer on the
current side. And in terms of the investment side from the

European Investment Bank and the Strategic Investment Fund.

Martin said that he wants general taxation to pay for Irish Water
into the future.
Despite wanting water charges gone, he says it is not his partys
position to abolish Irish Water but instead wants an external
examination of how the utility operates.
The European Commission been forthright in saying that Ireland
must introduce water charges and has restated this view on
several occasions.
Martin, however, believes that the commissions legal argument is
wrong.
We have legal opinion to the effect that the commission is wrong
in terms of its assertions and indeepd the previous Minister would
have said as much in 2010, he said.
http://www.thejournal.ie/ Sept 12, 2016

JOAN BURTON TELLS COURT

SHE COULD NOT GET OUT OF
CAR DURING JOBSTOWN

PROTEST
September 19, 2016

POST BODY
Former tnaiste worried she would not be able to run because
she had lost her shoe

Protesters outside the trial of a 17-year-old for false imprisonment at the

Childrens Court in Smithfield, Dublin. Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins

Former tnaiste Joan Burton has told a court she was frightened
and did not think she had the alternative of being able to get out of
a car surrounded by people during a Jobstown protest.
She was giving evidence on day one of the trial of a Dublin youth
(17) accused of falsely imprisoning Ms Burton and her advisor
Karen OConnell during the water demonstration at the
Fortunestown Road in Jobstown in Tallaght, Dublin, on November
15th, 2014.
The youth was aged 15 at the time and is being tried before Judge
John King at the Dublin Childrens Court. He denies the charges.
The prosecution alleges that the tnaiste and her entourage were
trapped for about three hours after they had attended a graduation
ceremony at the An Cosn education centre.
The former Labour leader and then minister for spcial protection
told prosecuting counsel Tony McGillicuddy that she arrived at

about 11.30 am for the ceremony. She said the current Minister for
Children Katherine Zappone, and former Minister Kevin
Humphries, as well as several academics, were also there.
She described the graduation ceremony as having a happy
atmosphere and said she was given a warm welcome. The Dublin
West TD said she had a lot of connections with the An Cosn
centre because it promoted adult education.
She said that when she arrived she noticed some protesters. A
young male in a clean blue tracksuit was holding a phone close to
her face trying to take a photo and saying Talk to us Joan, she
said.
The defence said that she was referring to the youth who was
accompanied to the court by his mother and his legal team. The
teenager cannot be named because he is a minor.
Ms Burton said that she went to a nearby church for the second
part of the ceremony. She walked with her entourage as well as the
graduates, academics and others involved with An Cosn.
She alleged that she was hit twice with water balloons, adding that
it hurt and her clothes were wet. She said the crowd was pushing
and she felt it surge and she described them as very wild. She
said that was when the hassle started.
Her advisor Karen OConnell gave her a jacket to wear for the
remainder of the ceremony.
After she made her speech at the church she was advised by a
garda that she would have to leave.
She said she made haste to a Garda car. She sat in the back with
Ms OConnell and she said there was a lot of noise and offensive
language. Ms OConnell was upset and she put her arms around
her, the court was told.
There was a large number of children present and she was
concerned about them, Ms Burton said. She said some of the
protesters were banging on the windows. She also said the
teenager was standing beside the car.
She said that there was a lot of vulgar abuse and she was called a

f***ing c*** and stuff like that. She said she was annoyed that the
graduation was disrupted.
One person behind the car had a megaphone and she said that at
this point she wanted to be able to leave as early as possible.
She said she feared what would happen if they got the car door
open.
Garda moved her to a second vehicle, a jeep. She said the
officers were around her like a screen and the crowd was pushing.
She said they were very aggressive and there was a lot of pushing.
Plastic bottles and eggs were being thrown, she said.
She said that when she reached the Garda jeep she flung herself
into the back seat. She felt menaced and added I worried what
will happen if they manage to open the car doors. She said
protesters continued banging on the roof and doors and shouting
abuse.
She said she was very frightened and comforted Ms OConnell.
She was a little upset and to be honest I put my arm around her
and and said well be fine, she said.
When she was being moved to that car she had worried that she
would not be able to run because she lost her shoe and she felt
she was losing her footing.
There were more protesters around and the jeep off moved slowly.
After what seemed a long time, she was transferred to a another
Garda vehicle which rushed her away, she said. She was taken to
Garda HQ in the Phoenix Park.
In cross-examination Giollaosa Lideadha SC, defending, put it
to her that garda made an operational decision to progress the
situation. Are you suggesting I had an alternative, of leaving the
car? Because I dont think I had, she replied.
Deputy Bruton said she made a statement to garda but had no
knowledge of what charges would be brought. She denied that she
hoped the event would be damaging to other or how she would
present it for political purposes.
She agreed it was a protest which she said people were free to do

but she added that there were features of it which were extremely
difficult for myself and other occupants of the car.
The protest lasted for about three and a half hours the court heard.
Her former advisor Karen OConnell told the court that when she
was crying and in a state of shock.I was very upset, I was hyperventilating, I felt very unsafe, I felt very distressed, she said.
People were using horrible language, she said.
She also said that during the walk from An Cosn to the church
she was struck on her back.
She said they were surrounded and in the first car for about 45
minutes to an hour and could not move. The car was being shaken
and it was a very frightening experience, she said. People were
sitting on the car behind us, the car could not move and we were
frightened, we werent in a position to get out of the car, they were
screaming profanities at his, I did not feel safe, I did not feel I could
leave.
When they were being moved to the jeep she heard someone say
Get the cunts, there they go. She stumbled and they were
bundled into the jeep, she said.
She also said that as situation escalated the number of protesters
increased. A garda public order unit also came in riot gear and an
agreement was made that the protesters could slow march out in
front of the jeep, the court was told.
Short video clips taken by Deputy Burton and Ms OConnell on
their phones were also shown in court. Ms OConnell also said
demonstrators shouted at them that they hoped she and Ms Burton
would die. She also alleged she saw a woman garda getting struck
after an open can of beans was thrown at her.
The trial continues on Tuesday.

IRISH WATER TO GET 660M

BAILOUT
September 22, 2016

POST BODY
Irish Water will get a 660m bailout this year but a decision to
suspend water charges could have big consequences for funding
other services next year, warns Housing Minister Simon Coveney.
by Juno McEnroe, Irish Examiner

His suggestion was backed by Public Expenditure Minister Paschal

Donohoe who said funding for Irish Water would compete with
other demands such as housing.
The pre-budget cautions put Fine Gael directly at odds with Fianna
Fil, which wants water charges suspended indefinitely. Taoiseach
Enda Kenny yesterday accused Fianna Fil of a reversal to oldschool populism in insisting water charges not be reintroduced.
Funding for Irish Water is being considered by a commission on
water charges, due to report in November.
Mr Coveney said the 2017 position on funding for Irish Water is
dependent on what the commission and a follow-up Dil committee
conclude.
It had been planned that the subvention, or bailout, for Irish Water
would be 479m. Irish Water estimates its shortfall from water
charges to be 181m for this year. This brings the total subvention

needed for Irish Water this year to 660m, Mr Coveney told the
Oireachtas housing committee.
The 181m shortfall will be plugged by the 110m that was to go to
the water conservation grant, a 58m loan to Irish Water, and
another 13m still to be found.
Mr Coveney said the 110m from the conservation grant would not
be there next year. Lets be honest about this, if the Oireachtas
decides to do away with water charges, then we still need to
progress and deliver on the significant capital expenditure
programme that Irish Water needs to deliver on, he said.
That will have to come through other revenue raising and
presumably general taxation, which then limits our ability to spend
in other areas and also undermines the water conservation
incentive that comes with having some link between what people
pay and how much they use, never mind all the issues around
water directives.
Funding for Irish Water will be discussed when the commission
reports and in the context of the budget, the committee was told.
Mr Coveney said: But the choices we make have consequences,
big consequences, because regardless of what way you cut it, we
have to invest billions of euros over the next five years in water
infrastructure and it has got to be paid for. The only question we
have to decide is, do we pay for that through general taxation; do
we pay for it through a combination of general taxation and direct
charging that tries to incentivise conservation and water
management; or do we go back to a previous charging system?
He added: There is a big cost if we decide not to have revenue
stream coming from water provision to domestic houses. There are
big consequences in terms of the flow of money in and out of
government.
Separately, Mr Coveney warned local authorities not to expect the
Government to pick up the tab if they reduce property taxes next
year. Some 16 councils cut rates last year and 11 had done so this
year, he said.

The warning on water was also made by Mr Donohoe, when he

told a separate committee about budget preparations. Water
treatment coming directly from general taxation would directly
compete with other needs including housing, he said.

ESTABLISHMENT BEGINS AN
ALL OUT ASSAULT ON THE
RIGHT TO PROTEST -

JOBSTOWN
September 25, 2016

A court case began this week in the Children's Court, Dublin

against a juvenile, the first member of 18 protesters charged
with falsely imprisoning Joan Burton and her adviser during
an anti water charge protest in November 2014. The accused
was 15 at the time of the water protest at Fortunestown Road
in Jobstown in Tallaght, Dublin. The last day of this first case
is set for 27th September when, as the jargon goes, 'a verdict
will be handed down'.

Many might not read much into this little case in the juvenile court
but many would see itas the State flexing it's muscle, using the full
force of the legal system to come down hard on a working class
community and the general principle of the right to protest. In this
first case it is picking on a juvenile breaking up the case into
separate cases. Possibly it believes that this is potentially a weak
link in the Jobstown Not Guilty Campaign.
The case against the 18 Jobstown protesters accused of falsely
imprisoning Joan Burton is no minor matter. If convicted the
accused could receive lengthy prison sentences. No matter what
this case will have historic relevance and could have serious

intended consequences for anyone protesting.

Joan Burton gives evidence in case against teen accused of false

imprisonment. RTE News

The State's historic repressive apparatus

How would one look at the State's assault against the working
class in 1913 when 'William Murder Murphy', a journalist, a
member of parliament and prominent bussinessman initiated the
Dublin Lockout of 1913?
Central to that dispute was the 'right to unionise'. Central to the
jobstown case is the 'right to protest'. But common to both is the
assault on our freedom.
We wonder how former minister Joan Burton would react to a
similar nickname?

EUStakeholder

GroupSupportCAP
CheckCall

>
>
22nd September 2016
News Item
A European Commission Stakeholder Group have today
called for a Fitness Check of the Common Agricultural Policy.
This official statement supports the position of An Taisce and
other members of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
who have consistently stated that a through assessment the
CAP is the only way to untangle the gordian knot of conflicting
policies within the CAP. This obvious necessity is still opposed
by National governments as well as a range of industry and
civil society groups.
The REFIT Platform Stakeholder group recommends "that a
Fitness Check of the CAP should be a short term priority for
inclusion in the European Commissions 2017 Work
Programme in order to inform the next round of CAP reform
for the period post-2020 and the design of future
interventions."
Agriculture and Rural Development has been identified by the
Stakeholder Group as one of three priority policy areas for the

REFIT Platform to address, and most of these suggestions

relate directly to the CAP.
Undertaking a Fitness Check of the CAP now is the best way
to identify the scope for reducing regulatory burdens whilst
also improving value for money and ensuring the achievement
of the objectives pursued particularly in relation to Pillar 1.
According to the EEB under the CAP around 53 billion EUR
per year is given to farmers which represents approximately
40% of the EU budget. With almost 50% of the EU land area
under farming, improving agricultural practices are crucial to
achieving existing EU policy goals. Despite successive
reforms however including the last one, there continues to be
widespread evidence of significant inefficiencies across a
range of indicators. For example it is meant to provide income
support to all farmers yet 70% goes to 20% of farmers, mostly
cereal. The state of nature in Europe is worst for farming
dependent ecosystems, with for instance a 53% decline of
common farmland birds since the 80s.
The recently reformed CAP is unlikely to change much in this
regard with first evidence that Member States are unlikely to
be using the already weak greening measures put in place. A
Fitness Check of the CAP is the only way to ensure a rigorous
fact based and un-biased review of the available evidence on
how the new CAP is delivering towards the objectives of viable
food production, sustainable management of natural
resources and balanced territorial development. This could
yield significant gains either in terms of reduced expenditure
for achieving the same goals or achieving more ambitious
goals for the same amount of money.

OpenLetterto
CommissionerPhil
HoganaheadofCork

2.0:European
ConferenceonRural
Development,

>
>

Phil Hogan
4th September 2016
News Item
Twenty years on from the European Unions Cork Declaration
on Rural Development the leaders of the EUs Rural
Development Policy will meet again in Cork (5th - 6th
September) to set out the road map for agriculture, the
environment and the rural economy. Twenty years later and
the Common Agricultural Policy has failed to create an
agricultural sector which is socially, economically or
environmentally sustainable. Despite Commissioner Hogans
recent efforts to highlight some of the success stories of Pillar
II of CAP in Ireland, it is clear that the main thrust of the EUs
agricultural policies and subsidies continue to run counter to
the EU's own biodiversity strategy and the Paris Agreement on
Climate Change. Indeed in Ireland agricultural intensification
has resulted in agriculture being the leading cause of

biodiversity loss and our greatest challenge in our efforts to

meet compliance with our obligations under the Paris
Agreement and the Water Framework Directive. Despite the
spin and some notable success stories it is clear that in
Commissioner Hogans home country agriculture is 'Not So
Green'. This is clearly not acceptable moving forward and An
Taisce see a second Cork Declaration as a perfect opportunity
to set forth in a new direction that will deliver for all Europeans
and our shared natural heritage.
In advance of the upcoming Cork conference on rural
development Europe's leading environmental NGO coalitions
the European Environmental Bureau, BirdLife Europe and
CEEweb for Biodiversity have penned an open letter to
Commissioner Hogan in an effort to provide some sustainable
food for thought ahead of what will hopefully be a productive
debate about the future of European farming.
European Conference on Rural Development, 5-6 September
Brussels, 2nd September 2016 Dear Commissioner, In advance of
the upcoming Cork conference on rural development,

http://www.antaisce.org/sites/antaisce.org/files/hogan_l
etter_cork_conference.pdf
Submission to the European Commissions Consultation
on Fishing Opportunities for 2017

http://www.antaisce.org/sites/antaisce.org/files/su
bmission_to_ec_consultation_fo2017_irish_ngos.
pdf
Environmental Pillar and Stop Climate Chaos. Not
So Green Report 2016- Debunking the Myths
around Irish Agriculture.
http://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/download/pdf/not
_so_green.pdf

UpdatesonFood,
Agricultureand

ClimateChange
>

12

13

3rd July 2016

Report
An Taisce's Natural Environment Office and Climate Change
Committee continue to produce reports on the interaction
between Food, Agriculture and Climate Change:
Feeding the World Sustainably? - An Analysis of Irish and EU
Food Nutrition Trade Balances
http://www.antaisce.org/publications/feeding-the-worldsustainably-an-analysis-of-irish-and-eu-food-nutrition-tradebalances
Irelands Agricultural Sectors Role in Food Security in the
Wake of Climate Change
http://www.antaisce.org/publications/ireland%E2%80%99sagricultural-sector%E2%80%99s-role-in-food-security-in-thewake-of-climate-change
An Taisce submission Re: Draft Environmental Requirements
for Afforestation (2016) http://www.antaisce.org/articles/antaisce-submission-re-draft-environmental-requirements-forafforestation-2016

On Tuesday the 27th of September 2016 there was a

solidarity picket held outside the Children's Court in

Dublin.
The picket stood outside from 10 am till 5pm today the
day of the verdict of the Jobstown kids trial.
People from Tyrone, Arklow, Wicklow and Cavan travelled
to show solidarity outside the Children's court and there
were solidarity pickets in other counties.
Protesters crowded around on the street, in a natural
symbolic reaction of solidarity against the trial of a 17 year
old, who has long worked in communities volunteering.
Who the state has created spurious charges against him,
of false imprisonment. When the minister Joan Burton
was in Tallaght - a community blocked her in for a short
time out of her privileged life, so miniscule in comparison
to the communities who suffer a life sentence of poverty
as she and her cronies eased tax for vultures and slashed
welfare.
The vibes of the protest became more apparent as the
time dragged on throughout the day to await the verdict
which became emotional and tense, the crowd started to
sing, Youll never walk alone, and swaying in motion with
each other. The atmosphere brought a lump to my throat.
Buses and cars beeped throughout the day, even when
water tax campaigners had briefly blocked the road and
slowly dispersed off the road to allow traffic. Every passer
by were nodding in support, and talking about the trial. It
seemed all knew it was utterly wrong. The atmosphere
was chilling.
The 17 year old who cant be named came out of the
courthouse to the crowd chanting, and then the
announcement that the verdict has been adjourned, put
back till the 21st of October. The crowd continued singing,
Youll never walk alone. Seeing the 17 year olds face,
pale and fragile looking was haunting. At a time where a
friend of his has died to suicide within this week, where
our communities lack support and funding he was told he
has to wait to be told from a courtroom, with a judge on a
high stand and barristers, cops and forty witnesses, and
ministers who went out of their way to criminalize him he
has to come back again to see how they decide his fate.
Where the 17 year old who cant be named has to
mentally prepare what the outcome of his life will be in the

hands of the state, what his freedom will be? Where he

has to prepare for the worst, and how it affects him, his
mother, family and others. Where he is probably
envisioning how he spends his time incarcerated at the
age of 17, and how they treat him, what life is like behind
prison walls. And awaiting the days, the hours till the
morning of the verdict in a room full of cops and men in
suits and a judge on a high platform that will decide his
fate by riddle that only the highly educated in law are
meant to understand.
The state is acting out and repressing any form of dissent,
any refusal to be quiet. As Leinster house resumed after
summer holidays and reopened today, they had put up big
mental barriers across Molesworth street as the media
report, From late last night garda constructed a rigid
steel barrier to thwart any potential trouble., Fearing a
repeat of previous disruption officers were taking no
chances.. Mentioning also that their garda source were
conscious of the verdict today at the children's court and
that anti austerity and anti water charges activists would
be gathered there.
Where the state wants to further segregate and smash
any rise of dissent and push us back. It seems more
evident amongst our communities who have risen up in
direct action, on our water shores, on our comrades
shores, in banks, evictions and on our streets that this
could be setting a massive precedent of how our lives
could face being behind jail bars. Criminalized.
Now more than ever this quote seems pretty accurate as
many face serious charges continuing next week and in
the months ahead, with Jobstown on false imprisonment
charges and communities across the island facing section
12 of the water services act.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak
out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for
the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a
socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did
not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then
they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I
was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to
speak out for me.

The 17 year old who can not be named has asked for the
continuation of support as his verdict is on the 21st of
October, he says it helps ease his stress.

He has nothing to lose. He is well paid and has his multiple pensions
to look forward to when he retires. Minsters and TD's can afford to
live off their Vouched and Un-vouched expenses, while they save
their Salaries.
The reason he is in Government is due to the people who did not
bother to vote last time.
Not just the Government that has let down Nurses but also their

professional body and their Union representatives.

He has nothing to lose. He is well paid and has his multiple pensions
to look forward to when he retires. Minsters and TD's can afford to
live off their Vouched and Un-vouched expenses, while they save
their Salaries.
The reason he is in Government is due to the people who did not
bother to vote last time.
Not just the Government that has let down Nurses but also their
professional body and their Union representatives.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION
Former President Mary McAleese, Unconstitutional Legislation,
Human Rights Ireland:
:
Former President Mary McAleese

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER ...

Article 6.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann -- the Constitution of the
Republic of Ireland, and as such the SUPREME LAW of the Republic
of Ireland -- VERY CLEARLY states:
"All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate

the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of
national policy, according to the requirements of the common
good."
===
"FINAL" means "FINAL", and nothing other than "FINAL".
===

THE business of the next week-and-a-half is budget

making, writes Gerard Howlin.
Children and Family Relationships Act 2015

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/
bills28/acts/2015/a915.pdf
Round Up: Oberstown Review
19th September 2016
Following a number of serious incidents at Oberstown
Children's Detention Campus, Minister for Children
Katherine Zappone TD has today (19th Sep 2016)
announced that a review of operations at Oberstown will
be conducted by two external experts. Professor Barry
Goldson, an expert in youth justice at the University of
Liverpool, and Professor Nicholas Hardwick, the former HM
Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales and
current Chair of the Parole Board, will visit Oberstown in
the coming weeks.
The announcement of the review follows the events of
August 29th, on which Oberstown residential staff held an
eight hour work stoppage, during which children were
confined to their bedrooms from 9pm on Sunday evening
to 4pm the following day. During the stoppage, eight
children gained access to the roof of a building. Since the
incident, a number of children claim they have been held
in solitary confinement, resulting in High Court action.

]
]
]
]
]
]

Speaking on RT's Morning Ireland, IPRT Executive Director

Deirdre Malone said she hopes the review of operations at
Oberstown will resolve many of the problems at the child
detention school, and help the facility reach its education
and care-focused vision. Additionally, she said it was vital
that the review did not delay the transfer of ten youth
detainees from Wheatfield, an adult's prison, to the
Oberstown Campus, and condemned the practice of a 19
hour confinement of children during industrial action as
'not acceptable in any way'. IPRT hopes that the review
will be conducted swiftly.
Minister Zappone stated that the recent incidents at
Oberstown 'highlighted the need to reflect on the
progress achieved and to identify and address any
obstacles to the necessary future reforms', and hoped that
the findings would 'ensure the safety of all at Oberstown
and at the same time end Ireland's abysmal record of
placing children in adult prisons'. Chair of the Oberstown
Board of Management, Prof. Ursula Kilkelly stated that the
review marked 'an opportunity, not just to set the future
course for Oberstown, but to significantly change youth
justice in Ireland forever'.
Find Out More:
Deirdre Malone's interview on Morning Ireland can be
found here
Irish Independent - 'International team to investigate
security issues at Oberstown'
Irish Times - 'Review of practices at Oberstown Detention
Centre under way'
Interview with Pat Bergin, Director of Oberstown, by the
Irish Examiner available here
RT - 'Operations at Oberstown Detention Centre to be
reviewed'
thejournal.ie - 'Operations to be reviewed at Oberstown
facility'
For IPRT's previous statements on recent events at
Oberstown, please see here and here

Minister Zappone welcomes the

postponement of the proposed industrial
action at the Oberstown Children Detention
Campus

Friday 2nd September, 2016

Dr Katherine Zappone TD, Minister for Children and Youth Affairs,
today (Friday 2nd September) welcomed the postponement of the
proposed industrial action at the Oberstown Children Detention
Campus on Monday next 5th September 2016. Talks are due to
resume between the representatives of staff unions and
management which will take place under the auspices of the
Workplace Relations Commission. The postponement of the
industrial action will mean that the daily routine of the Campus will
continue next week with children attending at school as normal.
Ends//

Suffer little children: the adults are

fighting
BY ELAINE BYRNE SEPTEMBER 4, 2016

Oberstown Detention Centre in Dublin Pic: RollingNews.ie

Why did 38 vulnerable children spend 19 hours in

solitary confinement at the Oberstown Childrens
Detention Campus?
The Luas strikes were inconvenient. We had to walk, get the bus,
hail a taxi or just make different plans. We had a choice. There
were different methods of transport we could use. Annoying, but
this industrial dispute was not the end of the world.
Now picture this. The Luas drivers go on strike after talks with
management fail. They lock the doors of the Luas with the
passengers still inside. Although this long-running dispute has
nothing to do with the passengers, they are effectively punished for
it by being confined inside the Luas for 19 straight hours.

http://www.businesspost.ie/suffer-

little-children-the-adults-are-fighting/
IPRT Statement on Ongoing
Industrial Action at
Oberstown
29th August 2016
[Posted 4pm on Mon 29th Aug 2016]
IPRT is extremely concerned about the reports of
continued industrial action at Oberstown Child Detention
School, today 29 August 2016, particularly reports that
children have been confined to their bedrooms from 8am
to 4pm today.
The industrial action pursued is directly jeopardizing the
ethos of care and welfare that the child detention school
was intended to uphold. This action will have disastrous
consequences for the care and welfare of young people
and threatens to further exacerbate the existing problems
of the detained children and young people by creating
conditions of effective solitary confinement* and denying
access to meaningful education and activities. The rapid
deterioration of the situation this afternoon demonstrates
the need for both sides to resolve this dispute as quickly
as possible to prevent further incidents like this occurring
in the future.
Executive Director Deirdre Malone said today:
The nature of the action taken today is directly
detrimental to the care and welfare of the children and
young people detained at Oberstown. The rapid
deterioration of the situation demonstrates the need for
both sides to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible to
prevent further incidents like this occurring in the future.
IPRT urges open dialogue between all parties - staff,
management, and the Minister for Children and Youth
Affairs- to ensure that the issues are resolved swiftly
without any further adverse impact on the safety, rights,
and wellbeing of children and young people."
We state these specific concerns in the context of our
existing concerns about adequate staffing levels, staff
training, and the overuse of detention on remand for

young people aged under eighteen, and the crucial

importance that good relationships between staff and
detained children and young people play in reducing
tensions and ensuring a safe and secure environment for
everyone.
Deirdre Malone is available for further comment on
083 441 7577

Oberstown riot sparks calls

for return to negotiations
/before-content-widget

Childrens Minister Katherine Zappone

Childrens Minister Katherine Zappone should
negotiate with trade unions to end the industrial dispute at the

Oberstown Youth Detention Centre, a leading prison

reform group has said.
The Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) has issued a new
statement following an eight-hour work stoppage on Monday,
during which a riot broke out at the centre.
A set of keys were reportedly taken from a staff member and
led to eight detainees gaining access to the roof of a residential
unit at the centre, where a fire started at around 8pm.
Garda are investigating the cause of the fire and Oberstown
management is looking into the extent of the damage to Unit
3.
Deirdre Malone, executive director of the IPRT, said:
It is simply unacceptable that Oberstown Management and
trade unions have still not resolved workplace issues more
than a year on.
IPRT has previously written to Minister Zappone since her
appointment as Minister for Children and Youth Affairs
underlining the serious risks that unresolved staff relations
issues present to the safety of everyone at Oberstown.
Industrial action cannot be permitted to place the care and
welfare of the children and young people detained at
Oberstown at risk.
Referring to the Monday riot, Ms Malone added: IPRT
acknowledges the actions of staff who left the picket line to
assist with the unfolding situation, and prioritising the safety
of the residents.
IPRT urges all parties involved to work together to ensure
this serious risk is resolved immediately, and that it does not
delay the ending of imprisonment of children at Wheatfield
Place of Detention.

Oberstown residential staff

hold eight-hour work
stoppage
August 29, 2016

.entry-meta
.entry-header

Care staff in Oberstown held a four hour work stoppage in May

Residential care workers and supervising staff are taking part in
an eight-hour work stoppage at the Oberstown youth detention
centre today (Monday 29th August) in a dispute over poor safety
measures and increasing assaults on the campus. Full emergency

=
=

cover will remain in place during the stoppage, which

commenced at 8am this morning. The action will see residents
confined to their rooms between 8am and 4pm.
SIPTU and IMPACT trade unions have said that the action is part
of an ongoing industrial dispute in response to the increase in
attacks on staff at the States only youth detention centre.
Staff at Oberstown took part in a four-hour stoppage in May,
while attempts to resolve the issue through talks at the
Workplace Relations Commission have so far been unsuccessful.
The unions have served notice of more stoppages due to take
place on Monday 5th, 12th and 19th September.
IMPACT official Tom Hoare said: While there has been consistent
efforts to resolve this dispute, the staff are still facing the daily
risk of assault and injury. Oberstown care workers are doing the
work of prison staff with the facilities and equipment of a
residential care home. The number of assaults on staff has
continued to grow since the expansion of Oberstown to facilitate
the transfer of offenders from the prison service.
Mr Hoare has said the new campus is badly designed, with
inadequate safety equipment to deal with a mix of vulnerable
young people and violent offenders. The result is a daily risk of
serious assault, which leaves many of the staff literally in fear of
their lives as they leave for work each day, he said.
SIPTU Organiser, Ray Stanley said: Recently, through a third
party mediator, union representatives and senior management in
Oberstown agreed a document aimed at addressing staff concerns
through comprehensive structures and timeframes. We believe
this document has the potential to create a platform to deal with
members deeply held safety concerns. Unfortunately, the
solutions identified by the IMPACT and SIPTU members were flatly
rejected by management and union members have no choice but
to take this action.
The most recent official figures (supplied by the Department of
Children and Youth Affairs) revealed over 100 violent incidents in
Oberstown last year, almost half of which were classed as
critical. Critical assaults and injuries necessitated a total of
3,005 employee sick days, involving 65 staff members.
The unions say:
The expansion and refurbishment of the complex was badly
planned and implemented, resulting in a totally unsafe living and
working environment
Subsequent stop-gap measures, which were supposed to minimise

=
=

=
=

risk to staff and residents, have been both inadequate and

ineffective
Staff are denied appropriate personal protection and safety
equipment
Staff recruitment and retention problems, coupled with absences
due to assaults, mean the facility is often understaffed and,
therefore, incapable of dealing safely with the numbers of
offenders
The unions have continuously raised urgent concerns over time
delays involved in supporting colleagues in units where
disturbances and violent situations arise
A request by IMPACT not to move existing units that are clustered
together, a move which would significantly increase the response
time and potential injury rate in the event of a serious incident,
was dismissed by the employer.
The staff concerned work at three schools on the campus:
Oberstown Boys School, Oberstown Girls School and Trinity
House. Responsibility for the campus was transferred from the
Department of Justice to the Department of Children and Youth
Affairs in 2012. The Oberstown campus currently caters for 48
under-18s, including a mix of vulnerable young offenders and
violent criminals with multiple convictions for serious offences.

Children Rights Alliance Welcomes Appointment of

Katherine Zappone as new Minister for Children
and Youth Affairs
The Childrens Rights Alliance warmly welcomes
the appointment of Katherine Zappone, TD, as the
new Minister for Children and Youth Affairs,
heading up the Department of Children and Youth
Affairs.
Tanya Ward, Chief Executive of the Alliance, says:
We heartily congratulate Minister Zappone on her
appointment today as the new Minister for Children
and Youth Affairs. Katherine Zappone has an
outstanding track record in the fields of equality,
human rights and education. Minister Zappone is
an excellent fit for this important portfolio for
children. Her contribution to Irish society over

many years through her work on community

education at An Cosn, her work as an
Independent senator in Seanad ireann and her
tireless efforts to secure marriage equality, has
been trailblazing.
I look forward to working with, and closely
monitoring, the work of Minister Zappone as she
addresses the many challenges facing children in
Ireland. Key to this will be the roll-out of the
commitments contained in Better Outcomes,
Brighter Futures, the National Policy Framework for
Children and Young People. Other important
priorities include addressing child poverty and child
homelessness as well as improving life for
vulnerable groups of children, such as those in
direct provision, many Traveller children, children
with mental health problems and children with
disabilities.
I would like to acknowledge the excellent work
carried out by outgoing minister, Dr. James Reilly,
TD, during his term as Minister for Children and
Youth Affairs since July 2014. During this time, he
secured historic victories for children, not least an
effective ban on corporal punishment and the
prohibition of smoking in cars with children. He
also managed to unlock important resources for
Tusla, the Child and Family Agency. We also thank
him for expertly leading Irelands successful review
to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
earlier this year.
The Childrens Rights Alliance also warmly
welcomes the retention of Frances Fitzgerald, TD,
as Minister for Justice and Equality and in her
appointment as Tnaiste. Already in this role,
Minister Fitzgerald was central to the passage of

the Marriage Equality referendum and

spearheaded a number of important advancements
for children, including the passage of the Children
and Family Relationships Act 2015 and giving
better recognition to asylum-seeking children.
__ENDS___

Squeezed middle are burdened by non

tax-paying lower earners
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Gerard Howlin

Fine Gael Minister for Finance Michael Noonan on

television as he delivered the Budget for 2016.
By Friday week, nearly everything will be settled, if it can.
What hangs over, over the last weekend, will be political
high-wire stuff. The challenge for Government is to get a
budget any budget through and survive. The
challenge for Fianna Fil is to facilitate the process and
lend its support without leaking political capital.
Arguably, leakage has begun for Fianna Fil. Opinion polls,
albeit within the margin of error, show slight slippage or at

least an interruption of an upward trajectory unchecked

since the general election campaign.
It is tempting to think this is comeuppance for an
opportunistic U-turn on water charges and an
inadequately calculated demand for 5 increase in the old
age pension. All economics now as in the age of Adam
Smith is political economy. Political decision-making is a
complex, but not fastidious process, of calculating what
works economically and wins politically. The line between
those two is frequently blurred.
There is an adage about those who shout the loudest
commanding the most attention. There is certainly an
ingrained narrative about policy that helps the least well
off, first or exclusively, being the only good policy.
Opposed to it, are bad or regressive measures that do
not further progress Irelands already astonishing record of
progressivity on tax and redistribution.
Across the OECD only Israel has a more progressive tax
system and we are ahead of countries such as Sweden,
France, and Denmark. We have nothing to beat ourselves
up about in relation to using our income tax system as a
means of redistributing wealth and paying for public
services.
Our tax system is an old mattress with a hollow in the
middle. At either side are a lot of people who pay either a
lot less or earn a lot more. On one side, those at the top
do pay a lot more in one sense. As instanced by the Irish
Tax Institute someone on 100,000 earns 5.6 the amount
of a person on 18,000 but pays almost 66 times the
amount of tax.

Since 2012 those on more than 75,000 have been paying

proportionately more in tax. So on tax, those with more,
have been paying more proportionately. What this doesnt
factor in, is what other wealth is generated at those levels
of pay. Investments in pension and home improvements
for example both ultimately generate a return. Lets
assume those at the bottom are not doing much of either.
Nonetheless, there is now an astonishing situation where
862,000 people or 36% of income earners are exempt
from income tax entirely; 703,800 or 29% are exempt
from USC.
In other words, we have created a political echo chamber
where the assumed interests of about one-third of income
earners, who make no direct contribution to the exchequer
out of income earned, are setting the pace politically on a
whole range of issues including water especially, and
narrowing the tax base more particularly.
This has happened in a context where it is taboo to talk
about the justice of everybody paying something directly
from income. The water protest movement, inarguably
highly successful, is predicated not on the principle that
we wont pay but on the unspoken fact that under our
tax system, the burden of everything paid from general
taxation falls exclusively on two-thirds. Of those, the onethird in the middle, is in the hollow of the mattress, and
that is not a comparable place to be.
Narrowing the tax base by not pursuing water charges or

by further raising minimum limits for liability for USC,

effectively puts the greatest proportionate strain on
disposable income as distinct from earned income, on the
squeezed middle. Give or take, those are the 1.2 million
earning more than 30,000. Of those, those on below
75,000 are much less able to use the tax system to pay
for pension contributions or private health insurance.
A 5 per week increase in the old age pension, obviates a
whole range of other spending choices. It would cost 150
million out of a possible spending package of 750 million.
Worse than not being good economics, there are signs it is
a political mistake, which in turn is part of a fundamental
political misunderstanding.

I get the politics of the grey vote. They are ever more
and they turn out. Arguably 3 now with a promise of
more would have had the same purely political value, but
left more political credibility intact. Instead Willie ODea
floated a balloon that Michel Martin didnt pop. Coupled
with abandoning water charges and a lack of straighttalking on how third-level is to be funded, and you have a
good imitation of the mess Fine Gael made for itself on the
eve of the general election.
Fianna Fils gains at the local elections in 2014 and the
general election this year were facilitated, to use now
preferred political terminology, by mess-making on an epic
scale by Fine Gael. At the general election Michel Martin
stood back and said his party was not joining the auction

to scrap USC. He reaped the reward of political credibility.

Strangely since then, on key economic calls, the main
opposition party have been beaten like farm-fed
pheasants into the air by the discordant noise of a far-left,
for which ultimately they will reap no reward. Thats just
the political calculus. The economics are a zero sum game.
Regrettably, there is very limited scope for tax cutting and
even if there were, given upward pressures in the
economy, better not. What there is scope is for is widening
the tax base, which in turn would allow for reduction of tax
rates. It is a great pity that the entry point for USC was
actually increased from 4,000 to 13,000. It is not just
income for services forfeit, it is the principle that everyone
pays something.

Nonetheless, by raising the threshold no further, some of

that can be ameliorated over time. In parallel there should
be a root and branch re-examination of all that
astonishingly nests within the apparently innocent zero
that is the zero rate of VAT. Buy white candles; they are
zero-rated. Churches you see, use them, though if you
look closely some have fake church candles with tea lights
sitting inside.
Prefer red for your candle-lit supper? Thats 23% please.
Need bread and potatos to live, understandably theyre
zero-rated. Prefer lobster served with bread suffused with
truffle oil; dont worry. Thats zero rated too. Ever had to
listen to nonsense about zero-rated hurleys and condoms?

It is the bar stool side of the same argument. Swathes of

what we have a choice on whether to purchase or not, is
exempt from VAT. Its nonsense. So is not having a user
pay charges for water. So is saying its OK for about a third
of the population to make no direct contribution to the
State.
The Government has hit out at Fianna Fils pie in the
sky budget proposals which they claim do not add up.

On top of changes which were hammered out with Fine

Gael as part of the confidence and supply agreement,
Fianna Fil want to suspend water charges indefinitely,
increase the State pension by 5, and provide an
additional 100m to fund third level education as part of
the upcoming budget.
However, last night government sources said Fianna Fils
feet need to be held to the fire with regard to proposals
they are putting forward outside the agreement.
A source said their plans would be leap too far if all
funds are coming from the public purse, adding that the
party need some realism when it comes to what is
available in next months budget.
They are trying to own and disown this budget.
He said, a lot of people are waiting for this Government
to fail but added that they are not scrutinizing Fianna Fil

enough.
Fianna Fils finance spokesman Michael McGrath
described the comments as nonsense and added that
the party were being responsible.
He said Fianna Fil are exerting some influence but are not
writing the budget or taking from the confidence and
supply agreement.
It understood that Mr McGrath, party leader Michel Martin
and public expenditure spokesman Dara Calleary stressed
that the party are facilitating government and are not in
power themselves at a Fianna Fil front bench meeting
yesterday which mainly focused on budget proposals.
Both parties now appear to be at odds when it comes to
the figures around the scrapping of water charges, which
Fianna Fil want to put on ice for an indefinite period.
Fine Gael have estimated that axing water charges would
cost around 200m each year, however, Fianna Fil
estimate that it would equate to 138m.
Although Fianna Fail are pushing for an additional 100m
investment in third level education, they are looking at
making businesses pay towards this.
Extended tax relief measures for landlords are being
considered as part of next months budget in a bid to stop
numbers leaving the sector.

A limited number of landlords availed of changes in the

last budget which allowed them offset their rental tax

liability against mortgage interest costs.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan raised the tax relief for
landlords from 75% to 100% of the interest accruing on
loans on properties leased for social housing purposes.
But landlords say that the extended relief is very restricted
as it can only be claimed after three years and requires
claimants to be registered with the PRTB.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dail-returnsnoonan-may-extend-tax-relief-for-landlords-to-keepthem-in-market-423127.html
It is understood that Finance Minister Michael Noonan
briefed his Cabinet colleagues yesterday about options to
extend this tax relief for landlords from 75% to 100% so
that more landlords could avail of the option. The exact
details of the proposed extended relief for landlords is still
being worked on for October 11 budget.
Landlords say only a few hundred owners with properties
availed of the extended measure this year after the
budget. Simplifying the scheme and allowing more
landlords offset their mortgage interest payments against
their tax liability would help numbers remain in the sector,
the Irish Property Owners Association told the Irish
Examiner.
It could help thousands of landlords, suggested IPOA
spokeswoman Margaret McCormick: The big fear is if and
when mortgage interest rates move, this will hit landlords,
A move like this will protect the sector and also will help
protect accommodation. Some 40,000 have already left
the sector.
The programme for government agreed to look at
enhancing measures to boost the numbers of rented
properties as well as ways to maintain tax relief for
landlords.

It said: We will maintain enhanced tax relief for landlords

who accept rent supplement and HAP [Housing Assistance
Payment] tenants. We will request the new Oireachtas
Committee on Housing to examine other tax relief
proposals designed to encourage a greater supply of
private rented accommodation for tenancies supported by
housing assistance, longer term leases and support more
medium term emergency accommodation for homeless
families.
Meanwhile, the Irish Examiner understands that Mr
Noonan is also likely to increase the point at which
inheritance tax for children will begin to be charged.
Last year, Mr Noonan increased the threshold to 280,000
from 225,000, and sources said he mentioned a figure of
20,000 in terms of an increase this time.
This is part of a process to eventually raise the group A
category, which are inheritances from parents to children,
to 500,000 over several budgets.
However, Fianna Fil want government to increase the
thresholds for group B, which takes in other blood relatives
including nieces and nephews, and group C, which covers
those who are not blood relatives of those they inherit
from.
Last year 33% of inheritance cases were in respect of
nieces and nephews which currently have a threshold of
30,150 before they are subject to tax, while a further
23% related to the strangers in blood category that has

a 15,075 threshold.
FF finance spokesman Michael McGrath previously said
that leaving these two groups at the current thresholds
would be particularly unfair to people who do not have
children but have relatives they wish to provide for.
The Government needs to end child poverty by investing
in services, not cutting taxes, according to Barnardos.
The children's charity claims it is a question of political
priorities and long-term vision, over the short-term benefit
of making people happy with tax cuts in the Budget.
Head of Advocacy, June Tinsley said it is a national scandal
that one in nine children live in consistent poverty.
She said: "A 1% cut in USC would cost the State 300m
which would mean an extra 3 a week in people's pockets.
"For the same amount of money the Government could
introduce a subsidised system of childcare, deliver 2,000
social housing units and provide free school books and
classroom resources for all children.
"So for us it makes sound economic sense to get greater
bang for your buck and improve the lives of a lot more
children."

Taoiseach: Tax inducement to lure

emigrants home would be 'unfair and
discriminatory'
Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - 12:33 pm

The Taoiseach Enda Kenny has admitted that a proposal

from one of his ministers to lure emigrants home with a
special tax rate would be unfair and discriminatory.
The jobs minister proposed the idea in a pre-budget
submission to the department of finance.
A lower 30 percent tax rate would have applied to certain
categories of workers for a period of up to five years.
But after the Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin described it
as a "bananas idea", Mr Kenny agreed it would not be a
fair thing to introduce.
Mr Kenny said: "If somebody's away in London or New York
or America and they come back and they are working in
the same facility as someone else, and they are paying a
different rate of tax simply because they've come back, I
would regard that as being unfair and discriminatory.
"I see all kinds of proposals being put forward now."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/vie
wpoints/columnists/gerardhowlin/squeezed-middle-areburdened-by-non-tax-payinglower-earners-423086.html

Taoiseach denies Michael Lowry

suggestion that he has 'understanding'
with Government
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has today insisted that there is no

deal or arrangement for the support of Independent TD
Michael Lowry.
The former Fine Gael Minister suggested in local media in
Tipperary recently he has "an understanding" with the
Government for his support.

However, Enda Kenny has insisted in the Dil that no such

arrangement is in place.
"Let me confirm for you that ye hear one side of the
situation here," he said.
"Deputy Lowry is an independent Deputy for quite a
number of years in the House here.
"I'm very I appreciate the fact that he has supported the
Government in here, in terms of his record.
"There are no 'understandings' with any Deputy by Fine
Gael, or by the Government."

Kenny claims Water charges

must stay as Fianna Fil say any

refunds would cost in the region

of 50m
September 22, 2016 By Rita Cahill

The Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has once
again pledged his support for keeping the much hated
household water charges.
Mr Kenny who is preparing for next months Budget also
launched a scathing attack on rival part Fianna Fil, accusing
Mr Martins of populism in their attempts to abolish the
charges.
The Taoiseach slammed the party by saying that if it came
about everybody could leave their taps on and the taxpayer
would have to foot the bill.
Mr Kennys public outburst comes after Fianna Fils
environment spokesman Barry Cowen recently revealed that
Fianna Fails proposal to refund those who had paid their
water bills through a tax credit would cost in the region of
50m.
However Mr Kenny claimed that such scenario is not feasible
as water would then have to be funded by the central
exchequer.

Violence broke out at today's Anti Corruption & Animal

Rights demonstration outside the Irish Parliament when
police used force to remove protesters. Which ended in
one person being arrested under section 21

Garda Brendan Gleeson, no badge number, told by a

bhangharda that he doesn't need one, nor does she have
to tell me even what barracks he is with because I felt I
might want to have the details incase I needed to make a
complaint. The man that destroyed the last bit of
creditability the garda had

they lost credibility a long time ago using heavy handed tactics
resulting in direct violent attacks against women and the
vulnerable.... the nation is disgusted at the way they only now seem
to "serve and protect " the installation of water meters..... this latest
low ball tactic of the jobstown 27.....has finished them..... nobody
could say with their hand on their hearts they respect them after
that....if the gards had any backbone they would stand with the
people they took an oath to protect and refuse across the nation to
act as minions making more arrests.....they are being used to
exercise and execute control....if we the ordinary people can stand
up and say NO......why can't they?

They beat both women and men, young and old indiscriminately.
They wrongfully arrest us and bring trumped up charges against us.
They go to court and LIE (commit perjury) in order to get us
convicted and get away Scott free. They do this to us while we fight
for a better Ireland for all, including them and their families.Are we
going to hold protests when they march. Maybe picket lines along
their route or something similar where we call for an end to Garda
Brutality, Corruption and Political Policing and a call for the corrupt
at the top of our society to be brought to justice.We need a clean
force not paid off goons.

I wonder who will arrest them on a Section 12 for peaceful assembly

while they battle for their improved wages

The Garda Representative Association has unanimously

rejected a pay proposal from the Department of Justice.

The GRA's Central Executive Committee has been meeting

in Tullamore, and they will now discuss what form of
industrial action to take.
The rejected proposals would have offered new recruits a
4,000 rent allowance and included a commitment to
restore increments.
It was revealed yesterday that members had voted in
favour of industrial action but the ballot was conducted
before the draft pay agreement was reached.
but it goes to show you how much the guards care about Joe public.
This strike is actually insubordination and carries the same
punishment as treason. Let us see the law enforcers break the law,
what kind of joke is that. Well look at it this way they are planning to
break the law, now what is that well that is with intent not by
accident or chance, serious for me or you but somehow not for them
Citizens arrest perhaps? It was written into law for a reason maybe
we should start using it....

No. Seen them in action and lost faith in them.

NO, FECK OFF.
NO, FECK OFF.

Mr Kenny said although he hasnt spoken to opposition leader

Michel Martin about the charges, he claimed that Mr Martin
knows very well what our position is.
The relationship has attracted attention in recent weeks
due to the unstable nature of government, which is reliant
on tight numbers.
Enda Kenny has enjoyed unwavering support from the
Tipperary TD, but the Taoiseach denied in the Dil today
that there were any special arrangements between the
former minister and the party.

No 'understandings' or arrangements between FG

and Lowry, Kenny says
The Taoiseach told the Dil today that he appreciates the support
Lowry has given government.

Revealed: Cigarettes,
diesel to rise in Budget
but squeezed middle to
gain as little as 2 a week
Niall O'Connor and Kevin Doyle
PUBLISHED
28/09/2016

3
Finance Minister Michael Noonan and Paschal Donohoe, the
Minister for Public Expenditure Photo: Tom Burke

The Budget Day tax package will spread

330m so thin that most workers are
unlikely to feel any real impact in their
wallets.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan has compiled a plan
which attempts to please businesses, farmers and
landlords - but will see the so-called squeezed middle
income earners gain as little as 2 a week.

And the rest of the nation probably benefited from a small

cooling down of the in-yer-face nature of politics which
has been with us for near enough a year. Mind you, the
antics of one junior minister, John Halligan, did fill a lot of
space in the interim.
All that said, it will be hell for leather between now and the
year's end at very least. First up, of course, is Budget 2017,
which is to be presented by Messrs Noonan and Donohoe
a fortnight from tomorrow. Already, this is shaping into a
dirty, three-cornered row.
Clearly, the Independent ministers want to put their stamp
on the taxing and spending totalling some 60bn for 2017.
Today, we have the redoubtable Finian McGrath telling us,
unsurprisingly, that he wants to see tax breaks favouring
the lower-paid workers. Fianna Fil, who underpin this
hybrid minority Coalition, are giving it a bit of the same,
while also seeing how much they can push things in favour
of public spending increases, instead of tax cuts.
For Finance Minister Michael Noonan and his colleague,
Paschal Donohoe, who heads Public Expenditure, the

problem is that their names are on Budget 2017.

They will be the ones out there defending it. So it had
better have some Fine Gael hallmarks.
A fortnight ago, when Fine Gael TDs, Senators and MEPs
gathered in Newbridge, this was a big part of their anxiety.
The party has espoused making things a little easier for the
'squeezed middle'.
All of these battles are to be played out in a continuing
febrile political environment. This hybrid minority
Coalition is the oddest of political arrangements.
Now, history teaches us that odd political line-ups can
endure. In 1870, the French political establishment came
up with a very unlikely arrangement they called the 'Third
Republic'.
There were doubts at the time about its potential
longevity. But it lasted until the Germans came calling
uninvited in 1940.
The thing about this odd Government is that it has too
many things working against it. It is by definition a
minority coalition.
But there are additional aggravating factors. There are
manifest doubts about the potential sticking power of
some of the Independent ministers and junior ministers.
They could bring it toppling down.
One always wonders how much confidence one can have
in Fianna Fil's pledge to facilitate delivery of three
Budgets, starting with the first one next month. We're not
saying the Soldiers of Destiny are contemplating
treachery. It's just that things can change.
Then there is Fine Gael's internal leadership dynamics.
There won't be an election this year. But there could very
well be one next year.
Enda Kenny is on borrowed time, having promised not to
lead the party in the next election. He and senior
colleagues and advisers are being blamed for their poor
result in last February's General Election.
How much stability can a new Fine Gael leader bring to
these creaky political arrangements? That is already

making the big assumption that there can be a clean

handover of leadership.
Travelling about the country during the summer, this
writer has frequently been asked how long this
Government can last. Given the gloomy political facts
outlined above, you can guess that I struggle to be too
positive.
But two opinion polls, last weekend and again yesterday,
have thrown up two significant factors. These have shown
a decline in the fortunes of the two main parties, Fine Gael
and Fianna Fil.
You see, one way of answering the 'how long can they last?'
question is to ask another: when will Fianna Fil break
into the mid-thirties in popular support?
The Behaviour & Attitudes poll for the 'Sunday Times' last
week, combined with the Red C poll in yesterday's 'Sunday
Business Post', both suggest that this is some time off.
It is good for Fianna Fil that surveys show they are the
most popular party. But on 27pc, down two points, it is not
a great boast when put in a historical context.
Things are even gloomier for Fine Gael. At 25pc, they
appear to be suffering from a popular view that they are in
government but not necessarily in power.
Those findings would not encourage either larger party to
end their odd-ball arrangements too soon.
We can reach the slightly convoluted conclusion on all of
this.
It is that odd political line-ups can surprise us. But while
this odd Government has too many things working against
it, the voters' dislike of the old party order is a plus. In
sum, Fianna Fil and Fine Gael may have to live a deal
longer with the current arrangement than we might have
thought, even just a few weeks ago.
So we must assume that the TDs returning today will
batter their way, with some noise and dramatics, to
delivering us a Budget a fortnight from tomorrow.
And for the rest? Well, there is an ongoing Dublin Bus
strike, threatening to become a nationwide bus and rail

strike.
It's a horror we can do without, but a subset of huge
potential turmoil across the public sector.
Then there is the uncertainty of Brexit. Again, we reflect
on what we need most at this juncture: political stability.
Workers in the squeezed middle have been hit hard over
nine austerity budgets in a row, a new report from the
Irish Tax Institute shows.
There have been some 50 different tax changes in those
tax-hiking budgets.
This means that workers on a typical income of 55,000
are paying 800 more in income tax than someone on the
same income in Britain.
The big gap between the lower tax rate of 20pc and the
40pc higher income tax rate is the main reason that
middle-income people are hit so hard, rather than the
Universal Social Charge.
According to the 50-page report into the personal-tax
system: "While much discussion in recent times centres on
the USC, the big driver of higher effective tax rates for
Ireland's squeezed middle is income tax rates."

Finance Minister Michael Noonan Picture: Tom Burke

The tax practitioners said the income tax system was now
full of distortions at most income levels.
It has called on the Government to use next month's
Budget to start a process of simplifying the income tax
system.
The report found that there were a large number of income
levels where an increase in pay pushes workers into paying
vastly more tax.
The report looks at the overall impact of the nine austerity
budgets, instead of analysing each budget separately.
It comes just weeks ahead of the Budget, where Finance
Minister Michael Noonan has just 300m to spend on tax
cuts.
Most of this is expected to go on reducing the USC burden.
The president of the Irish Tax Institute, Mark Barrett, said
the system had become distorted and was no longer fit for
purpose. "It is time to take stock of a personal tax system
that has been bent out of shape," he said.

Middle-income earners had been hit hard over the last

seven years.
"Those workers in the 'squeezed middle' - 55,000 - pay
more tax than in Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and the US
and over 800 more than a taxpayer in the UK," he said.
Close to 16,500 in income tax, USC and PRSI is paid by
someone on 55,000 in this country. This compares with
just 12,000 in the US.
Low-income workers are hit particularly hard if they move
up the income scale.
Just earning a euro over 33,800 means the income tax
take doubles on each additional euro earned.
A worker on 25,000 is earning almost one-and-a-half
times that of someone on 18,000.
However, the amount of tax paid is 5.6 times greater for
the person on 25,000. This is because they pay more tax
on their income at the 20pc rate.
And the fact that marginal tax rate - the income tax paid
on higher levels of income - is more than 50pc has been
criticised by the Tax Institute.
Ireland's marginal rate is one of the 10 highest in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
People in Ireland end up on a marginal rate of 52pc on
income above 70,045. In Spain, you have to earn
300,000 to hit this level of tax, and 152,000 in France,
which is considered a high-tax country.
Efforts to make the system progressive mean that those on
higher incomes pay high levels of tax. A progressive tax
system is one where the more you earn, the more income
tax you pay.
A worker on 75,000 earns three times more than
someone on 25,000.
Yet the Irish Tax Institute calculated that a worker on
75,000 ends up paying eight times more in tax than
someone earning a third of this.
A worker on 120,000 earns almost seven times the
amount of a person on 18,000.

But this high earner then pays over 83 times the amount of
tax.

Social Protection Minister Leo Varadkar arriving for a Cabinet

meeting at Leinster House yesterday. Photo: Tom Burke

The Irish Independent understands that he plans to

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

reduce the two lower rates of Universal Social Charge by

0.5pc, to 2.5pc and 0.5pc respectively.
Mr Noonan is signalling he won't reduce the 5.5pc rate
which hits incomes between 18,000-70,000.
Sources said he would tweak the thresholds but ultimately
the benefit to middle-income earners would be little more
than 100 a year.
Mr Noonan's tax package will also include:
Tax breaks for landlords.
A reduction in capital gains tax for start-up companies to
10pc on earnings up to 10m.
A special deal for farmers that will allow more flexibility in
their tax payments.
Inheritance tax exemption to be raised by 40,000, to
320,000.
Incentives to encourage the regeneration of historic
dwellings.
Doubling the 550 income tax credit for the selfemployed.
A hike to cigarette prices.
The minister revealed details of the plans to Cabinet
yesterday with sources telling the Irish Independent each
measure proposed was done so for "a very specific reason".
Reducing the tax burden on landlords is seen as a way of
helping the rental market.
Currently, tax relief for landlords is restricted to 75pc of
the allowable mortgage interest for residential properties.
This will be raised by 5pc each year over the next five
years.
The Budget will also contain a series of measures aimed at
"Brexit proofing" Ireland and attracting more start-up
entrepreneurs.
Mr Noonan is very concerned that start-ups are being
lured away by generous tax breaks in London and intends
to reduce capital gains tax to just 10pc on the first 10m.
His Brexit plan will also see the continued reduction of the
national debt "in order to prepare for any potential
shocks".

Changes to the inheritance tax thresholds will be limited to

parents leaving property to children.
Tensions
Details of Mr Noonan's tax package emerged against a
backdrop of heightening tensions between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil.
As both parties battle to lay their marker on the Budget,
senior Fine Gael sources said Michel Martin had created
a shopping list that was "not based in reality".
They also claimed that Fianna Fil's decision to abandon
the principle of water charges "calls into question their
economic credibility".
And in the Dil, Taoiseach Enda Kenny publicly rebuked
demands from Fianna Fil to set aside 100m for colleges.
Mr Martin has sought assurances that the Budget will
include a "realistic response" to the third-level funding
crisis - but Mr Kenny said it "cannot be dealt with
comprehensively in the forthcoming Budget".
"This is one of a whole range of areas that now demand
and require substantial funding in the forthcoming
Budget. The money is not there to do that, nor can it be,"
Mr Kenny said.
However, Mr Martin said the Government risked
"ignoring the future of this country at our peril".
Government sources later described the demand for
100m as "pie in the sky" and said Fianna Fil was "trying
to own and disown the Budget".
"Fianna Fil's feet need to be held at the fire outside of the
confidence and supply review," a source said.
A senior Fianna Fil source last night accused Fine Gael of
"playing games", "immature politics" and "posturing".
Finance Minister Michael Noonan has said it will be hard to
avoid higher income earners benefiting more from USC
cuts than lower income earners.

Mr Noonan surprised his Cabinet colleagues by outlining

details of his intentions in relation to tax policies, two
weeks out from budget day.
Mr Noonan said it would be difficult to avoid giving more
USC relief to higher earners as they have endured the
most burden by way of the emergency tax, one source has
revealed.
He said it would be tricky to give more back to lower
income earners when they were not affected by USC that
much in the first place. Without meaning to sound
regressive, he said it will be difficult to avoid cutting USC
and [thus] giving more to higher earners, the source said.
Mr Noonan also outlined his plans to increase inheritance
tax thresholds at a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday, as
well as signalling moves to help landlords.
The Government has committed to about 1bn in
additional extra spending in the budget for 2017, which
will be split on a 2:1 basis between spending increases
and tax cuts. The Irish Examiner understands Mr Noonan
told his colleagues that he will increase the threshold at
which people begin paying the USC from just under
13,000 to close to 17,000.
Mr Noonan said he is likely to reduce the lowest two USC
rates by half a point each from 1% and 3% to 0.5% and
2.5% respectively.
The veteran minister is also likely to increase the point at

which inheritance tax will begin to be charged.

However, sources have said Mr Noonan does not believe
he can cut the 33% rate at which the tax is applied.
As part of a means of bridging the gap in the rate at which
PAYE workers and the self-employed people are taxed,
PRSI tax credits for those who work for themselves are
also to be extended.
Some have suggested that the earned income tax credit
of 550 which was announced last year is likely to be
doubled come budget day.
Public Expenditure Minister Paschal Donohoe also called
on his fellow ministers to temper their expectations and
said he expected their final submissions no later than
Friday.

Minister for Finance Michael Noonan has today confirmed

that Budget 2016 will be unveiled on Tuesday, October 11th,
with about 1bn available to play around with.
Mr. Noonan said that two-thirds of this will be used for public
spending, and one-third for cutting taxes, and he added that
he believes that the interim USC can be entirely phased out
within five years.
He said Im saying that it will not be possible to phase out
USC completely over a three budget cycle.

But it would be possible to phase it out over a five budget

cycle, understanding that after the fifth budget was in place
thered still be a tail on it going into, say, 2021.
The minister said that the minority government will be
prudent.

Councillors set for 1,000

pay hike
Kevin Doyle and Niall OConnor
PUBLISHED
28/09/2016

1
Housing Minister Simon Coveney. Photo: Gareth Chaney Collins

Councillors are to get a pay rise in the region

of 1,000, Independent.ie can reveal.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney, who also has
responsibility for local government, has privately signalled
to Fine Gael senators that he will love favourably on
requests for the hike.
Local representatives have complained that their workload

has increased dramatically since the last government cut

their numbers from 1,627 to 949.
They are currently paid 16,565 a year and have
previously requested an increase of 6,000.
However, Mr Coveney is expected to sanction a 1,000
pay rise in the coming days and some changes to their
expenses scheme.
Councillors are entitled to an unvouched allowance of
around 2,500. This could be doubled to 5,000, the
source said.
The news is likely to raise eyebrows at a time when garda
are set to take industrial action over pay.
Fine Gael sources have tonight also said it will heat up the
race between Mr Coveney and Social Protection Minister
Leo Varadkar to be the next leader of Fine Gael.
The partys councillors will all have a say in the contest
once Enda Kenny steps down as leader.
Mr Varadkar has previously signalled that he intends to
open up a wide range of social welfare benefits to
councillors.
Under the current system, they pay a 4pc PRSI rate known
as Class K but arent entitled to any benefits.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/councillorsset-for-1000-pay-hike-35087705.html

TELL THE GOVERNMENT NOT

TO AUTHORISE BAYER'S BEEHARMING INSECTICIDE
September 11, 2016

Bayer says "Environmental Responsible" " Non-Hazardous To Honey

Bees" "Effective Virus Vector Control" "Uniqueness, Selected
Neonicotinoid-Resistant Pests" and "Convenient"

Eoin Dubsky of SumOfUs is calling on the people of Ireland to

tell the Government not to authorise Bayer's new beeharming flupyradifurone insecticide. Mr Dubsky said more
than 20,000 have already signed their petition asking the
Government not to authorise this insecticide.
"France took an unprecedented step to protect bees this summer
by passing a total ban on bee-killing neonics. But a new harmful
insecticide is being shoved into EU states and it could prove just as
toxic as neonics.
Developed by Bayer, flupyradifurone is a chemical cousin to the
neonics linked to the mass die-off of bees in Europe and beyond.
And experts say its not just bees that are at risk. Research shows
that the insecticide could have adverse effects on the whole suite
of life, according to Lori Ann Burd of the Center for Biological

Diversity.
Since Brussels gave the insecticide the green light last year, its
being assessed for approval light here in Ireland. In order to protect
our bees from further devastation, we need to make sure Ireland
keeps flupyradifurone out.
Bayer is once again threatening creatures responsible for
pollinating a third of all our crops. Which means its bee-harming
insecticides really put our entire food system at risk.
Together, weve made massive progress in our fight to protect bees
from Bayer and other pesticide producers. From getting Home
Depot and Lowes to remove neonics from their shelves, to pushing
the French government to enact a complete ban on neonics, our
people power is coming through.
But Bayers latest insecticide could be just as devastating to bee
populations as the neonics weve rallied against. We wont let our
government authorise another bee-harming pesticide. Lets make
our voices heard once again, before its too late.
Tell the Government of Ireland not to authorise Bayer's beeharming flupyradifurone insecticide."

Cutting levies on new

houses makes more sense
than misguided help-tobuy scheme
Charlie Weston Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
28/09/2016

1
Housing minister Simon Coveney

The surge in numbers getting approval for

mortgages is proof positive that there is
massive pent-up demand for property
buying
The value of mortgages approved by banks shot up by
50pc in August, compared with the same month last year,
according to the banks.
Close to 3,000 people got mortgage approval in August to
buy a home, a rise of 37pc on the same month last year,
according to figures from the Banking and Payments
Federation Ireland.
This latest data comes days after the deputy governor of
the Central Bank Sharon Donnery made clear that the
regulator is in no mood to change its strict rules on
mortgage lending.
She warned that adopting a "fine-tuning" approach could
lead to financial instability.
This was despite the Economic and Social Research
Institute finding in a study that the rules make it less
profitable for builders to construct homes.

Add to this almighty mess the fact that the Government

plans to give a financial incentive to first-time buyers in
the Budget.
At a time when house prices are rising strongly, the helpto-buy plans are likely to send prices even higher,
according to the Daft.ie economist and Trinity College
Dublin academic Ronan Lyons.
Giving new buyers more financial firepower will only
propel property prices upwards further.
The real problem is a chronic shortage of houses for sale.
Boosting demand when there is a supply issue is the
essence of stupidity.
Plans by Housing Minister Simon Coveney (pictured inset)
to bring in legislation to allow planning applications for
housing developments of more than 100 homes to be
made directly to An Bord Pleanla instead of to local
councils are likely to annoy people.
There is no evidence that such a move would make any
significant difference when builders are convinced that
home construction is not yet profitable.
What would make far more sense is to cut some of the
punitive expenses that the State imposes on builders of
new homes.
The puffed-up local authorities have failed to wean
themselves off their addiction to building levies, despite
the introduction of the local property tax. The average levy
is close to 12,000.
Valued added tax (VAT) is another cost keeping builders
from putting block upon block.
Both the levies and VAT are discriminatory as they do not
apply to second-hand homes.
Cutting them would result in a frenzy of home building.
Yes, that would be unpopular as it would be seen as a sop
to despised developers.
But it would also be brave, and would be more likely to
work than giving financial incentives to people to buy
when there is nothing much for sale.

"Irish people are gone terribly picky when it comes to

jobs ... don't even want to work in warehouses nowadays it
seems
I want an Ireland Exit from the suffuse and Federal EU superstate,
but it's absolutely NO FAULT of decent, ordinary and hard working
Polish or any other European worker, it's the greedy company
owners who are facilitated by the EU legislation that is crippling our
continent.
I Love Europe, love the other nations and languages and cultures. I
do not like the undemocratic EU!
Recruiting fair wage blockers to stop paying the market rate
irexit

Saw And Heard FF leader Micheal Martin complain

vigoursly today about FG suggesting a lower tax level for
professionals returning to work in Ireland..
Now that his party hold the reigns of power why aren't
they demanding the return to parity and equality for under
26 year old social welfare recipient's ..???
NO ONE .. from FF, Labour AAA/PBP or "equality" mad Sinn
Fein are speaking up and demanding that this particular
wrong be corrected.
. All too content it would appear on their own humongous
annual salaries.
This is what we need more of and the Government will
have to listen.

Carers struggling because of lack of home help and

home care services
September 28, 16
Confined to a wheelchair, she has the mental age of a twoyear-old, according to psychological assessments.
Ciara requires 24-hour care in her home in Walkinstown,
Dublin, from her mother who is responsible for washing,
dressing, and feeding her as well as changing her.
I have been caring for her for 21 years, and I will
probably care for her for the rest of my life, said Moira
Skelly.
Yesterday, she was one of three women who spoke outside
Leinster House about the importance of home care in their
lives.
Seventeen support organisations gathered to represent
families who say they are struggling because of the lack of
home help and home care services.
The family has four hours of respite care a week during
which a care worker visits their home and helps with
bathing Ciara.
It also allows Moira to run errands and catch up on
housework while knowing her daughter is safe.
If I even had an extra hour, it would be so much easier,
she said.
Representatives from Family Carers Ireland, Care Alliance,
MS Ireland, and Age Action, as well as 13 other
organisations, called for increased investment in home

care in Budget 2017.

As a society, we are failing to provide these people with
the support they need, said the group.
Home care is vital in allowing 200,000 family carers
deliver nearly 4bn worth of care annually.
We need a statutory right to home care that takes away
this fear, and supports family carers to care with dignity
and confidence in their own homes, said Moira.
Shirley Thornton also spoke at Leinster house. She acts as
a full-time carer for her mother Eva, while also raising her
own 10-year-old son.
She took on the role of caring for both of her parents but
when her father passed away recently, her familys care
time was reduced from 20 hours a week to 10 hours.
When she tried to get her mothers hours increased, she
was told the budget in her area was exhausted. Shirley
said she is grateful for the time, but it is not enough.
Recent research shows more than half of older people
could remain in their own homes instead of going into
long-term care if more home support services were
available, the group said.
Meanwhile, Sinad McArdle from Louth was diagnosed
with relapse and remittance MS in 2005. Her condition has
become worse, since her initial diagnosis. She called for
home care to become available to everyone who needs it.
She also called for more time to be allocated to those
affected by cuts in previous years.
People in disability weren't allowed to take up a Job-bridge
internship, also had their money cut and have received sweet FA
support from this government but yeah, a full bodied youth who can
move away to any country and get s job are far worse off but it does
highlight the ignorance to discrimination against people with
disabilities

The Dil is talking about

water again, but outcome
still unclear
FF to oppose SF motion calling for charges to be
scrapped
Sarah Bardon

AddThis

The Dil is talking about water charges again on

Wednesday afternoon, but a decision on whether they
will stay or go is no closer.
The issue of refunds for those who have already paid
has also not been resolved as political parties continue
to differ on how to approach the charges.
An independent expert commission is examining the
future of the water charges. It is due to report back at
the end of November and its recommendations will
then be forwarded to an Oireachtas committee for
consideration.

A Sinn Fin proposal to permanently scrap the levies,

which were suspended for a period of nine months as
part of Fianna Fils deal with Fine Gael to support a
minority Government on certain matters, is to come
before the House on Wednesday afternoon.
Fianna Fil has agreed to vote against the motion
despite being in favour of eliminating the charges,
while Fine Gael has warned Ireland will be exposed to
European Union enforcement proceedings if it
abolishes them.
Meanwhile, Sinn Fins pre-budget submission on the
matter will not include the cost of refunding people
who already paid their bills, the party has said.
The partys spokesman on housing Eoin OBroin said it
would be prudent to wait until a decision is taken on
when to scrap the levies before including it in their
plans.
Mr OBroin said their pre-budget priorities could not
include the full-year cost because the figure was still
unknown.
The Dublin Mid-West TD insisted his party was in
favour of returning the monies to people who have paid
their bills. However he said that could take place over a
number of years.
Mr OBroin said: We now know that the cost of
refunding water charges is probably in the region of
140-160 million and we think that is affordable.
ADVERTISEMENT

But clearly no political party is going to say they will

refund it until we know the amount. We now know the
amount and we think that is an affordable amount to
refund over a number of years.
Its submission will include the cost of abolishing the
charges and will commit to increasing grants to those
on group water schemes.
Mr OBroin said Sinn Fin would examine reclaiming

the 100 water conservation grant from people who

claimed it from the Department of Social Protection.
However he insisted it may be more expensive to
administer than the expected return. Sinn Fins
motion in the Dil this evening calling on water
charges to be scrapped is expected to be defeated. But
Mr OBroin urged Fianna Fil to support the proposal
and stand by their commitment to abolish the charges.
He said if the party does not back Sinn Fin it cannot
be trusted on water or anything else.
Mr OBroin said: We are wasting a huge amount of
money and a significant amount of time on a
commission that nobody wants, on a specially
convened Dil committee that nobody needs and a vote
in April on this issue when we could vote this week.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/the-dil-is-talkingabout-water-again-but-outcome-still-unclear-1.2808618#.Vu4JbAVCtY.facebook